The court of public opinion is not probative. These issues are not decided by popular vote.
But in the court of "science", can the IRMS results indicate that the nandrolone did not come from a burrito?
According to WADA's TD2021NA "Following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs, .... The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis ..."
Seems like this is not well understood in the court of public opinion.
I found another interesting paper from the "court of science", from Huslemann dated Oct. 2020, preceding Houlihan's positive sample:
"To our knowledge, synthetic pharmaceutical preparations of 19-norsteroids exhibit δ13C values between −33‰ and −21‰. Thus, to date, urinary NorA presenting more enriched δ13C values is more likely an indication for boar meat (or offal) ingestion than for the administration of a synthetic 19-norsteroid.
The fact of varying δ13C values of wild boar could also be problematic for people living in countries with a high consumption of C4-plants like the United States or Southern Africa. Human endogenous δ13C values in these countries are enriched in 13C compared with Germany, and for these, there is the possibility of adverse analytical findings after the consumption of the meat of 19-norsteroid producing C3-fed boars."
From the CAS report, Prof McGlone confirmed C3-fed (soy-fed) pigs during the pandemic, and that boars can slip through the cracks of the USDA inspectors (probably moreso during shortages of both pigs and inspectors and less strict "sniff tests" during the pandemic of an airborne virus).
Yet taking all this into account the expert finding presented to CAS was of "near zero" likelihood of contamination in Houlihan's case. It didn't look like a case that "slipped through the cracks".
I guess it depends on the expert:
"more likely an indication for boar meat (or offal) ingestion than for the administration of a synthetic 19-norsteroid."
Yet taking all this into account the expert finding presented to CAS was of "near zero" likelihood of contamination in Houlihan's case. It didn't look like a case that "slipped through the cracks".
I guess it depends on the expert:
"more likely an indication for boar meat (or offal) ingestion than for the administration of a synthetic 19-norsteroid."
That view didn't match the totality of the evidence considered by the Panel. It was more like an argument there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll that day in Dallas in '63. Doesn't cut it.
According to WADA's TD2021NA "Following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs, .... The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis ..."
Seems like this is not well understood in the court of public opinion.
LOL rekrunner. Are you getting desperate? This is actually well understood, you just try to obfuscate by not citing the important part of that statement. In fact, the whole sentence is:
The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis, since the varying diets of migrating wild boars lead to dissimilar δ13C values which may range between -15 ‰ and -25 ‰ [9].
And this obviously doesn't apply here because there were no migrating wild boars involved.
According to WADA's TD2021NA "Following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs, .... The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis ..."
Seems like this is not well understood in the court of public opinion.
LOL rekrunner. Are you getting desperate? This is actually well understood, you just try to obfuscate by not citing the important part of that statement. In fact, the whole sentence is:
The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis, since the varying diets of migrating wild boars lead to dissimilar δ13C values which may range between -15 ‰ and -25 ‰ [9].
And this obviously doesn't apply here because there were no migrating wild boars involved.
It looks like it is well misunderstood.
The key is the "varying diets", and not the wildness or migration. It is the consumption of C3-plants versus C4-plants that produce the different results. This comment, mentions "non-castrated male pigs", "migrating wild boars", and again "intact pigs" all together in the same comment that says GC/C/IRMS may not be used but pharmacokinetics may be used instead.
And in the court of science and public opinion, outside of WADA not calling her directly a 'cheat' or not, the IRMS results clearly indicate that the nandrolone did not come from a burrito, notwithstanding the actual improbability of finding and eating a burrito made from an uncastrated boar
Simpletons like Hvinzyz think they are lawyers and have soptted some smoking gun, or perhaps they are like lawyers, since SH's lawyer took her down the burrito defence
The court of public opinion is not probative. These issues are not decided by popular vote.
But in the court of "science", can the IRMS results indicate that the nandrolone did not come from a burrito?
According to WADA's TD2021NA "Following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs, .... The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis ..."
Seems like this is not well understood in the court of public opinion.
I found another interesting paper from the "court of science", from Huslemann dated Oct. 2020, preceding Houlihan's positive sample:
"To our knowledge, synthetic pharmaceutical preparations of 19-norsteroids exhibit δ13C values between −33‰ and −21‰. Thus, to date, urinary NorA presenting more enriched δ13C values is more likely an indication for boar meat (or offal) ingestion than for the administration of a synthetic 19-norsteroid.
The fact of varying δ13C values of wild boar could also be problematic for people living in countries with a high consumption of C4-plants like the United States or Southern Africa. Human endogenous δ13C values in these countries are enriched in 13C compared with Germany, and for these, there is the possibility of adverse analytical findings after the consumption of the meat of 19-norsteroid producing C3-fed boars."
From the CAS report, Prof McGlone confirmed C3-fed (soy-fed) pigs during the pandemic, and that boars can slip through the cracks of the USDA inspectors (probably moreso during shortages of both pigs and inspectors and less strict "sniff tests" during the pandemic of an airborne virus).
You might be just trolling the vast majority of us with your posts - in that case I guess I "applaud" you for doing a great job of it, but honestly dude if you truly believe this stuff that you copy-paste and post here as your "research" on the matter, you are just as f-ing delusional as Shelby Houlihan and you need help. My god.
Yikes, I got pulled back in by rek's little trick.
And it's funny how several of the comments in the first two pages talking about what might happen to this thread got deleted, and then it actually did happen!
Yikes, I got pulled back in by rek's little trick.
And it's funny how several of the comments in the first two pages talking about what might happen to this thread got deleted, and then it actually did happen!
The court of public opinion is not probative. These issues are not decided by popular vote.
But in the court of "science", can the IRMS results indicate that the nandrolone did not come from a burrito?
According to WADA's TD2021NA "Following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs, .... The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis ..."
Seems like this is not well understood in the court of public opinion.
I found another interesting paper from the "court of science", from Huslemann dated Oct. 2020, preceding Houlihan's positive sample:
"To our knowledge, synthetic pharmaceutical preparations of 19-norsteroids exhibit δ13C values between −33‰ and −21‰. Thus, to date, urinary NorA presenting more enriched δ13C values is more likely an indication for boar meat (or offal) ingestion than for the administration of a synthetic 19-norsteroid.
The fact of varying δ13C values of wild boar could also be problematic for people living in countries with a high consumption of C4-plants like the United States or Southern Africa. Human endogenous δ13C values in these countries are enriched in 13C compared with Germany, and for these, there is the possibility of adverse analytical findings after the consumption of the meat of 19-norsteroid producing C3-fed boars."
From the CAS report, Prof McGlone confirmed C3-fed (soy-fed) pigs during the pandemic, and that boars can slip through the cracks of the USDA inspectors (probably moreso during shortages of both pigs and inspectors and less strict "sniff tests" during the pandemic of an airborne virus).
You might be just trolling the vast majority of us with your posts - in that case I guess I "applaud" you for doing a great job of it, but honestly dude if you truly believe this stuff that you copy-paste and post here as your "research" on the matter, you are just as f-ing delusional as Shelby Houlihan and you need help. My god.
It's not a question of truly believing. It's not like we are debating religions, and choosing which gods to follow.
I have no reason, and the majority of you have given me few reasons, to doubt the guidelines in the WADA TD or the knowledge and opinions of Huslemann.
The vast majority of you will go on believing what you want, and sometimes I will ask you for the basis of your beliefs, or post contradictory "expert" opinions and excerpts from official documents, to show that things are not so black and white as you want to believe.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.