Wow: Prof who testified against S. Houlihan is featured in article on how boar taint is inevitable if you eat enough pork

range wrote:

rojo wrote:

I must admit that I was stunned to find myself tonight reading an article on stinky barbecue...

This is a classic example of how a supposedly influential person shares some half-assed conspiracy theory and spreads yet more misinformation on the internet. This pattern of behaviour is repeated and reinforced and a conspiracy theory grows, moving the debate from 'what happened' to 'why is there a conspiracy' to 'we're all victims of the dark state' seamlessly.

We've seen it with covid, elections, vaccinations, and now we're seeing it with Rojo's favourite drugs ban 'victim'.

Of course everything YOU believe is the REAL truth.

oh the irony wrote:

range wrote:

This is a classic example of how a supposedly influential person shares some half-assed conspiracy theory and spreads yet more misinformation on the internet. This pattern of behaviour is repeated and reinforced and a conspiracy theory grows, moving the debate from 'what happened' to 'why is there a conspiracy' to 'we're all victims of the dark state' seamlessly.

We've seen it with covid, elections, vaccinations, and now we're seeing it with Rojo's favourite drugs ban 'victim'.

Of course everything YOU believe is the REAL truth.

+1

oh the irony wrote:

range wrote:

This is a classic example of how a supposedly influential person shares some half-assed conspiracy theory and spreads yet more misinformation on the internet. This pattern of behaviour is repeated and reinforced and a conspiracy theory grows, moving the debate from 'what happened' to 'why is there a conspiracy' to 'we're all victims of the dark state' seamlessly.

We've seen it with covid, elections, vaccinations, and now we're seeing it with Rojo's favourite drugs ban 'victim'.

Of course everything YOU believe is the REAL truth.

If you're asking whether I form my opinions based on credible sources, such as the scientific consensus or the evidence presented to the courts then, largely, yes. I am totally prepared to change my opinion based on changes to current scientific knowledge or evidence though, because that's how rational thought works.

range wrote:

oh the irony wrote:

Of course everything YOU believe is the REAL truth.

If you're asking whether I form my opinions based on credible sources, such as the scientific consensus or the evidence presented to the courts then, largely, yes. I am totally prepared to change my opinion based on changes to current scientific knowledge or evidence though, because that's how rational thought works.

Uh huh. Follow the rational thought algorithim, down the rabbit hole into the warren of rational thought.

What could possibly go wrong?

in other news American distance runner Shelby Houlihan remains banned for doping

goodnight.

Rojo, what?

It’s amazing that her “expert” testimony wasn’t shredded by Houlihan’s lawyers.

She’s “self-educated” and enrolled in a 12 credit certificate program…

BUT

as per the CAS report even if it did, it wouldn't be the correct organs, the amount wouldn't have been enough, and it wouldn't have flagged up an adverse finding so high as that of Shelby.

Anyway, Jerry never heard of nandrolone, despite his athletes being immediately able to call upon experts on its entry into the food chain.

So, in other words, she didn't get it from a burrito and she should definitely be banned.

That's All, Folks wrote:

BUT

as per the CAS report even if it did, it wouldn't be the correct organs, the amount wouldn't have been enough, and it wouldn't have flagged up an adverse finding so high as that of Shelby.

Anyway, Jerry never heard of nandrolone, despite his athletes being immediately able to call upon experts on its entry into the food chain.

So, in other words, she didn't get it from a burrito and she should definitely be banned.

Jumping again.

Where on earth do you get the idea of immediate from and then an interpretation.

With half a brain most can get somewhere within a few days from a standing start on a whole range of entirely new ideas and problems.

Probably still won't achieve 3x over the limit. And on a high note Shalane Flanagan is running the marathons again!

teacher guy wrote:

Ok. Good to know, thanks man.

Wow.

People sure don't like to read anything that may be contrary to their firmly held beliefs based any topic.

JessPrylesdotcom? How long did you spend looking for this article? Trying your best to fuel your conspiracy theory since BTC has you by the balls.

That's All, Folks wrote:

BUT

as per the CAS report even if it did, it wouldn't be the correct organs, the amount wouldn't have been enough, and it wouldn't have flagged up an adverse finding so high as that of Shelby.

^ This ^

Plus, the androgen was wrong and the CIR not explainable with commercially fed pork. Going through the CAS report, one finds escalating improbabilities for the above from

1) "possible" (that the beef burrito was pork burrito)

2) to "possible but improbable" (that the pork came from a cryptorchid)

3) to "possible but improbable" (that the nandro amount would be that high EVEN IF it was a cryptorchid)

4) to "possible but highly improbable" (that the cryptorchid had such elevated androgen)

5) to not "consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork".

Recall that we are talking about number 2 here, with Prof. McClone stating that the chance for that is "far less

than 1 in 10,000". And then note that number 3 has a similar chance, and number 4 a much lower chance, not too mention number 5.

And then recall Statistics 101: one has to multiply these chances with each other to get the probability that all of the above happened. For example (and one can debate the numbers of course):

0.1 x 0.0001 x 0.0001 x 0.00001 x 0.000001 = 0.00000000000000000001

Which is a chance of 1 in 100000000000000000000...., or a guilty chance of 99.9999999999999999999%.

For comparison, Kiptum was banned because of his Hb and off-score "exceeding the respective upper 99.99% specificity level". So even the above-mentioned "far less than 1 in 10,000" night have been enough for a guilty verdict.

Open-and-shut case of a caught doper with a ridiculo excuse, imho.

Come on Rojo you need to do better than this to prove a USA athlete which systematically doped is not a drug cheat.

Just accept it and move on. Look at other athletes in the group which suddenly stop racing and that didn’t defend her, it shows a pattern on we know the group doped

Rojo, why do you believe this nonsense?

None of your sensible points leads to her being a doper as being a doper is never tested by the hearing.

Unfortunate for her to eat 6lbs of pork meat in a burrito hours before the test.

its only 5k wrote:

Come on Rojo you need to do better than this to prove a USA athlete which systematically doped is not a drug cheat.

Just accept it and move on. Look at other athletes in the group which suddenly stop racing and that didn’t defend her, it shows a pattern on we know the group doped

No evidence of being systematic!

Why make things up ?

Bore taint.