New Shelby training video: WOW

I'm not sure why my username/handle was brought up in this discussion as I already addressed many of these points in my editorial. It is interesting how Internet rumors can morph over time into statements that are provably inaccurate. For example:
"100% proven that the product is on amazon"
There are several reasons why this statement is inaccurate:
1) The scientific literature shows that most products on the market have a different carbon isotope ratio than what was found for Houlihan. In some rare cases, is the isotope ratio is similar.
2) The claimed test conducted by this witness was on one product from 2016. Products change and ingredient sourcing can change, so no one can say if there was a product on Amazon with a similar carbon isotope ratio in 2020.
3) The witness that testified about a product on Amazon is the only witness at the hearing with a proven track record of having recently provided false information at a doping hearing. (See: https://www.letsrun.com/news/2020/04/the-amazing-story-of-how-jarrion-lawson-cleared-his-name-he-showed-that-the-head-of-a-wada-lab-provided-false-testimony-against-him/ or Lawson CAS decision). There appears to be no scientific evidence provided to CAS showing that this wasn't just another false statement. This is why it is very important to sanction (i.e., ban) lab directors who provide false information (as they would for athletes or as they would in criminal cases) and prevent them from testifying as "expert" witnesses. There are other statements being passed around based on this lab director's testimony that is inaccurate and deceptive in my opinion -- such as scientifically inaccurate statements implying that Houlihan would have had to have eaten 3 burritos or 10 burritos, etc. to get such a nandrolone metabolite measurement.
The other two 100% statements:
"- 100% proven that it is easy to order"
There is zero evidence for this. It may be or may not be.
- 100% proven that nandrolone is a commonly used PED by endurance athletes.
If this were the case, then there would have been numerous US endurance athletes who have been proven to use nandrolone.
Some of the other statements:
"- evidence that more intact boars made it into the supply chain in September 2020 because of the pandemic"
There is no comprehensive testing as to how many intact boars make it into the food supply prior to 2020 or during 2020. For decades, WADA has mentioned that pork ingestion from intact boars could cause a nandrolone false positive. Yet WADA hasn't conducted any research as to the prevelence in various countries? Do they expect the athletes to fund and conduct their own studies. We do know through many meat and supplement contamination cases that farmers and manufacturers don't always follow the rules. For example, tests on pigs in Europe for nandrolone showed Spain at 14.29% non-compliant, Ireland at 10% non-compliant, etc. The point is that some people (lab directors, farmers athletes, etc.) cut corners or are not 100% honest.
"- evidence that the offal contained any nandrolone-rich products - though they had the offal tested"
Products can be contaminated due to sourcing at a specific time. Testing a restaurant product months later won't detect contamination months prior. Athletes are sometimes not informed of an A sample positive for months and then have to somehow trace the source if they're innocent. On the other hand, the B sample results are available almost immediately.
"- evidence that any farmer fed their pigs more soy in summer 20202 for any period of time."
This is a complete misunderstanding of the issue related to carbon isotope ratios and corn or soy. The first and most important thing for WADA to come up with is a false positive rate for their carbon isotope ratio test in a case like this -- a case that WADA specifically mentions in its technical document. Their first very small sample showed a 40% false positive rate. A subsequent small test showed a ~15% false positive rate. Some may claim that the false positives in these studies are different than the positive that Houlihan showed. However, tiny studies like these cannot be extrapolated to the entire population, except that we know that false positives occur at a significant rate.
The general public focuses on soy and corn in this case, but the reality is that pigs are often fed a variety of substances, including supplements. If cost were a major factor, rather than going with corn, the farmer could allow the pigs to forage for a time on other plants, significantly changing their meat carbon isotope ratio. Anyone can search on the Internet and see dietary change recommendations, a variety of corn and/or soy-based supplements and other supplements, etc. During 2020, quite few pig farmers simply sacraficed their pigs (especially in Iowa) and others used various diet and supplement methods to slow fatting and/or keep costs down.
I have always had my own feeling as to what really happened in this case, but I won't share that speculation. I do know that the testimony of WADA experts was deceptive. It appears that the CAS panel was not aware of the past false testimony of one of the two WADA witnesses. It's too bad that a handful of people don't have the same standards for lab directors that they do for athletes.

Actually, I wanted to know if it is possible to stop something that I never started.

I don't ignore that Team Shelby failed to establish the burrito was the most likely source. What I learned from Team Shelby, is what WADA already knew from a judge's expert opinion before 2015 changes came into effect: "Such proof (how the substance entered the body) is difficult to provide."

What I learned from googling is that many of the unproven assumptions from Team WA/AIU + "expert witnesses" were invalid.

While the expert witnesses have also 100% shown us that USDA approved boars can enter the normal food chain and easily produce Houlihan's numbers, no amount of talking about pigs provides any evidence that any other alternative suggestions are more likely.

Your 100% proofs are not comparing apples to apples. They 100% confirm the existence and availability of one compatible oral nandrolone product (the same as the existence and availability of soy-fed intact boar) and non-zero prevalence of nandrolone (from all sources: injected, oral, pseudo-endogenous, exogenous, and pork offal), but does not attempt to indicate individual or composite likelihoods of these presupposed factors.

It is 0% proven Houlihan ordered any nandrolone product from Amazon.

No one has determined the likelihoods that 1) Houlihan ordered a nandrolone product; 2) endurance athletes in the USA would take exogenous nandrolone; 3) in low doses; 4) orally; 5) with a pseudo-endogenous CIR. But it is unlikely that the composite probability of all these presupposed improbabilities would meet the burden of balance of probability, lacking specific and concrete evidence.

Great post. Either for lack of checking or a that a supplement is tainted somehow always seemed like the most likely explanation.