You simply don't get it. It isn't the "documented intent" of the penalty. That is your interpretation. That it may be a consequence of a penalty does not make it the intent of the penalty. The intent of the penalty is that the athlete is barred from all competition for the period of the ban. That is what a ban means. However, this will have a variety of consequences, depending on the situation of the athlete involved. WADA doesn't concern itself with that; once the athlete is banned the chips fall where they lie. The penalty does not require further specification of what competitions the athlete is excluded from. It is all of them. But what WADA obviously didn't want was that an athlete could be banned and yet compete in time for the Olympics because the ban was for only a short duration. So the Olympics were taken into account for setting the period of the ban but were not its purpose or intent. That you simply can't grasp this distinction is why virtually no one on this thread accept the Houlihan doping-denier supports your proposal, and why antidoping will never support it.
Yes, it’s the documented intent. I gave you the news articles and quotes to prove it. That you simply refuse to accept that reality shows you are unable to handle being wrong. So instead you deny, deflect, and insult. You’ve become predictable.
It isn't the intent, but you don't understand what that means. The "intent" is a legal term for what the rules determine in a decision - and these are above all legal decisions. The rules make no mention of missing the Olympics, so they are not the "intent" in any decision to ban an athlete.
I wouldn't bother doing that for anyone. It's really easy to get under your skin. That's because you can't cope with being differed with.
LMAO! Nice try. The truth is you didn’t know how quick and easy it is to see someone’s posting stats until I told you. Add it to the growing list of things you’ve been wrong about.
My posting stats are not an argument. They have nothing to do with this thread. But in raising them it is you making this personal. You are a hypocrite - and a sanctimonious one, preaching to the boards about offering a break to a convicted doper.
LMAO! Nice try. The truth is you didn’t know how quick and easy it is to see someone’s posting stats until I told you. Add it to the growing list of things you’ve been wrong about.
My posting stats are not an argument. They have nothing to do with this thread. But in raising them it is you making this personal. You are a hypocrite - and a sanctimonious one, preaching to the boards about offering a break to a convicted doper.
I presented those stats in response to your statement that this thread was the “meaning of life” in reference to me and others who support Shelby. I was merely holding up a mirror to show your hypocrisy. Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Yes, it’s the documented intent. I gave you the news articles and quotes to prove it. That you simply refuse to accept that reality shows you are unable to handle being wrong. So instead you deny, deflect, and insult. You’ve become predictable.
It isn't the intent, but you don't understand what that means. The "intent" is a legal term for what the rules determine in a decision - and these are above all legal decisions. The rules make no mention of missing the Olympics, so they are not the "intent" in any decision to ban an athlete.
I’ve proven the intent behind the rule.
The rules make no mention of serving four years consecutively either. As I’ve already said, be consistent. You follow the letter of the law when it suits you, and you ignore it when it doesn’t.
One of your comments did get removed, deservedly so. I don’t like personal attacks against anyone, but I won’t object to it if people respond to your attacks in kind.
Only one? But apparently you can't cope with the heat in the kitchen. So others have to do your work for you.
What you also don't get is that by your persistent whining you make this a personal exchange, but where you of course assume the moral high ground - as your thread subject pleading for a doper also attempts to show.
Not a single sentence in your post makes any sense or contains even a kernel of truth. You’re unraveling.
It isn't the intent, but you don't understand what that means. The "intent" is a legal term for what the rules determine in a decision - and these are above all legal decisions. The rules make no mention of missing the Olympics, so they are not the "intent" in any decision to ban an athlete.
I’ve proven the intent behind the rule.
The rules make no mention of serving four years consecutively either. As I’ve already said, be consistent. You follow the letter of the law when it suits you, and you ignore it when it doesn’t.
You havent proven intent. You don't know what it means. It is legal term. The rules don't have to say the 4 years are served consecutively; there is no other way offered or specified. Your imagining there is or there should be shows you have no understanding what the rules do and how they are applied by a court.
Only one? But apparently you can't cope with the heat in the kitchen. So others have to do your work for you.
What you also don't get is that by your persistent whining you make this a personal exchange, but where you of course assume the moral high ground - as your thread subject pleading for a doper also attempts to show.
Not a single sentence in your post makes any sense or contains even a kernel of truth. You’re unraveling.
Says the poster that no one except a doping denier agrees with on this thread, and whose proposal doesn't meet what CAS decided and never will. That's "unraveling".
My posting stats are not an argument. They have nothing to do with this thread. But in raising them it is you making this personal. You are a hypocrite - and a sanctimonious one, preaching to the boards about offering a break to a convicted doper.
I presented those stats in response to your statement that this thread was the “meaning of life” in reference to me and others who support Shelby. I was merely holding up a mirror to show your hypocrisy. Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Look at your user name. Taken with your unending posts - it is laughable that you suggested "calling it day" - it shows the extent of your obsession with that doper. But I can see how you identify with cheats and losers.
This post was edited 19 seconds after it was posted.
I presented those stats in response to your statement that this thread was the “meaning of life” in reference to me and others who support Shelby. I was merely holding up a mirror to show your hypocrisy. Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Look at your user name. Taken with your unending posts - it is laughable that you suggested "calling it day" - it shows the extent of your obsession with that doper. But I can see how you identify with cheats and losers.
Unending posts? You have posted at least 203 times in the last 4 days.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Not a single sentence in your post makes any sense or contains even a kernel of truth. You’re unraveling.
Says the poster that no one except a doping denier agrees with on this thread, and whose proposal doesn't meet what CAS decided and never will. That's "unraveling".
In hundreds of threads with a hundred posts of you, nobody agrees with you.
Yes, it’s the documented intent. I gave you the news articles and quotes to prove it. That you simply refuse to accept that reality shows you are unable to handle being wrong. So instead you deny, deflect, and insult. You’ve become predictable.
It isn't the intent, but you don't understand what that means. The "intent" is a legal term for what the rules determine in a decision - and these are above all legal decisions. The rules make no mention of missing the Olympics, so they are not the "intent" in any decision to ban an athlete.
You are wrong, again. The word “intent” can have many applications. People who write a rule have an intent for what the rule will accomplish.
I presented those stats in response to your statement that this thread was the “meaning of life” in reference to me and others who support Shelby. I was merely holding up a mirror to show your hypocrisy. Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Look at your user name. Taken with your unending posts - it is laughable that you suggested "calling it day" - it shows the extent of your obsession with that doper. But I can see how you identify with cheats and losers.
If you want to look at usernames, look at your own. You are obsessed with anything related to doping. I told you I would have stopped posting if you did. You didn’t stop because you just can’t help yourself. You live for this stuff, and your posting record shows it.
Not a single sentence in your post makes any sense or contains even a kernel of truth. You’re unraveling.
Says the poster that no one except a doping denier agrees with on this thread, and whose proposal doesn't meet what CAS decided and never will. That's "unraveling".
Unraveling is the way you say increasingly outlandish things and are becoming increasingly upset about getting proven wrong and being humiliated. It’s amusing to watch.
Look at your user name. Taken with your unending posts - it is laughable that you suggested "calling it day" - it shows the extent of your obsession with that doper. But I can see how you identify with cheats and losers.
Unending posts? You have posted at least 203 times in the last 4 days.
I am not the OP who repeatedly argues that a convicted doper should be allowed to return to competition before their ban is up. My posts are in response to his. However what is reassuring to those who prefer to clean up the sport is that his proposal will go nowhere.
Says the poster that no one except a doping denier agrees with on this thread, and whose proposal doesn't meet what CAS decided and never will. That's "unraveling".
Unraveling is the way you say increasingly outlandish things and are becoming increasingly upset about getting proven wrong and being humiliated. It’s amusing to watch.
Not as amusing as knowing your farcical proposal will get nowhere. You're a clown who doesn't get the joke is on him.
Look at your user name. Taken with your unending posts - it is laughable that you suggested "calling it day" - it shows the extent of your obsession with that doper. But I can see how you identify with cheats and losers.
If you want to look at usernames, look at your own. You are obsessed with anything related to doping. I told you I would have stopped posting if you did. You didn’t stop because you just can’t help yourself. You live for this stuff, and your posting record shows it.
My posts are in response to yours. You can't stop posting. My username is in recognition that doping remains in sport and especially this one. With the excuses you make for a convicted doper it is easy to see why.
It isn't the intent, but you don't understand what that means. The "intent" is a legal term for what the rules determine in a decision - and these are above all legal decisions. The rules make no mention of missing the Olympics, so they are not the "intent" in any decision to ban an athlete.
You are wrong, again. The word “intent” can have many applications. People who write a rule have an intent for what the rule will accomplish.
The common use of the term is irrelevant to how it is used legally - which is the case of a ban. But you won't know that, it would require training you don't have.
Says the poster that no one except a doping denier agrees with on this thread, and whose proposal doesn't meet what CAS decided and never will. That's "unraveling".
In hundreds of threads with a hundred posts of you, nobody agrees with you.
So aside from the doping apologist OP, who else has posted on this thread that Houlihan should be allowed to return to competition a year before her ban is up so she can compete in Paris?
Unraveling is the way you say increasingly outlandish things and are becoming increasingly upset about getting proven wrong and being humiliated. It’s amusing to watch.
Not as amusing as knowing your farcical proposal will get nowhere. You're a clown who doesn't get the joke is on him.
He is not a clown. He is a person with an opinion. It is you who can't stand people who have different opinions.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.