rekrunner wrote:
But did she? As a matter of fact, no one ever established the source of the nandrolone, nor intent.
As a reminder, the CAS explained that what happened was that Houlihan, under the principle of guilty until proven innocent, was unable to establish the source of the nandrolone to a panel to a threshold of more likely than not, and therefore was unable to establish non intentional to the same threshold, and was punished as if it were intentional, without intent being established.
Contrary to popular belief, nandrolone ingestion by pork, although unlikely to occur generally across the nation, is not so extreme. It is something WADA explicitly mentions, based on decades of research. Even accepting the odds of the IAAF experts as accurate (and the concession of increased soy during COVID supply issues), an athlete testing positive somewhere, sometime, was only a matter of time.
It's amazing to me that to this website that used to be the very pinnacle of anti-doping has come to this. It's amazing to me that people still cling to the burrito defense. Like you think you can say "COVID supply issues" and that makes it possible that a food truck in California that you need 8 billion permits for and is regulated far more than many other states brick and mortar locations is illegally slaughtering their own uncastrated boars on the side and putting it in beef burritos.