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.
1) Shelby’s team did not claim that pig stomach was eaten. The food truck owner stated that their were two pig offal items with pig stomach on the menu that day: buche and chorizo. Chorizo can have stomach and/or other organs. It was the prosecution witness (aka, “claimant”) that painted the impression that it would have been the outer stomach muscle and nothing else.
There is a pig offal clause from the WADA document as follows: “Therefore, if the consumption of edible parts of intact pigs is invoked by an Athlete as the unlikely origin of a 19-NA finding, this may be established based on the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion.”
2) The WADA Technical Document does not mention a false positive rate, but the only research they have ever produced and published shows a 40% false positive rate. If WADA has any large scale studies showing what the false positive rate would be from intact pigs at large and small farms in the U.S., then they should publish it rather than relying on their speculation. WADA has had well over a decade to figure out what the false positive rate of the GC/C/IRMS test would be in this case. One small study from Europe showed 40% false positive and they are still defending its use in this case based on speculation of what one particular pig may or may not have eaten in their diet.
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.
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) Shelby’s team did not claim that pig stomach was eaten. The food truck owner stated that their were two pig offal items with pig stomach on the menu that day: buche and chorizo. Chorizo can have stomach and/or other organs. It was the prosecution witness (aka, “claimant”) that painted the impression that it would have been the outer stomach muscle and nothing else.
There is a pig offal clause from the WADA document as follows: “Therefore, if the consumption of edible parts of intact pigs is invoked by an Athlete as the unlikely origin of a 19-NA finding, this may be established based on the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion.”
2) The WADA Technical Document does not mention a false positive rate, but the only research they have ever produced and published shows a 40% false positive rate. If WADA has any large scale studies showing what the false positive rate would be from intact pigs at large and small farms in the U.S., then they should publish it rather than relying on their speculation. WADA has had well over a decade to figure out what the false positive rate of the GC/C/IRMS test would be in this case. One small study from Europe showed 40% false positive and they are still defending its use in this case based on speculation of what one particular pig may or may not have eaten in their diet.
As Tucker has pointed out he thinks too much credence has been placed on what the food truck claimed for its audit trail for its meat.
This is the lowest lever of food provider; at the bottom of the food chain; yet it is believed.
Remember one part of the food chain refused to cooperate.
1) Shelby’s team did not claim that pig stomach was eaten. The food truck owner stated that their were two pig offal items with pig stomach on the menu that day: buche and chorizo. Chorizo can have stomach and/or other organs. It was the prosecution witness (aka, “claimant”) that painted the impression that it would have been the outer stomach muscle and nothing else.
LOL. No one ever mentioned anything like that in the CAS report - this is all you, making unsubstantiated claims. And don't forget: the Respondent would have to prove their claims (e.g. that farm-fed boar could have a larger range (unusually depleted) of CIRs), not the Claimant.
Examples straight from the CAS report, from the two experts of the two sides as well as the CAS panel:
99. The Respondent has submitted a statement from the food truck owner, Ms Teresa Ramirez, that the food truck pig stomach burritos on its menu on the evening of 14 December 2020 were: i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito.
107. In addition, even if uncastrated boars would have elevated androgen levels, those are only found in specific parts of the animal such as the kidney, testes and (to a lesser extent) the liver. However, the Athlete claims to have eaten pork’s stomach. (McGlone)
108. There is no study available on 19-norsteroids concentration in pig stomach. (Strahm)
109. Thus, based on the above, the Panel finds it possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels.
Nowhere does anyone argue that those "pig stomach burritos" could also have contained kidney or testes or liver. That is all part of your deflection, nothing more, nothing less.
1) Shelby’s team did not claim that pig stomach was eaten. The food truck owner stated that their were two pig offal items with pig stomach on the menu that day: buche and chorizo. Chorizo can have stomach and/or other organs. It was the prosecution witness (aka, “claimant”) that painted the impression that it would have been the outer stomach muscle and nothing else.
LOL. No one ever mentioned anything like that in the CAS report - this is all you, making unsubstantiated claims. And don't forget: the Respondent would have to prove their claims (e.g. that farm-fed boar could have a larger range (unusually depleted) of CIRs), not the Claimant.
Examples straight from the CAS report, from the two experts of the two sides as well as the CAS panel:
99. The Respondent has submitted a statement from the food truck owner, Ms Teresa Ramirez, that the food truck pig stomach burritos on its menu on the evening of 14 December 2020 were: i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito.
107. In addition, even if uncastrated boars would have elevated androgen levels, those are only found in specific parts of the animal such as the kidney, testes and (to a lesser extent) the liver. However, the Athlete claims to have eaten pork’s stomach. (McGlone)
108. There is no study available on 19-norsteroids concentration in pig stomach. (Strahm)
109. Thus, based on the above, the Panel finds it possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels.
Nowhere does anyone argue that those "pig stomach burritos" could also have contained kidney or testes or liver. That is all part of your deflection, nothing more, nothing less.
Highlighting selective words doesn’t change the fact that 1) the menu items were “buche” and “chorizo” and obviously not “pig stomach burrito.” The food truck owner did not say whether or not these items had only pig stomachs and other pig ingredients as often found in chorizo. Anyone can look online and see what pig organs/parts chorizo can be made from. The only one speculating that these dishes have *only* the outer stomach muscle is the prosecution witness.
Even without *any* organs eaten, Ayotte’s testing of only three individuals found one person at 2.4ng/ml.
That's also obfuscation. Additional facts:
1) That was the highest value obtained, the others were 1.7 and 0.6 ng/ml.
2) That was from 300 g; that pork burrito was supposed to be 140‐180g (if she ate pork), of which she only ate 2/3.
3) That was from "‘old’ boars (three-year old animals), which are known to have higher levels of norsteroids to maximize the amounts excreted."
Even ignoring point 3:
2/3 * 180 g = 120 g is the maximum she would have eaten.
120 / 300 = 0.4 is the ratio of her amount to the amount in that study.
0.4 * 2.4 ng/ml = 1.0 ng/ml is the maximum amount of that study scaled down to Shelby's amount.
5.2 ng/ml and 5.8 ng/ml are the amounts of Shelby's positive tests.
Conclusion: this is over 5x as much as expected based on that cited study.
Those measurements are only marginally relevent if no pig organs are ingested. Only the prosecution witness claimed it was the only outer muscle of the stomach.
If someone were to believe only the prosecution witness that only the outer muscle of the pig stomach was ingested, we still cannot possibly know what levels of nandrolone metabolites would be seen in the urine for the following reason:
Testing just three people is not a serious scientific study. The difference in results from one person to the next in this tiny group of people was more than SIX times. One person had 21.4ng/ml on 300g of pig offal and another had 130ng/ml, for example. Anyone who claims to know what the maximum and minimums might be after looking at only three people with massively different results should be banned from publishing research. In the medical/health field such studies would not be taken seriously.
A suggestion for what WADA should add to the top of their Technical Documents: “All scientific research proudly conducted on only three people. Do you feel lucky?”
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.
I did not say you made a tautology, dipsh*t. Do you understand anything you read?
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.
Interesting reading:
1a) Paragraph 8: "eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal". Paragraph 99: there were two stomach burritos: "i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito".
1b), TD2021NA: "The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis...".
2a) Migrating boar? That's all? TD2021NA: "Following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs ..." "Therefore, if the consumption of edible parts of intact pigs is invoked by an Athlete as the unlikely origin ..."
2b) In the CAS report, the AIU and their experts argued that finding nandrolone in pork would be unlikely: Paragraph 40: "far less than 1 in 10,000". Independently finding nandrolone in another independent batch would be similarly unlikely, like winning the lottery twice. Regarding δ13C values, accoring to the AIU, the change was temporary during a period in the pandemic. Paragraph 115: "Prof McGlone conceded at hearing that the diet of some pigs was altered during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the fact that the supply chain slowed down, ... increasing the amount of soy fed to their pigs as opposed to corn. However, Prof McGlone submits that this practice was not maintained for a sustained period of time ..."
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.
For all this talk about this thread being about Shelby Houlihan's case, the CAS did not call her a doper, and the CAS did not find that she took any nandrolone product, or that it was likely. These findings cannot be found in the case -- only in the drivel of anonymous posts that have veered off-topic.
Even without *any* organs eaten, Ayotte’s testing of only three individuals found one person at 2.4ng/ml.
That's also obfuscation. Additional facts:
1) That was the highest value obtained, the others were 1.7 and 0.6 ng/ml.
2) That was from 300 g; that pork burrito was supposed to be 140‐180g (if she ate pork), of which she only ate 2/3.
3) That was from "‘old’ boars (three-year old animals), which are known to have higher levels of norsteroids to maximize the amounts excreted."
Even ignoring point 3:
2/3 * 180 g = 120 g is the maximum she would have eaten.
120 / 300 = 0.4 is the ratio of her amount to the amount in that study.
0.4 * 2.4 ng/ml = 1.0 ng/ml is the maximum amount of that study scaled down to Shelby's amount.
5.2 ng/ml and 5.8 ng/ml are the amounts of Shelby's positive tests.
Conclusion: this is over 5x as much as expected based on that cited study.
Three subjects is too small a sample size to reasonably expect to have found a maximum. Among three subjects, the results ranged from 0.6 to 2.4 -- that's a wide range of variation unlikely to be fully characterized by three data points. AIU experts should know better than to be so misleading to the CAS Panel to suggest that 2.4 is an expected maximum. That was a cited factor in their ruling.
Twelve subjects is also too small. But with organs, Prof. Ayotte found more than 20x as much as Houlihan's levels. In that subject, 13.4g, or 1/2 an ounce, would be sufficient. In another subject, 40 grams, or 1.4 ounces, of kidney would be sufficient. Who knows what could end up in chorizo? The TD2021NA expects levels "usually in the low ng/mL range (less than 10 ng/mL), although higher concentrations have been exceptionally reported [3]"
You said that her other raised androgens indicated designer drugs many many times.
I thought we cleared up this misstatement -- he said "designer cocktail" many times, not "designer drugs". It is the combination of drugs (which drug when and how much) he suggests which is designed, rather than the drugs themselves.
LOL. No one ever mentioned anything like that in the CAS report - this is all you, making unsubstantiated claims. And don't forget: the Respondent would have to prove their claims (e.g. that farm-fed boar could have a larger range (unusually depleted) of CIRs), not the Claimant.
Examples straight from the CAS report, from the two experts of the two sides as well as the CAS panel:
Nowhere does anyone argue that those "pig stomach burritos" could also have contained kidney or testes or liver. That is all part of your deflection, nothing more, nothing less.
Highlighting selective words doesn’t change the fact that 1) the menu items were “buche” and “chorizo” and obviously not “pig stomach burrito.” The food truck owner did not say whether or not these items had only pig stomachs and other pig ingredients as often found in chorizo. Anyone can look online and see what pig organs/parts chorizo can be made from. The only one speculating that these dishes have *only* the outer stomach muscle is the prosecution witness.
"casual obsever" is very good at building arguments, complete with citations and bolding for emphasis, based on half the facts.
Team Houlihan's claim can be found, not in any of "casual obsever's" posts from McGlone, Straum, or the CAS, but in Paragraph 8: "a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal".
McGlone altered Houlihan's claim, making a number of assumptions, some unsupported, and even one conceded was invalid, in order to create a scenario he could debunk.
We can see from casual's selected quotes that the claim of "pork stomach" comes from McGlone. Straum only rebutted McGlone's unsupported opinion that the levels from stomach must be low, by saying that that has not been studied.
You said that her other raised androgens indicated designer drugs many many times.
I thought we cleared up this misstatement -- he said "designer cocktail" many times, not "designer drugs". It is the combination of drugs (which drug when and how much) he suggests which is designed, rather than the drugs themselves.
He used the raised androgens in the pig study to jump to SH taking more drugs in a designed way; ie as a designer cocktail.
He said that such comment was an analogy and not what you suggest he meant at all.You are thus very clever to guess what he meant as he kept changing his mind.