What we need wrote:
fethullah gulen rupp wrote:
of all the scenarios they could have chosen, i will never understood why they chose pork offal. just mind boggling.
I get that it's a ridiculous story, but what other excuse should they have come up with?
Based on the scientific journals, the pork offal was the only one that had a tiny sliver of feasibility. Short of admitting to doping or saying she took a tainted supplement (which would have resulted in a ban), I'm not sure what other story she could have come up with?
You're 100% right. We used to see the old "tainted supplement" story all the time until WADA made it clear that this was the no-argument stance on supplements:
It is an athletes responsibility to know exactly what they are putting into their bodies and what may be produced from what they put in their bodies.
This closes the door on arguments such as " well I was taking this supplement and it doesn't contain (in this case) nandrolone" - even though the supplement may contain pro-hormones (or hormones that stimulate the production) of banned substances.
Because that would have been the excuse if it was allowed because that's exactly what I believe SH was doing - over the counter supplements that stimulate natural nandrolone production (and knowingly) - which is still absolutely illegal according to WADA code.
So where else do you go? You roll the dice with the only other plausible thing - contaminated meat because we've seen it before. Sadly for you the other cases (Wilson and Lawson) turned out to be legit (provable and of genuine "trace" amounts) - not borderline comedic in terms of details (order a carne asade burrito but got given a disgusting pork offal mix of ginormous size and chose to eat it anyways) and 2.5 times the legal upper-outlier limit.