sanootage wrote:
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1113068/cas-shayna-jack-australia-wada-appealRead and understand.
Not inherent.
Positive test does not mean cheat.
sanootage wrote:
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1113068/cas-shayna-jack-australia-wada-appealRead and understand.
Not inherent.
Positive test does not mean cheat.
sanootage wrote:
sanootage wrote:
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1113068/cas-shayna-jack-australia-wada-appealRead and understand.
Not inherent.
Positive test does not mean cheat.
This needs dealing with.
Oh! It may blow loads of misconceptions out of the water; so I may have to wait.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
The burden of proving the legitimacy of the sample would be on Shelby's side and they can't even prove that the uneaten portion even came the alleged contaminated burrito. It also adds a couple of layers to the trail of assumptions: She ordered a carne asada burrito, she received a pork one instead, it contained offal, she eats 3/4ths of it, decides it might contain nandrolone and stores the uneaten portion.
No matter CAS worded its conclusion, the information in the CAS report indicates there was virtually a zero percent chance of the test results coming from the burrito and just the claim that she mistakenly received a pork burrito casts doubt on her story.
The only thing that might have saved her was evidence that the owner of the food truck purchased the meat from a sketchy source and a 3rd party purchasing a dozen burritos and finding enough nandrolone in some of them to have caused the test results findings.
We should use as precedents similar cases such as testing for contaminated medicines or supplements.
Do athletes need to prove legitimacy of these samples, or have 3rd parties purchase a dozen batches looking for contamination? I doubt it.
Testing the remaining burrito actually removes several layers of uncertainty. When she says: “I ate that burrito”, they don’t talk about the probability of a wrong order, nor the probability of boar meat in the market, nor the probability of soy-fed versus corn-fed boar, nor USDA inspectors. These were the factors that led to “improbable/unlikely” determinations. This alters CAS’s probabilities in Houlihan’s favor, unless of course the tests are negative.
rekrunner wrote:
Testing the remaining burrito actually removes several layers of uncertainty. When she says: “I ate that burrito”, they don’t talk about the probability of a wrong order, nor the probability of boar meat in the market, nor the probability of soy-fed versus corn-fed boar, nor USDA inspectors. These were the factors that led to “improbable/unlikely” determinations. This alters CAS’s probabilities in Houlihan’s favor, unless of course the tests are negative.
Indeed. And yet, you keep arguing against Team Shelby providing such analyses.
The "probability of soy-fed versus corn-fed boar" is a good example here. Shelby's expert from Oslo is summarized with:
She is convinced that a pork-meat meal, be it standardly derived from muscle tissue or non-standardly
derived from offal, may not only possibly exhibit a carbon isotope value between -21 and -25 in humans, but in fact is most likely to do so.
"most likely" - so very easy to prove, if correct. Just take five samples, and then - if really "most likely" - find 3 - 5 with such CIR. But, 0 such findings were reported by Team Shelby.
Or look at her PI. One would imagine that he'd gone and talked to the meat suppliers (farmers) of IBP/Tyson - but he didn't provide any farmer's statement.
Either they are outright stupid, or the evidence would have demonstrated the very low probability of such CIR.
Likewise consider the idea that other, higher androgen-containing organs ("such as the kidney, testes and (to a lesser extent) the liver") might have been in the offal instead of the reported stomach. Here too, no evidence for that whatsoever.
Either they are outright stupid, or the evidence would have demonstrated the very low probability of such organs.
So then CAS concluded for example:
The Panel finds that it is possible that – contrary to what the Athlete ordered – she was handed a burrito containing pork meat.
Based on the above, the Panel finds it is possible but improbable that the meat of an uncastrated boar ended up in the burrito that the Athlete ate.
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.
The Panel finds it possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples
The Panel finds that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature.
So the Panel judged two of the required five scenarios "improbable", one "highly improbable", and the last one not "consistent with .... pork". That last one alone sinks her case - we are not even talking about "highly improbable" anymore. And again, testing just five pork samples could have proven Shelby’s expert to be correct there. LOL
You are inventing tests that could have been done, but then taking an adverse inference, because they didn’t do your tests.
Experts don’t do dedicated experiments for a CAS case to demonstrate their expertise.
CAS judges take the experts at their word, along with supporting documents, like the soy study provided in the CAS hearing to prove the point about soy, unless it is rebutted by another expert.
For example, the AIU experts didn’t test a representative sample of commercial pork across the United States.
Look again at your statements. Putting them all together, and it remains possible, but improbable/unlikely.
The CAS never said, “now, with this last factor, it is physically impossible”.
The last statement refers to corn-fed pork, while it is still possible for soy-fed boar to be commercially available.
A PI buying burritos 1-2 months later, may get the more likely corn-fed pork burrito, and all the tests from as many as 10,000 burritos would turn out negative.
I think every fundamentally misunderstands that the likelihood of one burrito containing soy-fed boar organs, in the population of all burritos, is not the same question as the likelihood that, given a positive nandrolone finding, that the source of the nandrolone is ingestion by burrito, versus all the other sources of ingesting nandrolone.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Testing the remaining burrito actually removes several layers of uncertainty. When she says: “I ate that burrito”, they don’t talk about the probability of a wrong order, nor the probability of boar meat in the market, nor the probability of soy-fed versus corn-fed boar, nor USDA inspectors. These were the factors that led to “improbable/unlikely” determinations. This alters CAS’s probabilities in Houlihan’s favor, unless of course the tests are negative.
Indeed. And yet, you keep arguing against Team Shelby providing such analyses.
The "probability of soy-fed versus corn-fed boar" is a good example here. Shelby's expert from Oslo is summarized with:
She is convinced that a pork-meat meal, be it standardly derived from muscle tissue or non-standardly
derived from offal, may not only possibly exhibit a carbon isotope value between -21 and -25 in humans, but in fact is most likely to do so.
"most likely" - so very easy to prove, if correct. Just take five samples, and then - if really "most likely" - find 3 - 5 with such CIR. But, 0 such findings were reported by Team Shelby.
Or look at her PI. One would imagine that he'd gone and talked to the meat suppliers (farmers) of IBP/Tyson - but he didn't provide any farmer's statement.
Either they are outright stupid, or the evidence would have demonstrated the very low probability of such CIR.
Likewise consider the idea that other, higher androgen-containing organs ("such as the kidney, testes and (to a lesser extent) the liver") might have been in the offal instead of the reported stomach. Here too, no evidence for that whatsoever.
Either they are outright stupid, or the evidence would have demonstrated the very low probability of such organs.
So then CAS concluded for example:
The Panel finds that it is possible that – contrary to what the Athlete ordered – she was handed a burrito containing pork meat.
Based on the above, the Panel finds it is possible but improbable that the meat of an uncastrated boar ended up in the burrito that the Athlete ate.
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.
The Panel finds it possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples
The Panel finds that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature.
So the Panel judged two of the required five scenarios "improbable", one "highly improbable", and the last one not "consistent with .... pork". That last one alone sinks her case - we are not even talking about "highly improbable" anymore. And again, testing just five pork samples could have proven Shelby’s expert to be correct there. LOL
When you multiply those probabilities out, the chances that the burrito caused the ban triggering test results, is about the same as buying a winning lottery ticket.
rekrunner wrote:
The last statement refers to corn-fed pork, while it is still possible for soy-fed boar to be commercially available.
No, it refers to "commercial pork in the United States", which evidently was the one used by that food truck.
rekrunner wrote:
Experts don’t do dedicated experiments for a CAS case to demonstrate their expertise.
Not sure whether you are misunderstanding me, again, or just trolling/obfuscating.
I explicitly talked about "Team Shelby" testing 5 pork samples and "her PI" talking to some farmers about soy, to strengthen their case, not about the experts. They decided not to, for whatever reason, although they are the ones with the burden of proof of likelihood. Or they did, and decided not to mention the results, for whatever reason.
But thank you for agreeing with "the more likely corn-fed pork burrito" and thus disagreeing with the prof from Oslo (soy "most likely").
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Experts don’t do dedicated experiments for a CAS case to demonstrate their expertise.
Not sure whether you are misunderstanding me, again, or just trolling/obfuscating.
I explicitly talked about "Team Shelby" testing 5 pork samples and "her PI" talking to some farmers about soy, to strengthen their case, not about the experts. They decided not to, for whatever reason, although they are the ones with the burden of proof of likelihood. Or they did, and decided not to mention the results, for whatever reason.
But thank you for agreeing with "the more likely corn-fed pork burrito" and thus disagreeing with the prof from Oslo (soy "most likely").
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you but you clearly wanted to easily prove the statement made by expert from Oslo with an experiment testing CIR on 5 burritos.
Both sides also agreed that the diets of pigs were altered with more soy due to supply issues, temporarily altering the probability, but the CAS determined that commercial pork in the United States was corn-fed, making the CIR result inconsistent with commercial pork in the United States. According to the Oslo expert, it is “most likely” consistent with soy-fed boar.
I’m pretty sure I agreed long ago that soy-fed boar is a low probability event, but only ever claimed it is not an impossible event, because the CAS is only dealing with fuzzy probabilities. The problem with a 1 in 10,000, or 1 in a million, or 1 in a gazillion event, is that that 1 will always be found guilty on probability.
But again, the probability boar is in the burrito is not the same probability that the burrito is the source, as most of the 1 in a gazillion consumers of corn-fed pork burritos would not be in front of the CAS — only the few where nandrolone came from soy-fed boar, or from another source, events with unknown probabilities.
i run a test lab in portland.
it was very strange at the start of the year when we received a massive contract from a start up company called n1ke to do thousands and thousands of tests on commercially available pork.
we must have tested the meat and guts of every pig consumed in oregon over a three month period. we tested every food truck in one area every day. it cost millions. n1ke paid in cash - used bills.
we didnt find anything of what nike told us to look for. actually, thats not true. in the last week, when we were discussing the results with n1ke, they said; - hold on, we have one last sample for you. the n1ke guy rushed off to the loo with his sandwich and came back five minutes later and said; 'test that'. it was 50% nandrolone. Since it was the drug itself, not the metabolite, and we found plastic particles indicating it had just been squeezed out of a bottle, we refused to consider it.
at the end we were told to 'lose the report, it never happened'. n1ke folded, but their lawyers still call us.
the NDA was eyewatering. i never thought any much about it until i read letsrun.
regards
a whistleblower
casual obsever wrote:
Indeed. And yet, you keep arguing against Team Shelby providing such analyses.
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
You suggested testing 5 burritos was enough, and I responded saying that, given one percentage in the report, it would have to be 300 burritos, and given the other probabilities maybe 10,000 burritos, or maybe many more.
Then I juxtaposed this against your repeated notion that the burden to meet “balance of probabilities” is low, and that 4-months would be sufficient time to run these tests.
sanootage wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Liars are often credible. What wasn't credible was her story. So they rejected it. So, yeah - she lied, because she doped.
Did not do her for tampering as found credible.
She didn't tamper. She lied. Because there was no accidental doping. CAS decided she didn't get the nandrolone from pork.
After 60 pages the smell of rancid pork is overwhelming. Clearly, it is rekrunner's/sabotage's appetite for that stuff.
Armstronglivs wrote:
After 60 pages the smell of rancid pork is overwhelming. Clearly, it is rekrunner's/sabotage's appetite for that stuff.
Clearly it's your BO.
Armstronglivs wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Did not do her for tampering as found credible.
She didn't tamper. She lied. Because there was no accidental doping. CAS decided she didn't get the nandrolone from pork.
No lie only her best assumption of what she thought might have happened a month after the test result.
q35y wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
After 60 pages the smell of rancid pork is overwhelming. Clearly, it is rekrunner's/sabotage's appetite for that stuff.
Clearly it's your BO.
Another consumer of pork. There are many here.
sanootage wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
She didn't tamper. She lied. Because there was no accidental doping. CAS decided she didn't get the nandrolone from pork.
No lie only her best assumption of what she thought might have happened a month after the test result.
An "assumption" that apparently didn't happen in the eyes of CAS. That left only her doping - which she forgot about.
Armstronglivs wrote:
sanootage wrote:
No lie only her best assumption of what she thought might have happened a month after the test result.
An "assumption" that apparently didn't happen in the eyes of CAS. That left only her doping - which she forgot about.
Wrong yet again.
Read the rules; reflect and apologise.
rekrunner wrote:
You suggested testing 5 burritos was enough, and I responded saying that, given one percentage in the report, it would have to be 300 burritos, and given the other probabilities maybe 10,000 burritos, or maybe many more.
Yes - because you ignored that I treated each of the required scenarios separately, with focus on Shelby's expert who
"is convinced that a pork-meat meal, be it standardly derived from muscle tissue or non-standardly derived from offal, may not only possibly exhibit a carbon isotope value between -21 and -25 in humans, but in fact is most likely to do so."
She stated that eating pork would "most likely" result in a delta 13C of -21 to -25!
This is not 1%, but presumed to by way over 50% ("most likely"), so 3 - 5 out of 5 burritos. Again, if they really thought that to be true, they (not the lady from the University of Oslo) could have easily proven that.
And again, this is the one occurrence that CAS did not call "possible but (highly) improbable". Proving this to be "most likely" would also have challenged the whole AAF assignment, but, Team Shelby decided to not prove it.
A positive always equals cheater. Even if someone slipped it into something and she had no idea at all it is still cheating and she is still guilty. You are totally responsible for everything going into your body whether you have knowledge of it or not.
All that being said she knowingly doped and for caught. Every BTC athlete is likely also dirty but passing tests just like Lance did.