Sports Scientist Ross Tucker breaks downs the Shelby Houlihan case for us

No I have not. But knowing you, you will keep repeating this lie instead of apologizing.

It’s also possible that her nandrolone positive did in fact come from a contaminated supplement - but because that supplement is also illegal (but did not result in a positive test), she has to pull the pork excuse.

All we know for sure about what she really ate (probably beef) is that it has been ruled out as a source of the nandrolone that she ingested.

He expertly lays bare your nonsense. And you can't handle it.

You mean the offal, that has no chemical resemblance to what peed?

Brilliant; after all this time we now know where it came from.

That overstates what "we know for sure". The CAS did not rule it out, but ruled that Houlihan did not establish the source, on the balance of probability, based on the limited and incomplete evidence before them.

No.

We learned from the CAS report that a diet of soy, something conceded by the AIU expert during the pandemic, would produce a similar isotope ratio. The CAS was also convinced that meat for sale that day was from the period in question.

Since then, I'm wondering if a soy diet is even necessary? We just saw the other AIU expert wrote at least 3 papers clearly showing this same isotope well within the range of her studies, with no mention of diets of corn or soy producing this range.

This can be combined with another paper this AIU expert wrote where one subject had an amount more than 20x what was found in Houlihan's urine, or other acknowledgements of up to 27x the amount.

These facts aren't surprising to WADA. The TD2021NA that guides WADA labs on "NA" analysis testing and reporting, expects levels of up to 10 ng/ml or more after edible boar consumption, and tells the WADA labs that the isotope ratio analysis may not be used to establish exogenous origin.

What do I care about one blogger criticizing other established journalists?

I'm sorry you fell for it.

According to your own logic we shouldn’t care about a LR member (rekrunner) criticizing an established sports scientist (Tucker) either.
You might be on to something here.

Here is one thing Kevin Beck says: "Tucker’s new analysis didn’t really offer anything new"

Did I criticize anything Ross Tucker said? Fundamentally, he just explained why the CAS ruled the way the ruled -- something I already knew. The CAS and the AIU only did what the WADA Code allowed them to do. Ross added value by digging deeper on some scientific points, but didn't add any new evidence to the discussion making any findings any stronger or weaker.

I would listen to Ross on selected topics like exercise physiology -- I even bought one of his books co-written by Jonathon Dugas and Matt Fitzgerald, and was a fan when he was more active at his website -- and heat dissipation and thermoregulation, his opinions of Noakes Central Governor model, or Noakes in general, World Rugby, and the world of sports marketing. I also welcome his value added insight on how to interpret the significance of data in research papers, and how it connects to the topic at hand.

I don't ask anyone to care what I say or even to respond to me. You can take it or leave it, and I am indifferent. By all means, eliminate the middle man and go directly to some of the links to WADA's website, or Prof. Ayotte's own research to compare and contrast, or follow what really happened in the pork industry during the pandemic, or see for yourself what the USDA guidelines are for inspectors with respect to allowing boars in the food market, or what Tygart says about these kinds of cases and the need for WADA reform, or find your own links, or don't, or be blindly led like a lemming by people you want to believe because they say what you want to hear. Makes no difference to me.

Since I am anonymous, I do wonder about the intellectual security of those who respond with personal attacks and name-calling, or the intellectual honesty of those who repeatedly ignore some relevant facts, and what makes them so defensive when I point out inconvenient realities that contradict their world view, but at the end of the day, all of you are anonymous to me.

But if you want to make the leap to say Shelby actually took drugs, you won't find any substantial support in official sources like the CAS report, or in Ross' writeup or Q&A, or in any research. To his credit, Ross Tucker doesn't say Shelby took drugs like so many posters here. He just agrees with the CAS that Shelby didn't make the case for nandrolone by burrito. I agree with the CAS and Ross on this point -- because I think such a burden is not possible (or maybe "possible but unlikely") without preserving a sample of the burrito in question. If she has to rely on national probabilities, she cannot make the case more likely than not.

Any black athletes who you so full throatily support?

Please also explain her cranial expansion worse than Barry Bonds???

She's a freakin' doper. Drop the nonsense.

Why did they not get a MassSpec expert to take Ayotte apart.

No I don't. Still lying, as usual.

No, it isn't relevant. She didn't have the nandrolone in her system as a result of anything she ate. She doped.

We learned in a WADA report that 50 Kenyans were sanctioned for nandrolone over a period of 14 years, and that Kenyan farmers do not routinely castrate their pigs.

Were any of these sanctions legitimate?