Houlihan Dominates 24km Trail Race

Every race. Bringing guns To a knife fight

All your statements are true?? Nonsense. You just admitted that it was indeed A) CAS' ruling that excluded "commercial pork" as source, right after you falsely stated that they only excluded "corn-fed boar meat". How often corn was mentioned throughout the report, and that the Claimant said so too, cannot negate that fact.

You yourself also just changed your false statement that Houlihan claimed "soy-fed boar" to B) "
pork offal in a burrito" - from a restaurant that used commercial pork, as we all know.

Putting A (can't have been commercial pork) + B (burrito made from commercial pork) together: the burrito wasn't the source of the nandrolone*. Her body wasn't the source either, so it was not "endogenous" but exogenous with high certainty.

If you now want to claim that she might have had wild boar testicles as an additional, never mentioned midnight snack, go ahead, make stuff up again, but the chances of that are zero because she never mentioned it. So it was exogenous with high certainty, to put it mildly.

But keep twisting words, and discrediting CAS + World Athletics + WADA, why not.

* even if it included pork though she ordered beef, and

even if that pork was from uncastrated boar, although the chance of that was far less than 1 in 10,000, according to the undisputed expert statement of Prof McGlone, and

even if that pork was offal, and

even if that stomach muscle offal miraculously would have resulted in such high nandro concentrations.

You are failing to point out any of the statements I made are actually false.

You are dishonestly trying to make some of them look false, by inserting exclusive words I did not say, like "only" or "just", and omitting inclusive and supplementary words like "also".

None of these claims are exclusive or even contradictory, and none of my statements are false.

Houlihan did claim "offal in a burrito", and her experts did argue the CIR is consistent with increased soy in the diet. Both claims can be true at the same time, and indeed they are both true. Additionally, experts on both sides agreed soy was increased in the diets -- undermining the certainty of any opinion of inconsistency with corn-based diets.

Similarly, the CAS said all of those things, "commercial pork", "boar meat", and "corn-based". See again 114 and 119. The CAS relied heavily on Prof. Ayotte's previous arguments.

The phrase I quoted, "consistent with", that the CAS used, that I also attributed to Prof. Ayotte, was used by Prof. Ayotte with respect to both the "carbon isotope signature" and "uncastrated pig meat". See Paragraph 73. In other words, she concluded that it was inconsistent with "corn-fed boar meat", as did the CAS.

Note that the certainty of both of Prof. Ayotte's stated opinions to the CAS Panel are undermined by her own study in 2008, which published values as high as 140 ng/ml and -22.43 per mille, from local Canadian pork.

Note also that Houlihan's values are "consistent with" Houlihan's claim of "offal in a burrito", and her expert's claim of increased soy. Houlihan's claims are supported by Prof. McGlone's concession of increased soy, and by Prof. Ayotte's peer-reviewed research.

But no amount of talking about commercial pork, or corn-fed boar meat, establishes any suggested alternative pseudo-endogenous source with high certainty. The standard applied by the CAS was "suggested" (see Paragraph 126).

As an athlete who is part of the testing programme is it ever acceptable to purchase food from a street stall. I’m not saying that’s what caused the positive test but surely you really need to know where you’re food has come from? If eating out you must go to a reputable restaurant surely? At the very least you run the risk of food poisoning from a cart?

I guess you mean "food truck".

It is always acceptable for athletes to purchase and consume USDA approved food, including from a food truck.

LOL what? Didn't you just argue over and over again that it wasn't commercial pork?

Are you finally admitting that you made that up, and it was commercial pork after all?

And therefore NOT the source of the nandrolone, according to the CAS decision?

And therefore it was an exogenous source?

Or do you now pretend that USDA approves non-commercial pork?

P.S. Still waiting for the quote showing that Houlihan "alleged soy-fed boar offal". Or are you finally admitting that you made that up too?

LOL what? I made no such argument about "commercial pork". That was your strawman repeated over and over, as if "commercial pork" (or the CAS Panel opinions about "commercial pork") are relevant.

It is the diet of the boar that is relevant, not whether it was commercial. That is why the WADA guidelines say the CIR test results are indeterminant if the subject consumes intact boar.

Houlihan's values were entirely "consistent with" soy-fed boar offal, regardless of the commercial nature. See 118 for Prof. Jahren's expert opinion explaining the relevance of soy in the diet -- even as low as a 10% mix, and see 115 for Prof. McGlone's concession of increased soy in the diets during supply chain issues during the pandemic.

As an added bonus, see also Prof. Ayotte's 2008 research, where 1 of 3 volunteers (very very small sample size) recorded a CIR of -22.43 from local Canadian pork on no specially altered diet, and compare that to her testimony to the CAS about her own research experience between -18.5 to -21 -- did Prof. Ayotte also lie to this CAS Panel?

Any conclusion that "therefore it was an exogenous source" requires applying false logic based on opinions (and lies?), rather than established facts, and is far far less than very very certain.

So you have predictably no quote for the "alleged soy-fed boar offal". That was obvious. Yet you claimed it anyways, and then started with more deflections. And now again. You want to play this deflection game forever right?

All your personal attacks of the last couple of pages here, and your despicable slandering of the experts, and unwarranted ridiculing of the CAS panelists all just came because you could not admit at the very beginning that I was 100% correct in post #54 with:

The ruling was about "commercial pork" - it is high time for you to admit that fact, and the fact that Houlihan's source was commercial pork or beef, and the then logical conclusion that CAS ruled out the burrito as source for nandrolone.

It was NOT my "strawman" - originally we were talking about the CAS decision(s), which you try to deflect from more and more. Now you even go so far as to claim "That was your strawman repeated over and over, as if "commercial pork" (or the CAS Panel opinions about "commercial pork") are relevant."

Also cute to call a 3 : 0 decision now "opinion" lol. What happened to your original request to use CAS' words if they are not relevant in your opinion?

And remember last but not least, you argued against commercial pork as alleged source in post #57 - you are evidently not smart enough to remember all your lies:

What did you say now?

I rest my case.

You seem to be mixing up many things, probably on purpose, to deflect from the complete failure of any party to establish an exogenous source with any certainty stronger than "suggestion".

Recall, I said I made *no such* argument about "commercial pork"". "No such" here refers to your wrong conclusion that I "argue(d) over and over again that it wasn't commercial pork".

You were also 100% wrong in post #54 to attribute "commercial pork" to Houlihan in "... with "commercial pork", which was Houlihan's claim".

I correctly said that that was not Houlihan's claim, but never argued "as such" that the endogenous source was not from "commercial pork". Indeed, it remains possible to have come from commercial soy-fed intact boar offal.

The CAS was wrong to rule the carbon isotope signature wasn't "consistent with" "commercial pork", given the concession of Prof. McGlone (see 115) of "certain pig farms increasing the amount of soy fed to their pigs as opposed to corn". In fact, it would be fully consistent with commercial pork after increasing the amount of soy in their diets before slaughter.

Regarding a quote for "alleged soy-fed boar offal", I pointed you to 118 for full context, where we can quickly find "one must take account of the near-ubiquitous presence of soy meal within pig feed". When combined with paragraph 8 "a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal" we can obtain the accurately described "soy-fed boar offal" as Houlihan's claim before the CAS. See also Prof. McGlone's quote above confirming "soy-fed".

It is not slander to hold experts to a higher standard of providing consistent expert opinions based on facts and representing them truthfully and completely to the CAS in a proceeding. It is also not ridiculing the CAS to point out that they are simply not qualified to make scientific opinions (e.g. inconsistent with "commercial pork"), and must rely on the truthfulness and completeness of the representations of the scientific experts before them.

Maybe you were originally talking about the CAS decision(s), but I was responding to "TrailJogger", who was wrong to say "The source was determined to be exogenous, with super high certainty." Nothing in the CAS report determined the source to be exogenous with any certainty beyond a suggestion (see 126 "that Prof Ayotte has suggested the Athlete used"). What was determined in a subjective (3:0) opinion by the CAS Panel, was that Houlihan did not establish a most probable endogenous source (see 139) -- something far far less than "exogenous, with super high certainty."

It remains possible that soy-fed boar offal may be the most likely source, with Houlihan just being unable to prove it to the standard required, with specific and concrete elements.