houlihound wrote:
Really don’t know? How about if you were forced to bet $500 one way or the other? Or even $50.
You flunk that hypothetical. Any gambler worth the description would instantly take the odds on not guilty, particularly at the odds being thrown around in this thread and within the report.
My belief is that if there's a known connection between pork and nandrolone, the studies are insufficient and the permutations more widespread than some experts prefer to believe. That itself is obvious when you look at all the cautionary advisories from various reports:
“Although very unlikely, athletes have been shown to excrete 19-Norandrosterone when ingesting the edible portion of uncastrated pigs containing 19-Norandrosterone, so athletes are pre-tested. You should carefully avoid a diet consisting of pork guts for a few hours in the next few hours."
and from a different report:
“It is not possible to fully assess the risk that meat intake may cause noticeable urinary levels of 19-Norandrosterone, but eating good quality raw muscle meat from common animal species. I believe it could be far from that, “the Commission concluded. “It may be wise to avoid boars and horse guts.”
There wouldn't be warnings like that if all were fully known. The report tried to pretend everything is near absolute. When you are suspending someone for 4 years based on one test result it shouldn't be so easy to find wiggle room warnings in every related study. IMO, there should be far greater variance and logic within the banning structure.