sanootage wrote:
ecoAnPac wrote:
keep huffing copium, she did it and the report shows that. She's failed to prove to a reasonable and substantive extent that she didn't take the steroids. I'd love to see where you're getting that inkling from, too. that someone is a bad actor and setting her up would require some pretty significant evidence
Fool; judgement said nothing to the effect that she “took steroids”.
okay so what's the conclusion of the report then, that she didn't???
Rocky Mtns wrote:
Monkeyoo wrote:
Harambe has admitted he is a Centro fanboy and he predicted a gold medal in Tokyo for Centro. Whatever credibility he might have on other subjects is gone here as he is clearly biased.
Haha! My thoughts exactly. Harambe seems to be posting on emotion rather than evidence. 😁
I certainly can’t speak for all food trucks, but I know they typically have to pass the same inspections, guidelines, etc. as the restaurant in the strip mall. Not sure why people presume it’s the Wild West with regards to food truck accountability. But maybe it’s different in different parts of the country.
Yeah, if they serve some wacky meat from a questionable source and some people get sick from eating it, they would lose their license and probably go out of business. It's likely that Shelby's food truck owner follows the rules.
Rocky Mtns wrote:
Monkeyoo wrote:
Harambe has admitted he is a Centro fanboy and he predicted a gold medal in Tokyo for Centro. Whatever credibility he might have on other subjects is gone here as he is clearly biased.
Haha! My thoughts exactly. Harambe seems to be posting on emotion rather than evidence. 😁
I certainly can’t speak for all food trucks, but I know they typically have to pass the same inspections, guidelines, etc. as the restaurant in the strip mall. Not sure why people presume it’s the Wild West with regards to food truck accountability. But maybe it’s different in different parts of the country.
I've said all over this thread that I agree with the CAS's decision.
Besides, why would be supporting Centro's ex? I've got my bro's back.
I'm just surprised the testing procedure is so... haphazard and how many steps have significant uncertainty.
I understand any sort of doping control is inexact, but I sympathize with Shelby as the evidence against her is not maximally compelling. However, we don't need compelling evidence to sanction people! That's the system we've agreed upon!
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Rocky Mtns wrote:
Haha! My thoughts exactly. Harambe seems to be posting on emotion rather than evidence. 😁
I certainly can’t speak for all food trucks, but I know they typically have to pass the same inspections, guidelines, etc. as the restaurant in the strip mall. Not sure why people presume it’s the Wild West with regards to food truck accountability. But maybe it’s different in different parts of the country.
Yeah, if they serve some wacky meat from a questionable source and some people get sick from eating it, they would lose their license and probably go out of business. It's likely that Shelby's food truck owner follows the rules.
There's a big difference between serving pig offal that's been cooked and is sanitary but had undocumented provenance and serving rancid/raw meat.
spade detector wrote:
Harambe wrote:
If all antidoping methods are this crappy I'm not sure what to think about the whole institution
Neither you nor Shelby have made a compelling argument that the antidoping methods are "crappy".
It's my opinion. I understand the tradeoff we make for being able to sanction dopers with every single one getting off on a technicality. We are implicitly accepting that there are going to be some false-positives.
Harambe wrote:
spade detector wrote:
Neither you nor Shelby have made a compelling argument that the antidoping methods are "crappy".
It's my opinion. I understand the tradeoff we make for being able to sanction dopers with every single one getting off on a technicality. We are implicitly accepting that there are going to be some false-positives.
This wasn't a false positive though. She had more nandrolone in her system than is allowed by WADA. That's not a statement of opinion. You just think there is a possibility that it was unintentional.
But it’s also a stretch to assume a food truck’s meat comes from an undocumented source.
Page 8 says it all. A damning indictment. Case closed.
spade detector wrote:
Harambe wrote:
It's my opinion. I understand the tradeoff we make for being able to sanction dopers with every single one getting off on a technicality. We are implicitly accepting that there are going to be some false-positives.
This wasn't a false positive though. She had more nandrolone in her system than is allowed by WADA. That's not a statement of opinion. You just think there is a possibility that it was unintentional.
False positive, as in, the anti-doping system renders punishment upon someone who doesn't deserve it.
That's the deal we have made for accepting a system that assumes guilt. I think it's good to think about these things!
Harambe wrote:
sanootage wrote:
This has merit. I was surprised at how the claimed source was accepted. Lucky if it was pig rather than dog ; me thinks.
It's impossible to prove so doesn't help Shelby's case, but the people saying "lol these this sequence of events could never happen" are discounting that this is the most likely source of a contamination.
But even so, there has to be an improbable series of circumstances for her samples to show those values.
Harambe wrote:
spade detector wrote:
Neither you nor Shelby have made a compelling argument that the antidoping methods are "crappy".
It's my opinion. I understand the tradeoff we make for being able to sanction dopers with every single one getting off on a technicality. We are implicitly accepting that there are going to be some false-positives.
Does normal justice have such a trade off so central to its principles ?
Technical errors are just not accepted in normal courts where the burden is on the prosecution and not the accused.
And if there is technicalities that would cause every single prosecution to fail there has to be something grossly wrong with the system.
Precious Roy wrote:
I'm sorry but there is no way anyone who has had carne asada before would get a burrito filled with pork offal (especially the high testosterone parts like heart, kidneys or liver) and just plow through it without taking it back to the taco truck and saying "what the hell did you give me?" Buche (pork stomach) has a weird flavor and texture that is nothing like red meat. The color is very light even when grilled. And Buche is rarely just the stomach muscle. It is almost always the digestive tract as that all comes out together when the pig is butchered. It doesn't matter how much salsa you dump over it. If you never had Buche before and were expecting grilled beef, you would not get two bites into a burrito filled with Buche before you took it back and asked for the right order.
+100. I ordered what turned out to be pork stomach recently in France. It was disgusting. Had an unusual texture and color and tasted vaguely of feces. 🤮
SeattleSilver wrote:
But even so, there has to be an improbable series of circumstances for her samples to show those values.
Sure, improbably things happen all the time. Or she doped. I haven't see a case that is this "grey area" before. Most of the other contamination cases have been pretty clear cut.
Not to mention the unusual decision to dope with nandrolone, if she did.
Lots of questions!
ecoAnPac wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Fool; judgement said nothing to the effect that she “took steroids”.
okay so what's the conclusion of the report then, that she didn't???
Was silent on the matter.
Said she had the drug.
Harambe wrote:
SeattleSilver wrote:
But even so, there has to be an improbable series of circumstances for her samples to show those values.
Sure, improbably things happen all the time. Or she doped. I haven't see a case that is this "grey area" before. Most of the other contamination cases have been pretty clear cut.
Not to mention the unusual decision to dope with nandrolone, if she did.
Lots of questions!
Fully agree
spade detector wrote:
Harambe wrote:
It's my opinion. I understand the tradeoff we make for being able to sanction dopers with every single one getting off on a technicality. We are implicitly accepting that there are going to be some false-positives.
This wasn't a false positive though. She had more nandrolone in her system than is allowed by WADA. That's not a statement of opinion. You just think there is a possibility that it was unintentional.
The whole system is not based on intent ie cheating.
For my part there is a huge chance it is not intentional .
Harambe wrote:
jewbacca wrote:
This makes for a compelling hypothesis, yes. Where is the data backing it up? I'm sorry, but without peer-reviewed studies, this isn't going to fly.
For example, here's an easy way to refute this expert witness' claim. I found in the literature a C13 for soy of -26%. Endogenous steroid was -19% in the Houlihan case. IIRC domestic pork is in the same range. Hers was measured at less than -23%. How does a 10% increase in soy feed swing the C13 numbers so far?
There is peer reviewed literature that shows soy and other C3 feed produces a high IRMS delta than corn. That's likely enough to convince experts that a shift to soy -could- explain the discrepancy.
See:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.chroma.2004.09.097for example
Most litigation is going to operate outside the realm of information covered exactly by the lit, of course, but I think there's enough evidence to support this hypothesis as plausible.
However, I think the whole C3/C4 argument is superseded by the need to that you were getting pork that was tainted somehow with uncastrated pig parts. If we had evidence the food truck was buying from sketchy suppliers then I have no issue believe they feed them all sorts of random-nonstandard crap and we should have zero intuition about IRMS values.
Also, I think the argument about supply chain disruption during the pandemic makes some sense. We really have no idea what pigs are being fed. Soy is ubiquitous as animal feed in the US so I have to give it some credence.
If all antidoping methods are this crappy I'm not sure what to think about the whole institution
Nah, the science behind anti-doping testing is quite rigorous. There is a mountain of literature supporting it.
I can't access that article you linked, so unfortunately I can't review it. However, there is considerable data showing the C13 values in humans when consuming domestic pork and wild boar. If someone concocts a hypothesis that the meat industry has fundamentally shifted to the point these values are no longer value, it is on them to prove it. To my knowledge that data does not exist. The CAS ruling is grounded in cutting edge methodology.
Jerry must go
sanootage wrote:
For my part there is a huge chance it is not intentional .
How much more of a slam dunk do you need?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/sep/01/cas-say-close-to-zero-probability-shelby-houlihan-failed-drugs-test-due-to-burritojewbacca wrote:
Harambe wrote:
There is peer reviewed literature that shows soy and other C3 feed produces a high IRMS delta than corn. That's likely enough to convince experts that a shift to soy -could- explain the discrepancy.
See:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.chroma.2004.09.097for example
Most litigation is going to operate outside the realm of information covered exactly by the lit, of course, but I think there's enough evidence to support this hypothesis as plausible.
However, I think the whole C3/C4 argument is superseded by the need to that you were getting pork that was tainted somehow with uncastrated pig parts. If we had evidence the food truck was buying from sketchy suppliers then I have no issue believe they feed them all sorts of random-nonstandard crap and we should have zero intuition about IRMS values.
Also, I think the argument about supply chain disruption during the pandemic makes some sense. We really have no idea what pigs are being fed. Soy is ubiquitous as animal feed in the US so I have to give it some credence.
If all antidoping methods are this crappy I'm not sure what to think about the whole institution
Nah, the science behind anti-doping testing is quite rigorous. There is a mountain of literature supporting it.
I can't access that article you linked, so unfortunately I can't review it. However, there is considerable data showing the C13 values in humans when consuming domestic pork and wild boar. If someone concocts a hypothesis that the meat industry has fundamentally shifted to the point these values are no longer value, it is on them to prove it. To my knowledge that data does not exist. The CAS ruling is grounded in cutting edge methodology.
Agree ; it is strict liability that is crap.