Sports Scientist Ross Tucker breaks downs the Shelby Houlihan case for us

You never tell the full story.

According to the CAS, this was Houlihan's claim: "the Athlete maintained that the 19-NA entered her body by eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal".

I would bold "pork stomach", but it doesn't appear in Houlihan's claim.

"offal" is not obfuscation, and would include the missing organs you say she never argued.

McGlone's focus on only one organ, the "stomach", essentially leaves Houlihan's claim undisputed.

Bravo, you fixed the units, but it is still the wrong amount -- Al Jazeera didn't say "a billion". Did you even watch it? Here's a short term cognitive quiz: do you remember the name?

Looks like you still want to flip the burden as a tacit concession that you cannot prove your own data. You are the one claiming the amount is relevant, not me.

What you fail to comprehend is that I can't accept any figure until it is established who estimated it, how they estimated it, and the scope of what the estimate represents. Until then, no amount can really be considered "correct".

Since we are wondering things, I wonder what percentage of dopers are even tested? I wonder if testing is a deterrent? Maybe detecting 1% of athletes tested is about right, because the untested ones dope significantly more because they know they won't be tested.

When you have 1% knowledge (composed of true and false positives) and 99% ignorance, you can fabricate many arguments from ignorance, with an imagination that wonders.

The significant point that seems to be passing way over your head - don't look up - is that NOP wasn't just "tested". One way to improve the percentages significantly is to conduct a multi-year investigation with whistleblowers and witnesses and increased target testing over several years.

Have I yet mentioned that USADA used 30 witnesses, and a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts?

And your feeble response is "testing sucks".

Rather than avoiding that, I already addressed that the first time. This was asked and answered in the AAA Panel report to the satisfaction of the AAA Panel, and conceded by USADA Chief Travis Tygart.

SHE ORDERED A F'ING BEEF BURRITO!!!!

Why have you not addressed the problem with the Al Jazeera 1 billion.

What proportion for gym users?

I didn't mix anything. I cited, one after the other, Houlihan + World Athletics + McGlone + Tucker all saying that it would have been pork stomach (in Houlihan's best case scenario). Houlihan just tried to deflect here or there by calling pork stomach pork offal (not that that is necessarily wrong, it's just misleading because in other cases offal included additional organs).

Tucker is a good - maybe even the best here - source because he commented on the case as an invited, neutral expert. That you pretend he was confused and his statement irrelevant does not bode well for you.

McGlone was then the one to explain as the expert, not speculate, which parts of the stomach are commercially sold in the American pork market - that too remained unchallenged because he was evidently correct, as I cited earlier.

As for your "Houlihan’s team didn’t claim that the chorizo gad other organs and glands (as it often does) because they couldn’t prove..." does not make sense, for that team made lots of claims without evidence, e.g. that the CIR was normal for commercial American pork and that her amount can be explained with eating 3/4 of a pork burrito etc.

I don’t think you cited Houlihan or her lawyer at all. No one from their team said that the Chorizo was *only* the stomach. They did submit a statement from the food truck owner saying that stomach was an ingredient. All you have is prosecution witnesses claiming that it was *only* the stomach muscle which is just wild speculation for it being the only pork chorizo ingredient. Tucker may be neutral, but didn’t talk to Houlihan’s team or look at the research in detail. That is why he bought into prosecution witness statements that were based on “research” of three people and that were deceptive.

Houlihan’s team pointed out that the amount of nandrolone metabolites could easily be obtained from 3/4ths of a burrito or much less depending on the types of pork organs and glands. That is an easily provable statement.

Not quite. To be precise, Houlihan did submit a statement from the food truck owner calling both the chorizo and the Maw burritos, I quote, "pig stomach burritos". Of course she can only claim what the food truck owner told her (or her PI).

And if you read through her published (and revised by her lawyer) timeline, you note that they tracked down the "30lbs of pork stomach" to IBP (Tyson subsidiary) via Portland Quality Meats, after obtaining "invoice copies from the food truck". Apparently the invoice copies did not include kidneys or testes.

That's not quite honest is it...

If you want to show what Houlihan actually claimed, you should only cite Houlihan. As I showed you above, the CAS report tells us that Houlihan's claim was "a burrito ... containing pork offal".

Whether Ross is neutral or not, here he just acts like another filter that can introduce random noise, like we all learned as children in the telephone game.

Both Houlihan, and the truck owner, talked about burritos, while Prof McGlone only talked about pork stomach. For Prof McGlone to fully dispute Houlihan's claim of offal in a burrito requires the same discussion and conclusion for all the ingredients, and not just one.

Similarly, Houlihan would have to look at the stomach, and should have looked at all the potential ingredients, just as she looked at all of her supplements.

Again, none of that tells us the pork ingredients of the chorizo other than that it contained some pork stomach. Below are links to four chorizo products with salivary glands and lymph nodes. Some other chorizo products don’t specify what pig organs or glands or meat is used. Its obviously cheaper to not waste parts of the pig and that is why cheaper chorizo is often not just pig stomach. Restaurants saving money by using cheaper products and/or many parts of the pig would be expected (IMO) during the pandemic.

market-33.com

Shop - Market 33

Artificially colored with FD&C Red No. 40. U.S. Inspected and passed by Department of Agriculture.

Link:www.market-33.com/shop/meat/brats_and_...

Again, it was called a pork stomach burrito.

Again, Shelburrito has seen the receipts, and wisely did not speculate about additional secret ingredients.

Again, Shelburrito had some burritos tested in January, one month after getting caught with nandro, still very much in the pandemic. And yet, she found no raised androgen levels that would support your (not Shelby's!) theory of additional, secret, metabolically active ingredients.

Also, salivary glands? Where does it say that they would yield such high nandro levels, especially if they are only one ingredient of a 140 - 180 g pork stomach burrito (that wasn't even completely eaten)? I only found kidney, testes, and to a minor extent liver mentioned in the CAS report.

And furthermore, they found no such CIR in any of the tested burritos, despite your alleged 40% false positive rate. Your speculations - that even Shelby didn't dare to bring up - are proven false by the reality, over and over again.

Says the man who does not know what offal is

Very sane as I have found no use of the word in Wada literature.

You have failed to say what a doper is.

First you said that it was a person who broke the anti doping rules and then, tweedle dumb time, you changed your mind.

The documentary I saw did make a claim of a billion Euros. Apparently you didn't see it. You maintain the Al Jazeera figure is wrong yet you have no idea what the correct figure might be. I wonder why they didn't seek your opinion?

Still lying. Question, how can one be anti-doping if you don't know what doping is? Even simpler - how can you be opposed to something if you don't know what you are opposed to? Sorry - wasted on you.

I'm betting you are.

So having said it once you can't say it again? So what did the Panel and Tygart say? Was Salazar seeking to help his athletes with his doping experiments - yes or no?

I made no claim about gym users and neither did Al Jazeera - so you tell me.