Hey y'all, I think Rojo is telling us he has eaten boar taint more than a few times.
Hey y'all, I think Rojo is telling us he has eaten boar taint more than a few times.
sanootage wrote:
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.
That's your answer to my post? That "as per the CAS report 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" BUT HOLD ON there was maybe several days - or longer - between Jerry "hearing about nandrolone" and searching PubMed for scholarly papers??
To reassure you, that bit of my post was being facetious. Jerry has known for years, maybe decades about nandrolone.
However, Shelby did not have an adverse test from a burrito. THAT story is a jump alright. Bob Beamon has nothing on you.
rojo wrote:
I must admit that I was stunned to find myself tonight reading an article on stinky barbecue where the person the author used to remind the readers that if you eat enough meet it's basically inevitable that you'll run into "boar taint"
I read the article. Can you point us to the passage where Dr. McGlone said anything was "basically inevitable"?
That's All, Folks wrote:
sanootage wrote:
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.
That's your answer to my post? That "as per the CAS report 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" BUT HOLD ON there was maybe several days - or longer - between Jerry "hearing about nandrolone" and searching PubMed for scholarly papers??
To reassure you, that bit of my post was being facetious. Jerry has known for years, maybe decades about nandrolone.
However, Shelby did not have an adverse test from a burrito. THAT story is a jump alright. Bob Beamon has nothing on you.
I would be very surprised if Nandrolone appeared as such on the charge sheet.
But such is irrelevant to you.
Lol. You also have a 1 in 8000 chance of dying of sunstroke in your lifetime.
sanootage wrote:
None of your sensible points leads to her being a doper as being a doper is never tested by the hearing.
You have an interesting definition of doper.
She was banned for "an intentional anti-doping rule violation" after testing positive for a forbidden steroid. Sounds like a doper was caught and banned, but feel free to use different words.
It is irrelevant, as it happens. As is the font size, gsm of the paper, and the ambient temperature of the room it was written in.
The salient point is it is so, so unlikely for Shelby to be telling the truth, that it simply couldn't have happened.
Further, apart from telling lies that practically speaking can't be true (as per the CAS report), she and her defenders are strongly implying that such cases are rife and she is the latest. Think about that.
Even if you took issue with the accurate statement that "practically speaking it can't be true", and say Jim-Carrey-like there is a chance even if it is infinitesimally small, it is not at all possible that it (i.e. tainting to bring such an adverse result) should have happened to anyone else in athletics and then happened to her also. It couldn't possibly happen . As others have said, check out the odds for yourself.
Taking issue with how quickly Jerry can type into Google, or playing legal wordsearches, is deliberately ignorant.
I guess if it's inevitable then there will have been athletes all over the place testing positive because they ate tainted pig. Oh, wait - you mean Houlihan is actually the first? Is that's what's meant by "inevitable"? One in a million?
Another embarrassingly stupid thread on an embarrassingly stupid board.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I guess if it's inevitable then there will have been athletes all over the place testing positive because they ate tainted pig. Oh, wait - you mean Houlihan is actually the first? Is that's what's meant by "inevitable"? One in a million?
Another embarrassingly stupid thread on an embarrassingly stupid board.
Well go away then: and take your lies and cheating to an other parish.
That's All, Folks wrote:
It is irrelevant, as it happens. As is the font size, gsm of the paper, and the ambient temperature of the room it was written in.
The salient point is it is so, so unlikely for Shelby to be telling the truth, that it simply couldn't have happened.
Further, apart from telling lies that practically speaking can't be true (as per the CAS report), she and her defenders are strongly implying that such cases are rife and she is the latest. Think about that.
Even if you took issue with the accurate statement that "practically speaking it can't be true", and say Jim-Carrey-like there is a chance even if it is infinitesimally small, it is not at all possible that it (i.e. tainting to bring such an adverse result) should have happened to anyone else in athletics and then happened to her also. It couldn't possibly happen . As others have said, check out the odds for yourself.
Taking issue with how quickly Jerry can type into Google, or playing legal wordsearches, is deliberately ignorant.
It was an opinion not a fact and thus could not be a liar.
casual obsever wrote:
sanootage wrote:
None of your sensible points leads to her being a doper as being a doper is never tested by the hearing.
You have an interesting definition of doper.
She was banned for "an intentional anti-doping rule violation" after testing positive for a forbidden steroid. Sounds like a doper was caught and banned, but feel free to use different words.
Read the rules re intent.
Crow-Magnon wrote:
Hey y'all, I think Rojo is telling us he has eaten boar taint more than a few times.
+1
Get her on another interview. I’m curious what her next steps are…
Four year comeback in progress
Can she transition to other sports ala Lance
Is she just gonna be a mom and coach
Which races are “clean” vs “dirty”
Who is she dating?
Next tattoo?
She got totally f-ed , cheat or otherwise. Look at Sha Carri, that’s totally a coverup. However, Sha Carri is a different caliber of athlete and personality so I could see Nike throwing more money at protecting one over the other..
sanootage wrote:
That's All, Folks wrote:
It is irrelevant, as it happens. As is the font size, gsm of the paper, and the ambient temperature of the room it was written in.
The salient point is it is so, so unlikely for Shelby to be telling the truth, that it simply couldn't have happened.
Further, apart from telling lies that practically speaking can't be true (as per the CAS report), she and her defenders are strongly implying that such cases are rife and she is the latest. Think about that.
Even if you took issue with the accurate statement that "practically speaking it can't be true", and say Jim-Carrey-like there is a chance even if it is infinitesimally small, it is not at all possible that it (i.e. tainting to bring such an adverse result) should have happened to anyone else in athletics and then happened to her also. It couldn't possibly happen . As others have said, check out the odds for yourself.
Taking issue with how quickly Jerry can type into Google, or playing legal wordsearches, is deliberately ignorant.
It was an opinion not a fact and thus could not be a liar.
All lies are opinion and not fact - otherwise they would not be a lie. You are a f*cking moron.
rojo wrote:
I must admit that I was stunned to find myself tonight reading an article on stinky barbecue where the person the author used to remind the readers that if you eat enough meet it's basically inevitable that you'll run into "boar taint" as some pigs are going to be cryptorchid (meaning they have hidden or undescended testicles) was none other than Dr. John McGlone, the man used an expert witness against Shelby Houlihan.
In the Houlihan case, Prof McGlone estimated that the "probability of a cryptorchid actually entering the pork supply chain is far less than 1 in 10,000" which seems impossible but in this article, it's presented as an inevitability.
https://jesspryles.com/boar-taint/jesspryles wrote:
Dr. McGlone observes that some mammals are Cryptorchid (meaning they have hidden or undescended testicles). “This means that even if outwardly castrated, the animal can still be an intact male internally, and boar taint will occur”, explains Dr. McGlone.
The Carbon isotope of the nandrolone didn't match pork. Period. The End. It doesn't matter how unlikely a "cryptorchid" pig is. The drugs didn't come from a pig. They did, however, perfectly match banned supplements. This is the non-negotiable nail in the coffin.
Armstronglivs wrote:
sanootage wrote:
It was an opinion not a fact and thus could not be a liar.
All lies are opinion and not fact - otherwise they would not be a lie. You are a f*cking moron.
What a contorted and meaningless load of drivel.
skyboy wrote:
rojo wrote:
I must admit that I was stunned to find myself tonight reading an article on stinky barbecue where the person the author used to remind the readers that if you eat enough meet it's basically inevitable that you'll run into "boar taint" as some pigs are going to be cryptorchid (meaning they have hidden or undescended testicles) was none other than Dr. John McGlone, the man used an expert witness against Shelby Houlihan.
In the Houlihan case, Prof McGlone estimated that the "probability of a cryptorchid actually entering the pork supply chain is far less than 1 in 10,000" which seems impossible but in this article, it's presented as an inevitability.
https://jesspryles.com/boar-taint/The Carbon isotope of the nandrolone didn't match pork. Period. The End. It doesn't matter how unlikely a "cryptorchid" pig is. The drugs didn't come from a pig. They did, however, perfectly match banned supplements. This is the non-negotiable nail in the coffin.
What if the pig had got itself injected by the farmer.
Cunning chaps.
Loads of evidence from the veterinary residues committee.
Please stop being hypocrits on anti-doping. A white American woman cheated /END.
Rojo, why do you think she was eating greasy foods if she had her gall bladder removed? And what do you guys think "authentic Mexican" means? Thanks!
casual obsever wrote:
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.
Great post. Basically if Shelby's excuse were accepted, there would effectively be no more drug testing, as virtually everyone who tested positive can come up with an excuse as weak as hers.
Rojo, I just don't understand why you et al keep defending her. The only rationale she has provided for the nandrolone being in her system is simply not acceptable by any reasonable standard.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06