You said that breaching the doping rules makes the a doper; now you run away from that.
I said that breaching the rules and testing positive for a banned drug constitutes doping. Your attention span didn't last to the second part of the sentence.
Just to confirm your illteracy, here is the definition from the on-line dictionary:
tautology
- "the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession )".
You have just shown you have no idea what you are saying - about anything.
Selective quote and one you have been told about before.
There was no "evidence"; only an unsubstantiated claim.
Once again you don’t grasp the rules.
I grasp that under the rules Houlihan has been found to have intentionally doped and been banned 4 years. None of your or rekrunner's semantic drivel changes that. So she has earned the stigma of being a doper and she cannot compete for 4 years.
Just to confirm your illteracy, here is the definition from the on-line dictionary:
tautology
- "the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession )".
You have just shown you have no idea what you are saying - about anything.
Selective quote and one you have been told about before.
I grasp that under the rules Houlihan has been found to have intentionally doped and been banned 4 years. None of your or rekrunner's semantic drivel changes that. So she has earned the stigma of being a doper and she cannot compete for 4 years.
Only being a cheat should result in the stigma of doper.
Tucker said we don’t know and you have provided no evidence.
Just to confirm your illteracy, here is the definition from the on-line dictionary:
tautology
- "the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession )".
You have just shown you have no idea what you are saying - about anything.
Selective quote and one you have been told about before.
Tautology in the logical sense… don’t avoid .
It cannot be a tautology in the logical sense because as you yourself have said a breach of the anti-doping rules does not have to include a positive doping test. It might be a whereabouts failure, for example. You fail again.
I grasp that under the rules Houlihan has been found to have intentionally doped and been banned 4 years. None of your or rekrunner's semantic drivel changes that. So she has earned the stigma of being a doper and she cannot compete for 4 years.
Why do you keep getting the rules wrong and then mis quote to cover up.
I grasp that under the rules Houlihan has been found to have intentionally doped and been banned 4 years. None of your or rekrunner's semantic drivel changes that. So she has earned the stigma of being a doper and she cannot compete for 4 years.
Only being a cheat should result in the stigma of doper.
Tucker said we don’t know and you have provided no evidence.
Q: You’ve (Tucker) spent the last month studying this case in-depth. Gut feeling: is Houlihan innocent or guilty?
(Tucker) With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion.” Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty. There is much unknowable in between, but the contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.
One of the studies Tucker alluded to shows a pork meal causing more than 20 times the nandrolone metabolite measurement as found for Houlihan. The “three times higher” that Tucker is refering to involves pork meat without organs — and it’s really two times higher in measurements on 3 people in Ayotte’s study.
Tucker didn’t mention that in research of boar ingestion, 40% of the cases show a false positive for the isotope signature. That was the reason WADA changed their Technical Document.
All of this has been discussed on letsrun. It seems like Tucker is repeating prosecution witnesses and not the underlying research.
No. Tucker sees that objectively, unlike you:
1) The "more than 20 times" come from kidney/liver etc. and is therefore not relevant here, where Team Shelby supposed outer stomach muscle as source. Indeed the data from "pork meat without organs" are the relevant ones, as explained in detail in the CAS report. Therefore there is no need for Tucker to mention that irrelevant data.
2) "40% of the cases show a false positive" is also not relevant here (and also wrong) - those were two cases with pork from migrating boar in Europe, not American farm-fed pig with its consistent isotope signature. Therefore there is no need for Tucker to mention that.
3) Ultimately 1 and 2 don't really matter (other than sinking the ship twice more), because the case was already lost when CAS ruled that it was "improbable" that an uncastrated boar made it into Shelby's burrito.
But yes, all of this has been discussed on letsrun. Case closed. You drug cheat supporters are beating a dead horse. Again and again and again. Carry on, lol.
Selective quote and one you have been told about before.
Tautology in the logical sense… don’t avoid .
It cannot be a tautology in the logical sense because as you yourself have said a breach of the anti-doping rules does not have to include a positive doping test. It might be a whereabouts failure, for example. You fail again.
My comment is not a circular argument ie tautology.
One of the studies Tucker alluded to shows a pork meal causing more than 20 times the nandrolone metabolite measurement as found for Houlihan. The “three times higher” that Tucker is refering to involves pork meat without organs — and it’s really two times higher in measurements on 3 people in Ayotte’s study.
Tucker didn’t mention that in research of boar ingestion, 40% of the cases show a false positive for the isotope signature. That was the reason WADA changed their Technical Document.
All of this has been discussed on letsrun. It seems like Tucker is repeating prosecution witnesses and not the underlying research.
No. Tucker sees that objectively, unlike you:
1) The "more than 20 times" come from kidney/liver etc. and is therefore not relevant here, where Team Shelby supposed outer stomach muscle as source. Indeed the data from "pork meat without organs" are the relevant ones, as explained in detail in the CAS report. Therefore there is no need for Tucker to mention that irrelevant data.
2) "40% of the cases show a false positive" is also not relevant here (and also wrong) - those were two cases with pork from migrating boar in Europe, not American farm-fed pig with its consistent isotope signature. Therefore there is no need for Tucker to mention that.
3) Ultimately 1 and 2 don't really matter (other than sinking the ship twice more), because the case was already lost when CAS ruled that it was "improbable" that an uncastrated boar made it into Shelby's burrito.
But yes, all of this has been discussed on letsrun. Case closed. You drug cheat supporters are beating a dead horse. Again and again and again. Carry on, lol.
I agree drug cheat supporters should be laughed at for beating dead horses.Or even in modern pentathlon senses ; beating an alive horse.
Only being a cheat should result in the stigma of doper.
Tucker said we don’t know and you have provided no evidence.
Q: You’ve (Tucker) spent the last month studying this case in-depth. Gut feeling: is Houlihan innocent or guilty?
(Tucker) With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion.” Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty. There is much unknowable in between, but the contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.
Yes guilty but by what standard of proof is applied to the guilty verdict.
But Tucker is not sure if she is a cheat; does he??
One of the studies Tucker alluded to shows a pork meal causing more than 20 times the nandrolone metabolite measurement as found for Houlihan. The “three times higher” that Tucker is refering to involves pork meat without organs — and it’s really two times higher in measurements on 3 people in Ayotte’s study.
Tucker didn’t mention that in research of boar ingestion, 40% of the cases show a false positive for the isotope signature. That was the reason WADA changed their Technical Document.
All of this has been discussed on letsrun. It seems like Tucker is repeating prosecution witnesses and not the underlying research.
No. Tucker sees that objectively, unlike you:
1) The "more than 20 times" come from kidney/liver etc. and is therefore not relevant here, where Team Shelby supposed outer stomach muscle as source. Indeed the data from "pork meat without organs" are the relevant ones, as explained in detail in the CAS report. Therefore there is no need for Tucker to mention that irrelevant data.
2) "40% of the cases show a false positive" is also not relevant here (and also wrong) - those were two cases with pork from migrating boar in Europe, not American farm-fed pig with its consistent isotope signature. Therefore there is no need for Tucker to mention that.
3) Ultimately 1 and 2 don't really matter (other than sinking the ship twice more), because the case was already lost when CAS ruled that it was "improbable" that an uncastrated boar made it into Shelby's burrito.
But yes, all of this has been discussed on letsrun. Case closed. You drug cheat supporters are beating a dead horse. Again and again and again. Carry on, lol.
1) It is only speculation by a prosecution witness that Houlihan would have ingested the outer stomach muscle. Houlihan’s team invoked the pig offal clause in the WADA Technical Document. Each side can speculate what organs might or might not have been in the food, but no one can be sure. Even without *any* organs eaten, Ayotte’s testing of only three individuals found one person at 2.4ng/ml.
2) The only published research on pig offal and the GC/C/IRMS test used in Houlihan’s case shows a 40% false positive rate. It was done in Europe. But no one knows what the false positive rate would be in the U.S., especially during the pandemic. Maybe it would only be 15-20% false positives. But rather than guess, I prefer to start with the published research we have. No sane organization would use a test with a published 40% false positive rate even if that false positive rate might or might not be lower in the U.S.
Armstronglivs didn't reply to the whole thread, but specifically to me. His response veered off-topic.
In response to "it's relevant what she ate", in a case where nandrolone ingestion was undisputed, Armstronglivs felt it important to re-summarize, to me specifically, the CAS findings not being discussed or disputed by me -- findings which incidentally were about "what she ate", and not "what she ordered".
My response didn't "veer off-topic". The topic is Houlihan's doping. Your sole contribution has been to deny it. Like a stuck record.
The topic is her "case", and in that case, where "ingestion" is undisputed, "what she ate" is more relevant than "what she ordered". Attempting to explain CAS's conclusion in your own words leaves that point undisputed.
1) It is only speculation by a prosecution witness that Houlihan would have ingested the outer stomach muscle. Houlihan’s team invoked the pig offal clause in the WADA Technical Document. Each side can speculate what organs might or might not have been in the food, but no one can be sure. Even without *any* organs eaten, Ayotte’s testing of only three individuals found one person at 2.4ng/ml.
2) The only published research on pig offal and the GC/C/IRMS test used in Houlihan’s case shows a 40% false positive rate. It was done in Europe. But no one knows what the false positive rate would be in the U.S., especially during the pandemic. Maybe it would only be 15-20% false positives. But rather than guess, I prefer to start with the published research we have. No sane organization would use a test with a published 40% false positive rate even if that false positive rate might or might not be lower in the U.S.
No no no no.
1a) You should read the report again. Team Shelby was the one who claimed stomach, see e.g. point 99, not the claimant (there is no "prosecution"). You can check for yourself how that is done commercially in the US, which is what the claimant's expert also said. See e.g.
Hog maw is the stomach of a pig. More specifically, it is the exterior muscular wall of the stomach organ (with interior, lining mucosa removed) which contains no fat if cleaned properly. It can be found in American, Soul Foo...
Hog maw is the stomach of a pig. More specifically, it is the exterior muscular wall of the stomach organ (with interior, lining mucosa removed) which contains no fat if cleaned properly.
1b) You should read the TD again. There is no "pig offal clause in the WADA Technical Document". There is however a statement about additional tests "since the varying diets of migrating wild boars lead to dissimilar δ13C values". Again, we talk about commercially fed pigs here that do not have such "varying diets".
2a) There is no "false positive rate"! Look up the definition... Again, there are varying δ13C values in migrating boars, that's all. Nothing to do with US v Europe or false positives.
2b) Team Shelby had some burritos tested, and found by their own admission no nandrolone. Ever so coincidentally, they never reported their δ13C. If you were correct with "15-20% false positives", they would have found different δ13C values by just looking into 5 - 10 samples, but of course they did not.
1) It is only speculation by a prosecution witness that Houlihan would have ingested the outer stomach muscle. Houlihan’s team invoked the pig offal clause in the WADA Technical Document. Each side can speculate what organs might or might not have been in the food, but no one can be sure. Even without *any* organs eaten, Ayotte’s testing of only three individuals found one person at 2.4ng/ml.
2) The only published research on pig offal and the GC/C/IRMS test used in Houlihan’s case shows a 40% false positive rate. It was done in Europe. But no one knows what the false positive rate would be in the U.S., especially during the pandemic. Maybe it would only be 15-20% false positives. But rather than guess, I prefer to start with the published research we have. No sane organization would use a test with a published 40% false positive rate even if that false positive rate might or might not be lower in the U.S.
No no no no.
1a) You should read the report again. Team Shelby was the one who claimed stomach, see e.g. point 99, not the claimant (there is no "prosecution"). You can check for yourself how that is done commercially in the US, which is what the claimant's expert also said. See e.g.
Hog maw is the stomach of a pig. More specifically, it is the exterior muscular wall of the stomach organ (with interior, lining mucosa removed) which contains no fat if cleaned properly.
1b) You should read the TD again. There is no "pig offal clause in the WADA Technical Document". There is however a statement about additional tests "since the varying diets of migrating wild boars lead to dissimilar δ13C values". Again, we talk about commercially fed pigs here that do not have such "varying diets".
2a) There is no "false positive rate"! Look up the definition... Again, there are varying δ13C values in migrating boars, that's all. Nothing to do with US v Europe or false positives.
2b) Team Shelby had some burritos tested, and found by their own admission no nandrolone. Ever so coincidentally, they never reported their δ13C. If you were correct with "15-20% false positives", they would have found different δ13C values by just looking into 5 - 10 samples, but of course they did not.
I suggest you ignore all the above as the writer has previously got confused with the pig androgens in saying that the CAS report indicated designer drugs.
1) The "more than 20 times" come from kidney/liver etc. and is therefore not relevant here, where Team Shelby supposed outer stomach muscle as source. Indeed the data from "pork meat without organs" are the relevant ones, as explained in detail in the CAS report. Therefore there is no need for Tucker to mention that irrelevant data.
2) "40% of the cases show a false positive" is also not relevant here (and also wrong) - those were two cases with pork from migrating boar in Europe, not American farm-fed pig with its consistent isotope signature. Therefore there is no need for Tucker to mention that.
3) Ultimately 1 and 2 don't really matter (other than sinking the ship twice more), because the case was already lost when CAS ruled that it was "improbable" that an uncastrated boar made it into Shelby's burrito.
But yes, all of this has been discussed on letsrun. Case closed. You drug cheat supporters are beating a dead horse. Again and again and again. Carry on, lol.
1) It is only speculation by a prosecution witness that Houlihan would have ingested the outer stomach muscle. Houlihan’s team invoked the pig offal clause in the WADA Technical Document. Each side can speculate what organs might or might not have been in the food, but no one can be sure. Even without *any* organs eaten, Ayotte’s testing of only three individuals found one person at 2.4ng/ml.
2) The only published research on pig offal and the GC/C/IRMS test used in Houlihan’s case shows a 40% false positive rate. It was done in Europe. But no one knows what the false positive rate would be in the U.S., especially during the pandemic. Maybe it would only be 15-20% false positives. But rather than guess, I prefer to start with the published research we have. No sane organization would use a test with a published 40% false positive rate even if that false positive rate might or might not be lower in the U.S.
Wada acts on unpublished research and needs numbers of positives to keep getting our tax dollars.
