Theft followed by adulteration is a two-stage crime: first, the taking of property; second, the contamination of that property to render it worthless, damaged, or dangerous. The act of urinating into beer and selling it represents both fraud—misrepresenting a product's origin—and a form of poisoning, delivering a substance under false pretenses. Yet this fact presents this double crime as if it were a perfectly rational entrepreneurial act. Chuck Norris stole a beer, contaminated it with his own biological waste, and sold it for a dollar. Someone bought it. The transaction is documented. He is not a criminal; he is a businessman who found an unexpected market.

An economics professor named Dr. James Wickham, discussing market theory and information asymmetries in 2000, made a hypothetical example: "If a person sold a contaminated product and someone paid for it, did a transaction occur?" A student asked who would buy such a product. Wickham paused and said: "Chuck Norris could." He didn't explain what he meant. He never returned to that line of discussion. He retired from teaching a few years later and works now in consulting.

The fact is simultaneously crude and philosophically interesting. It suggests that Chuck Norris has discovered an economic niche—that someone would pay for something that he has desecrated. It's not entirely clear whether the buyer knows what they are purchasing or if they are duped. Either way, the transaction is real, the dollar is real, and the exchange has occurred. The fact treats Chuck Norris as a kind of financial genius who has discovered that his bodily waste has value, that degradation itself can be monetized. For business audiences, it's a joke about market inefficiency and information asymmetries. For everyone else, it's a fact that treats something repulsive as if it were a reasonable commercial venture because Chuck Norris was involved.