It seems that the topic of Houlihan has long run its course of interest.
You did a lot of research on pork in Oregon during the pandemic, (as opposed to across the US in normal times) that gives good reason to think that soy-fed pork offal in the food system, especially during the pandemic, was more common than the CAS report would lead you to believe.
There are problems at several levels with the, starting with the WADA code itself which frames the process:
- Principles like “strict liability” and shifting the burden to the athlete will unavoidably cast the net wide enough to catch athletes only guilty of being unable to track down and prove the source of a substance ingested weeks and months earlier.
- The WADA lab that is still at liberty to ignore updates in a TD document, and record an AAF rather than an ATF. It raises the question under which circumstances would the new guidelines apply, particularly since any investigation of the source should happen much later in the process, than when WADA records the lab result, if it happens at all, depending on the result recorded?
- The neutrality of AUI experts, who are not 100% truthful, leaving out relevant information.
- What the “statistics” show. The AIU arguing, and the CAS accepting, that soy-fed boar offal is low probability, does not show us the likelihood that a positive result comes from pork, when compared to other sources, such as synthetic nandrolone or supplement contamination. The direct conclusion we can draw is that most athletes who eat burritos will test negative, shedding little light on the source of those few who test positive.
This isn’t just a problem for Houlihan, but remains a problem for future athletes unlucky enough to not know 100% what can be in their food before it gets on their plate.
I wrote this earlier in other threads:
Tygart and the WADA code:
On the AIU experts: