shelby houlihan report - lrc journalists - pls chase

Normal American hog , or during Covid , hog hunting was and is a thing . Who knows where the truck sourced the meat , but you can bet it was inexpensive . This is correct above , you would not need 12 oz .

rekrunner wrote:

The labs cannot make a determination of “synthetic” (sic) after edible boar meat consumption, so a suggestion of mixing up a “beef burrito” with a “boar offal” burrito remains highly relevant, before any determination of “synthetic” can be made.

This hasn't aged well either...

CAS wrote:

Seventh, the carbon isotopic signature of the 19-NA detected in the Athlete’s urine (-23 ‰ ng/mL) is fundamentally inconsistent with the largely corn-based diet of commercial pigs in the US (-19 ‰ ng/mL).

pupil3142 wrote:

op here.

the whole point of this thread is to have the report publsihed so that we can put this speculation to bed.

presumably all these arguments were presented by the nike lawyers and cast aside.

that is why we need the report to be published.

and if the report doesnt establish that, then we are in trouble.

the story, for this thread, is not the speculation about the details about shelby, it is about the fact that the sporting establishment allows, nay even encourages such speculation, by avoiding essential transparency.

and shining this light is the raison d'etre of journalists in the face of a corrupt system (hi seb).

this was published 5 days ago already.

kimeli kigen karrubi wrote:

this was published 5 days ago already.

https://cdn.dmcl.biz/media/file/216469/7977-Award-Reasoned-FINAL+%281%29.pdf

Interesting stuff

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The labs cannot make a determination of “synthetic” (sic) after edible boar meat consumption, so a suggestion of mixing up a “beef burrito” with a “boar offal” burrito remains highly relevant, before any determination of “synthetic” can be made.

This hasn't aged well either...

CAS wrote:

Seventh, the carbon isotopic signature of the 19-NA detected in the Athlete’s urine (-23 ‰ ng/mL) is fundamentally inconsistent with the largely corn-based diet of commercial pigs in the US (-19 ‰ ng/mL).

The boar’s diet is a factor. You clipped this part:

Wasn’t this one of the studies floating around: DOI: 10.1002/dta.2958

“… urinary NorA deriving from wild boar meat may be interpreted as “endogenous,” if the boar's diet was C3-based; conversely, it can be identified as “exogenous” if the animal was on a C4-based diet”

rekrunner wrote:

The boar’s diet is a factor. You clipped this part:

Wasn’t this one of the studies floating around: DOI: 10.1002/dta.2958

“… urinary NorA deriving from wild boar meat may be interpreted as “endogenous,” if the boar's diet was C3-based; conversely, it can be identified as “exogenous” if the animal was on a C4-based diet”

That part is only discounted in the CAS report: it was not "wild boar meat".

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The labs cannot make a determination of “synthetic” (sic) after edible boar meat consumption, so a suggestion of mixing up a “beef burrito” with a “boar offal” burrito remains highly relevant, before any determination of “synthetic” can be made.

This hasn't aged well either...

CAS wrote:

Seventh, the carbon isotopic signature of the 19-NA detected in the Athlete’s urine (-23 ‰ ng/mL) is fundamentally inconsistent with the largely corn-based diet of commercial pigs in the US (-19 ‰ ng/mL).

This wasn’t written by the CAS, but rather was a submission by the Claimant (i.e. World Athletics)

Oh come on, do you have to keep obfuscating? CAS wrote that published file, yes, in part based on information of World Athletics. In any case, I thought you stood behind WA? In any case, read 'em and weep:

CAS wrote:

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.

Will you now agree that the nandrolone did not come from the burrito, or start with yet another obfuscation?

casual obsever wrote:

Oh come on, do you have to keep obfuscating? CAS wrote that published file, yes, in part based on information of World Athletics. In any case, I thought you stood behind WA?

In any case, read 'em and weep:

CAS wrote:

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.

Will you now agree that the nandrolone did not come from the burrito, or start with yet another obfuscation?

You said “it didn’t age well”, and then quoted the submission of World Athletics, as if it came from the CAS.

I think my clarification primarily serves to de-obfuscate your misleading attribution.

I haven’t read the whole report yet, but it looks like World Athletics, and their experts, makes a lot of assumptions about the pork that they claim she probably didn’t eat — that it was a young boar from the commercial supply chain with undescended testicles, fed with corn.

Are there other options besides commercial pork, or her own signature?

I could agree that apparently no party knows where the nandrolone came from.

rekrunner wrote:

Are there other options besides commercial pork, or her own signature?

More obfuscation.... go and troll in the "Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS" thread. Asked and answered there.

CAS wrote:

Prof. Ayotte maintains that:

The analytical result is consistent with the consumption of a norsteroid oral supplement that has the same carbon isotopic signature as was reported in the Athlete’s samples.

rekrunner wrote:

I could agree that apparently no party knows where the nandrolone came from.

You could agree on that? Well, according to the expert cited above, it looks for example like "the consumption of a norsteroid oral supplement". Could be something else, of course.

Houlihan claimed it was the burrito. That appears to be wrong.

More slam dunk:

I’ll read the CAS report first. I’m not sure I’ll read that other thread at all, as it has exploded into too many pages.

Wasn’t Prof Ayotte the one who lied in the Jarrion Lawson hearing? Isn’t your rule that anyone who lies loses credibility? “Consistent with” doesn’t mean she identified where the nandrolone came from. It’s also appears to be “consistent with” soy-feed boar, according to an expert.

Sean Ingle from the Guardian? What would he know about it? It looks like he made the same deceptive error that you did — attributing the submissions of World Athletics as if the CAS had said it, or ruled it.

casual obsever wrote:

More obfuscation.... go and troll in the "Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS" thread. Asked and answered there.

No, please don't. It's a pretty good thread aside from that "sabotage" poster. The last thing it needs is for the thread to be rekrunnered.

you don't say wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

More obfuscation.... go and troll in the "Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS" thread. Asked and answered there.

No, please don't. It's a pretty good thread aside from that "sabotage" poster. The last thing it needs is for the thread to be rekrunnered.

I had said I was probably not going to read it — it has exploded to 24 pages as I write this — but now that you say it is a pretty good thread, maybe I’ll pop over there and give my findings, and point out all the flaws in everyone else’s thinking.

rekrunner wrote:

maybe I’ll pop over there and give my findings, and point out all the flaws in everyone else’s thinking.

Lol. No you won't.

As per usual, you will ignore all the nonsense of the other drug cheat apologists, while desperately trying to troll the anti-doping crowd.

As I said, “maybe”.

You think I “ignore … the nonsense of the other drug cheat apologists”? I’m not sure that’s what you meant to say.

But it is correct — I tend to ignore the nonsense from the rare, extremist, genuine drug cheat apologists, as I tend to, as per usual, ignore the nonsense from all the drug worshippers armed with a partial set of facts, if at all.

It didn’t take me too long to see both you and The Guardian mis-attributing the World Athletics submissions as CAS rulings. If you did it here twice already, I’m sure there will be plenty of flaws to find in the now 28 pages from the worshippers of doping, some armed with half the facts, and some armed with no facts. If it is such a slam dunk, why is there so much misleading and misdirection, not to mention the need to resort to name calling?

you don't say wrote:

No, please don't. It's a pretty good thread aside from that "sabotage" poster. The last thing it needs is for the thread to be rekrunnered.

It takes two to tango.

Incorrect. I said CAS wrote, and I never said that CAS ruled that:

Look up the report written by CAS and you will find these exact same words.

But of course you will keep using this to deflect instead of to apologize. Like you again just yesterday trolled with the boar's diet, another irrelevant point long dismissed (as also mentioned in the CAS report).

What did CAS rule again?

But, trolls will be trolls.

Name-calling again — the trademark of a skilled debater.

I’m sure you didn’t mean to deceive, and only you know your intentions, but other less-learned will read what you wrote and think this came from the CAS. Furthermore, after I pointed the error, you linked me to a Guardian article from Sean Ingle, somehow oblivious that he makes a series of the exact same error — you called it a slam dunk.

Seems like rather than calling me names for saying something correct, you should be grateful that I clarified it was just a WA submission.

But if that is the standard, the CAS also wrote that it is consistent with a soy based diet, and that diets of pigs changed during the pandemic.

I can agree with the two options given in the panel findings, but that hardly seems like an exhaustive list of options.

casual obsever wrote:

In any case, I thought you stood behind WA?

Why would you think that? I find it an unusual thing to say, and an awkward way to decide what to stand for.

I don’t stand behind any particular person or organization, per se.

I stand behind facts and data, interpreted in proper context, when they are not contradicted by other facts and data.

I stand behind WA (and anyone and everyone) to the extent they can support their statements, and they are not easily contradicted.