casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
CAS only rejected corn-fed 6-month old cryptorchid boar, and muscle from stomach, as the source, presuming this is applicable to Houlihan’s greasy burrito.
It is statements like that ^ that give you a reputation as drug cheat apologist, not when you just "add facts".
E.g., this is not just "only" and "presuming" as argued in detail in the report. But of course you keep true to your agenda, and continue to doubt most guilty verdicts.
rekrunner wrote:
As far as a burrito versus willful doping with express intent to enhance performance, the answer is still yes.
Whatever likelihood you want to attach to the burrito story, the likelihood that a Nike athlete on their (remaining) Oregon flagship team would dope on purpose with nandrolone in 2021, two decades after the Sydney Olympics, is also possible but improbable. Basis for this thought: the same as yours. If we reject the burrito hypothesis, there are still a dozen or more unexplored possibilities.
And again "you want to attach to the burrito story" - I am just sticking to CAS here, not trying to make excuses for drug cheats.
"the same as yours"? What? Where did CAS say that doping on purpose was improbable?
Further, again, it doesn't have to be on purpose with nadrolone, as nandrolone can be a contamination of testo, but not of vitamins or minerals.
"f we reject the burrito hypothesis, " - with emphasis on IF; you still can't admit that the burrito story is nonsense.
"still a dozen or more unexplored possibilities" - lol. You should have joined the doper's legal team. And you just said you don't make excuses for dopers. Seriously, you had to laugh when you typed this, right?
I searched for the technical term “drug cheat” in the 44-page CAS report and couldn’t find that as a CAS finding.
Can I be a “drug cheat apologist” if CAS didn’t yet find a “drug cheat”?
CAS says the burrito was possible, but unlikely or improbable — i.e. they didn’t rule it out completely either. I’m just sticking with CAS here - I agreed it was possible, but low probability.
Sorry — I honestly didn’t read the last part of your question “(including the option of contaminated testosterone)?” but you also said “You called the burrito story more credible/likely than that she knowingly doped”, which are the two options you gave which I answered. Yet I did say, besides the two low probability options (burrito versus knowingly doped), “there are still a dozen or more unexplored possibilities.” One could be “contaminated testosterone” (yet no basis). As for “sticking to CAS”, they did not suggest contaminated testosterone.
As to a “dozen or more” coming from me — didn’t you create a list of a half dozen or so options earlier in this thread? Maybe you should join the doper’s legal team too. I just doubled your list to account for options you may have missed.
No one has established the source of the nandrolone, so all of the possibilities are still on the table, except commercial corn-fed pork meat and stomach muscle from 6 month old cryptorchid boars.
And finding the “source of nandrolone” doesn’t speak to guilt or innocence — so the “dozen or more unexplored options”, some of them could be doping options, like contaminated testosterone, are not really excuses.