We have an answer to if Houlihan could have test positive because of the burrito

So all of those research papers that showed how nandrolone could show up in tests after eating pork are wrong? And WADA is wrong to design its testing protocols around the possibility of athletes getting nandrolone from pork?

Good to know.

Sounds viable and easily falsifiable. Needs to be looked at.

Fascinating interview.

Glad we have an ophthalmologist on the case.

What a joke.

briswiss wrote:

First he says it would be extremely unlikely but then he further states that if the meat was cooked, the deca would be destroyed. You can’t eat raw pork. Nor do you eat it rare so it was definitely cooked thoroughly.

He isn’t even marginally familiar with the research. There are at least three studies that show ingestion of *cooked* uncastrated pig organs or meat can lead to as much as 130ng/mL (concentration of 19-NA in the urine). We’ve been talking about these studies for weeks. But it doesn’t look like he was brought on the program to discuss Houlihan, so he probably didn’t research it much.

duck sauce wrote:

Glad we have an ophthalmologist on the case.

What a joke.

Well, he's not really an ophthalmologist -- he's a neurologist (PhD) who works on vision. But even so, your point stands: This isn't in his area of expertise, and given that he's contradicting published research findings, it's pretty clear he's not up to speed on the topic. If he had anything worthwhile to say, he'd at least explain why the existing published research is wrong.

PS For what it's worth, he's not listed on Department of Ophthalmology web page at Stanford, either.

Our dearest Shelby is still full of sh×× though.

huberman is a marxist twat.

You actually thought it was the burrito.

🤣🤣🤣

Come on, man!

She is a little sweetie. She will always be my favorite. I will sign any petition by Letsrun to get her reinstated.

I’m pretty sure the AIU and CAS already answered this question

Ah, well, if Joe Rogan’s show says so, that MUST be more reliable than the myriad of scientist studies produced or analyzed by anti-doping professionals!

I worry about the state of education these days.

thoughts and prayers wrote:

I’m pretty sure the AIU and CAS already answered this question

If the question is “if she could have tested positive from a burrito”, the AIU did not ask or answer this question, and the CAS was asked to answer a different question — what does the evidence before it, evaluated within the constraints of the WADA code, probably show, or not show?

Neither the AIU, nor the CAS, rejected the possibility of “if”.

Ofcourse she is full of sh!t. Who believes that kindergarten lie coming out of the mouth of a almost 30yr old woman? LMFAO!

burritogate wrote:

I worry about the state of education these days.

Can't disagree on the education. However, the political weaponization of "science" shares equally in the dilemma.

not from here anymore wrote:

burritogate wrote:

I worry about the state of education these days.

Can't disagree on the education. However, the political weaponization of "science" shares equally in the dilemma.

Science and truth used to be effective weapons against ignorance in politics. Somehow the republican party has rendered them useless in recent years.

Science used to be very different from how it is now :(. I miss the old days.

It is not the Republican party that throws science out the window. They know that a fetus is a baby and that a man is a man. Science is very clear.