original liar soorer wrote:
say it again. wrote:
End of thread,should be anyway but Shelbys stalker won't let it go.
This is not about SH but the rules.
It's a shame you have no idea what they mean.
original liar soorer wrote:
say it again. wrote:
End of thread,should be anyway but Shelbys stalker won't let it go.
This is not about SH but the rules.
It's a shame you have no idea what they mean.
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Insults, yet again, but well done on no racial abuse this time.
Why do you try and re invent twenty years of WADA and a further 20 years plus before that with your own version of the rules?
Is this a version of your racial superiority views?
You are still drinking, I see.
Insults rather than than explaining why you keep trying to re write WADA.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Doping is by definition dishonest and unfair. Hence it is banned and the doper penalized. As Houlihan was. So when is doping honest and fair?
You keep inventing your own definitions and they are riddled with tautologies.
Most doping actually is allowed and is defined as fair and honest.See I have broken your tautology😀. Not had for someone you say is a moron and racially abuse with monkey food taunts.
That which is permitted is not defined as doping. Moran.
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
This is not about SH but the rules.
It's a shame you have no idea what they mean.
Having read dozens of CAS and USADA and UkAd decisions I am entirely content that I do understand what they mean.
You have refused to even read the rules and have never ever debated them.
Go back to eugenics.
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
You keep inventing your own definitions and they are riddled with tautologies.
Most doping actually is allowed and is defined as fair and honest.See I have broken your tautology😀. Not had for someone you say is a moron and racially abuse with monkey food taunts.
That which is permitted is not defined as doping. Moran.
Back to your tautology😅
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, it doesn't. Doping is by its nature cheating. There isn't any legitimate doping.
Most doping is legitimate.
Broken your tautology again😅
You have no idea what doping is. It is by definition the taking of banned stimulants. It is therefore not legitimate. The same as your endlessly moronic arguments.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
That which is permitted is not defined as doping. Moran.
Back to your tautology😅
A tautology is saying the same thing twice, like "an ignoramus is incredibly stupid". True - as we see in your case - but superfluous. It isn't the same as saying "stealing is an offence" - which is part of its definition, like "doping is the taking of banned substances". If they aren't banned it isn't doping.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It's a shame you have no idea what they mean.
Having read dozens of CAS and USADA and UkAd decisions I am entirely content that I do understand what they mean.
You have refused to even read the rules and have never ever debated them.
Go back to eugenics.
You are proof that comprehension doesn't always accompany the act of reading.
This should be the Wada code.
Read 2.1.1 and comment 7.
Utterly clear that intent is not adjudicated.
Both reading and comprehension are, in my case, correct.
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Back to your tautology😅
A tautology is saying the same thing twice, like "an ignoramus is incredibly stupid". True - as we see in your case - but superfluous. It isn't the same as saying "stealing is an offence" - which is part of its definition, like "doping is the taking of banned substances". If they aren't banned it isn't doping.
You try to invent your own definition of tautology …. no surprise.
But then your last sentence is a howling tautology 😂😅
Suss that she has made her Strava private since this thread began...
original liar soorer wrote:
say it again. wrote:
End of thread,should be anyway but Shelbys stalker won't let it go.
This is not about SH but the rules.
I don't recall you ever being this defensive about other people who have been banned before?
Link to where you have defended an African runner? Or is it just white chick's you defend?
say it again. wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
This is not about SH but the rules.
I don't recall you ever being this defensive about other people who have been banned before?
Link to where you have defended an African runner? Or is it just white chick's you defend?
Not defended SH. It is the rules and the assumptions that a breach of the rules is cheating.This has been stated a dozen or more times.
Please point to a CAS case on an African ban and others views on such and I will contribute accordingly.
For the record; I am not happy with the whereabouts bans that feature other than your old fashioned and degrading term “ white chicks”.
say it again. wrote:
thoughts and prayers wrote:
Shelby is a convicted doper serving a 4 year ban for a doping violation.
create your own truth if you like but it doesn’t change reality.
End of thread,should be anyway but Shelbys stalker won't let it go.
That was another thread and it was over 7 months ago.
This is a thread about "Shelby Houlihan runs 4:03 1500".
I would say the stalkers that won't let it go follow her on Instagram and Strava, and start new threads gossiping about whether her training breaks the conditions of her ban.
Apparently these truths are not enough to end the thread, as so many want to go above and beyond the facts and findings and call her a cheat. That was not a CAS finding.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Doping is by definition dishonest and unfair. Hence it is banned and the doper penalized. As Houlihan was. So when is doping honest and fair?
That is not WADA's definition of doping.
Cheating requires dishonesty or unfairness, in order to gain an advantage.
WADA does not.
You are wrong by definition.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It could be an ATF or an AAF.
What I said was missing was evidence "of her motivation", which becomes relevant if you want to call her a cheat.
No, it doesn't. Doping is by its nature cheating. There isn't any legitimate doping.
WADA does not consider an ATF doping.
You are wrong by definition.
say it again. wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
This is not about SH but the rules.
I don't recall you ever being this defensive about other people who have been banned before?
Link to where you have defended an African runner? Or is it just white chick's you defend?
In 2018, WADA published a report on Kenyan anti-doping, showing 49 (or 50) Kenyan busts, or 35%, for nandrolone.
Kenyan farmers don't routinely castrate their male pigs, like in the USA.
Perhaps as many as all 49 (or 50) of them were victims of nandrolone ingestion by pork, and would be unable to fund a legal or scientific defense, or be able to trace back the source of the nandrolone in order to convince a panel (in a process conducted in English or possibly French) on the balance of probability.
rekrunner wrote:
say it again. wrote:
I don't recall you ever being this defensive about other people who have been banned before?
Link to where you have defended an African runner? Or is it just white chick's you defend?
In 2018, WADA published a report on Kenyan anti-doping, showing 49 (or 50) Kenyan busts, or 35%, for nandrolone.
Kenyan farmers don't routinely castrate their male pigs, like in the USA.
Perhaps as many as all 49 (or 50) of them were victims of nandrolone ingestion by pork, and would be unable to fund a legal or scientific defense, or be able to trace back the source of the nandrolone in order to convince a panel (in a process conducted in English or possibly French) on the balance of probability.
I would be interested in what, if any, controls there are on the farmers for enhancing their profits by injecting their stock with Nandrolone.
casual obsever wrote:
All the rest like CAS didn't "prove" intent and her motivation wasn't investigated and citing definitions for cheating from selected dictionaries and whatnot is - while technically correct - irrelevant obfuscation. There is a reason why CAS explicitly mentioned that it was intentional, although that wasn't required - intentional cheating was glaringly obvious in this slam dunk case.
Regarding intent, what the CAS said or wrote is insubstantial, if they don't support their finding with substance. This may work solely for the limited purpose of Article 10.2, with an express special meaning of "intentional", to justify a 4-year ban, for parties who agree to be subject to the WADA Code and its special definitions. But outside of that Article, it fails the bare minimum intellectual or legal standard, and only means the far weaker double negative "failure to prove 'not intentional' on the balance of probability". As I am not subject to the WADA Code, I am not constrained and bound to consider the limited set of facts like the CAS was, but can take a more holistic real-world view.
That's why their deemed and presumed but unsubstantiated finding has no real substantial meaning out here in the public domain. To give it real meaning, they would have to show the conditions in Article 10.2.3 are actually met, by specifying the conduct, and demonstrating what the athlete knew when engaging in that specific conduct.
It is only a slam-dunk within a process that highly prejudices the athlete by stripping the athlete of most of their defences, and placing a high burden on athletes to prove their lack of intent, only after a significant delay when the best evidence may no longer be available. Again, see the case of Simon Getzmann, an athlete who proved his innocence by a stroke of luck, but was still a victim of an aggressive process that suspended him for more than 1-year, cost him more than 10,000 Euros plus any earnings for that 1+-year suspension -- and it still counts as a first offense. His next contaminated pain-killer will count as a second offense, with a default 8-year ban, unless luck strikes again.
Whatever you wish to believe about Houlihan and the burrito, the WADA Code needs reform to protect innocent athletes like Simon Getzmann, and the 27 athletes USADA helped navigate through the WADA Code, and athletes from other countries like Kenya, that have different standards for processing their food, and their anti-doping defense.
original liar soorer wrote:
I would be interested in what, if any, controls there are on the farmers for enhancing their profits by injecting their stock with Nandrolone.
In this case, the nandrolone occurs naturally in intact boars. We don't speak of farmers injecting substances.