Cliff notes please
flyingfrog wrote:
Cliff notes please
You’re too lazy to read a measly 44 pages?
The Athlete’s explanation that the 19-NA in her sample resulted from her consumption
of the meat of an uncastrated boar simply cannot be accepted. The explanation pre-
supposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero:
o First, the Athlete would have had to have been served pork at the food truck
despite ordering beef.
o Second, the pork consumed would not have been ‘normal’ pork product ordered
by the food truck, but uncastrated boar.
o Third, uncastrated boar enters the food chain through completely different
channels than pork. Thus, in order for uncastrated boar to end up in the normal
pork supply chain, the boar(s) in question must have been cryptorchid
(specimen with undescended testicles).
o Fourth, the uncastrated boar in question (cryptorchid) is (or rather was) of a
small minority of uncastrated boars that – in addition – must have had elevated
androgen levels, which would be abnormal for 6-month-old pigs.
o Fifth, the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach. Pork
stomach, for the purposes of human consumption, is stripped of the inner layer
with the consequence that only the outer muscle remains. Even if uncastrated
boars do have elevated androgen levels, those are not found in the muscle, but
only in specific parts (such as kidneys, testes or liver). Pork stomach, on the
contrary, has one of the lowest androgen levels.
o Sixth, the concentration of 19-NA in the Athlete’s urine was 2-3 times higher
than the highest values reported in the scientific literature after the ingestion of
much more significant quantities of meat of mature (uncastrated) boar
(differently from the alleged cryptorchid in question that would have been
slaughtered after 6 months).
o 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).
o Finally, in his expert witness report, Prof McGlone states that the chance of a
cryptorchid ending up in the normal supply chain in the United States is far less
than 1 in 10,000.
Frerichs testimony:
They unwrapped and ate their burritos, but none of them finished their burritos because the meat was very “heavy”. It was actually very unusual that none of them could eat the entire burrito. She thinks they ate about 3⁄4 of their burritos.
• Looking back, she thinks it was definitely possible that they were handed the wrong burritos, since other people were waiting with them at the food truck for their burrito orders. She recalls that the people in line in front of them ordered something not “basic” like carne asada or chicken, but some other type of meat.
• As she ate the burrito that night, it never crossed her mind to think about what kind of meat it was. But she is not sure if she would have known if it was something different from what she had ordered in the past.
Lindsey Frerichs:
On the night of 14 December 2020, her sister and the Athlete went to pick up burritos for the three of them for dinner at a food truck.
• All three of them ordered the same burrito, which was a carne asada burrito. The burrito she ate definitely seemed more authentic than normal Midwestern burritos. She remembers it was finely chopped meat.
• They ate around 7:30 pm. She remembers this because they ate dinner and then they watched the Bachelorette, which started at 8 pm.
Yep, still guilty.
I cannot begin to imagine how embarrassing it must be to get caught cheating, make up a 1/10,000 billsh1t story then have to endure a 44 page scientific breakdown of how BS you story was, which is then made publicly available.
I'd much rather just say - you know what, I was cheating. It was wrong, I regret it but given the chance I would do it again.
She is innocent.
They keep throwing the term "authentic" around. What exactly do they mean by that?
And there you have it:
"Sixth, the concentration of 19-NA in the Athlete’s urine was 2-3 times higher
than the highest values reported in the scientific literature after the ingestion of
much more significant quantities of meat of mature (uncastrated) boar"
And this is on top of everything else.
Shame on all of those in BTC that defended her.
Yes and I'm the pope
you don't say wrote:
And there you have it:
"Sixth, the concentration of 19-NA in the Athlete’s urine was 2-3 times higher
than the highest values reported in the scientific literature after the ingestion of
much more significant quantities of meat of mature (uncastrated) boar"
And this is on top of everything else.
Shame on all of those in BTC that defended her.
+1
SHE IS GUILTY. GET OVER IT.
h. Summary of the Panel’s Findings and Conclusion
135. First, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the Athlete’s burrito contained boar offal.
136. Second, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the ingestion of boar offal would have
resulted in the urinary concentration of 19-NA found in the Athlete’s A- and B- Samples.
137. Third, the Panel finds it possible but not probable that the ingestion of boar offal would
have resulted in the Athlete’s reported urinary concentration of 19-NA or her carbon
isotope ratio of -23‰.
138. Fourth, the Panel finds that neither the hair analysis nor the polygraph results are sufficient
for the Athlete to satisfy her burden of proving that the ADRV was not intentional.
139. Finally, although the Athlete was a credible witness and has brought compelling character
witness evidence in support of her defense, she has failed to establish the source of the 19-
NA detected in her urine sample to the applicable standard of proof, and did not bring
forward sufficient objective evidence that would warrant the application of Rule 10.2.1 a.
of the WA ADR.
140. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied her burden of proof on
the balance of probabilities that the ADRV was unintentional, and the ADRV must be
deemed to be intentional.
America's fury wrote:
They keep throwing the term "authentic" around. What exactly do they mean by that?
I think it's an attempt to make it appear that there is a greater probability of the food truck serving uncastrated wild boar organs.
GUILTY!
Also it looks like French's was in on the same stuff and tried to help with the BS story.
Louis Litt wrote:
The Athlete’s explanation that the 19-NA in her sample resulted from her consumption
of the meat of an uncastrated boar simply cannot be accepted. The explanation pre-
supposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero:
o First, the Athlete would have had to have been served pork at the food truck
despite ordering beef.
o Second, the pork consumed would not have been ‘normal’ pork product ordered
by the food truck, but uncastrated boar.
o Third, uncastrated boar enters the food chain through completely different
channels than pork. Thus, in order for uncastrated boar to end up in the normal
pork supply chain, the boar(s) in question must have been cryptorchid
(specimen with undescended testicles).
o Fourth, the uncastrated boar in question (cryptorchid) is (or rather was) of a
small minority of uncastrated boars that – in addition – must have had elevated
androgen levels, which would be abnormal for 6-month-old pigs.
o Fifth, the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach. Pork
stomach, for the purposes of human consumption, is stripped of the inner layer
with the consequence that only the outer muscle remains. Even if uncastrated
boars do have elevated androgen levels, those are not found in the muscle, but
only in specific parts (such as kidneys, testes or liver). Pork stomach, on the
contrary, has one of the lowest androgen levels.
o Sixth, the concentration of 19-NA in the Athlete’s urine was 2-3 times higher
than the highest values reported in the scientific literature after the ingestion of
much more significant quantities of meat of mature (uncastrated) boar
(differently from the alleged cryptorchid in question that would have been
slaughtered after 6 months).
o 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).
o Finally, in his expert witness report, Prof McGlone states that the chance of a
cryptorchid ending up in the normal supply chain in the United States is far less
than 1 in 10,000.
thanks you.
boom, headshot.
I think the 7th is the smoking gun;
o 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).
Also, do they live alone or share house together? if the former, I would assume it is easier to keep things away from your teammates. If living together, where does she hide it? If they knew, do they just look away? Obviously, it affects them if she is a lock to make the team.
Sadly, it does make the whole team questionable.
Did they ever determine if the burrito contained guacamole and sour cream?
If you're Frerichs, though, and clean, WHY would she not think the fact that she ate the same thing but did NOT test positive was evidence that her teammate was doing something shady that she wasn't doing??? I get that Frerichs wasn't on the same testing schedule but seriously.