Shelby Houlihan GoFundMe goes home DEVASTATED!!!

Armstronglivs wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

…

a) "possible" was CAS's word for that "she was handed a burrito containing pork meat" - see 101

and more importantly CAS also concluded

b) "possible but improbable that the meat of an uncastrated boar ended up in the burrito that the Athlete ate" - see 106

and

c) "possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels." - see 109

and

d) "possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples" - see 114

That terrible word "improbable" just keeps cropping up in the decision. But the terminally dyslexic here - rekrunner and liar soorer - are unable to read it.

What did not crop up is “zero probability”.

Had you said “improbable or unlikely”, or had you attributed it to the World Athletics, or the AIU, we would not be discussing this.

But instead, you fabricated a view that no one held, and attributed it to the CAS, and you want to blame me for your knowledge and comprehension failures.

… “possible” directly contradicts “zero probability”.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

How is FartKing getting with this bit of graduate reading.

Has Armstronglivs got round to it yet. I first posted it a week ago ( approx )?

How ‘has Armstronglivs got in with it.

P10 is a simplistic guide.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Has Armstronglivs got round to it yet. I first posted it a week ago ( approx )?

How ‘has Armstronglivs got in with it.

P10 is a simplistic guide.

I await.

You are assuming that the only time a doper has doped is when they were caught. Given the nature of doping, it is unlikely to be a one-off. But even to dope once is to be a doper - to cheat once is to have still cheated.

A crime is also a crime - it is not a minor infraction of the law. To commit a crime is by definition to be a criminal; it doesn't depend on the number of crimes committed - one crime is enough. A murderer only needs kill once to be a murderer.

In sports, doping is not a minor misdemeanor or a mere technical infraction of the rules; it is to deliberately take a banned substance to gain unfair advantage, which will result in a ban from the sport. As prohibited substances don't occur naturally the presumption is that the athlete is responsible for how the drug comes to be in their body unless they can show on the balance of probabilities it wasn't through their actions or their negligence. That isn't an impossible test for an innocent athlete.

rekrunner wrote:

… “possible” directly contradicts “zero probability”.

The phrase used by the AIU, which I directly quoted, was "near-zero" probability. That's pretty close to zero, is it not? The description by CAS was "possible but highly improbable". The latter term rules the former as highly unlikely. She loses - and you lose - because of a failure to meet the test of probability. An absolute standard is not required.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That terrible word "improbable" just keeps cropping up in the decision. But the terminally dyslexic here - rekrunner and liar soorer - are unable to read it.

What did not crop up is “zero probability”.

Had you said “improbable or unlikely”, or had you attributed it to the World Athletics, or the AIU, we would not be discussing this.

But instead, you fabricated a view that no one held, and attributed it to the CAS, and you want to blame me for your knowledge and comprehension failures.

I quoted from the CAS decision, which contained the AIU statement of "near-zero" probability, you lying f*ckwit. CAS did not differ with or reject that description but accorded with it by dismissing Houlihan's case as "highly improbable". So, was CAS correct - was her excuse improbable?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

What did not crop up is “zero probability”.

Had you said “improbable or unlikely”, or had you attributed it to the World Athletics, or the AIU, we would not be discussing this.

But instead, you fabricated a view that no one held, and attributed it to the CAS, and you want to blame me for your knowledge and comprehension failures.

I quoted from the CAS decision, which contained the AIU statement of "near-zero" probability, you lying f*ckwit. CAS did not differ with or reject that description but accorded with it by dismissing Houlihan's case as "highly improbable". So, was CAS correct - was her excuse improbable?

f

Foul insults ; you should be banned.

The problem was that the AIU summary position was presented as if it was what CAS actual said as their opinion.

You know this but still lie.

Innocent of other possible offences until charged and proven.

Read the Nandrolone Tech Doc and you will find you are wrong.

We don’t call some one for a minor criminal offence a criminal in normal discourse… do we ?

It was the only one with fanciful and dubious evidence, that did not convince the Panel because the evidence was unconvincing - it was the doping equivalent of 'the dog ate my homework'. The evidence that ensured her conviction was an incontrovertible test that confirmed the presence in her body of a banned substance. From her failure to show accidental contamination that left only an intentional act; like the remnants of a meal in her stomach the safe assumption is that it was from her consuming it - and not being force-fed or some other cause beyond her volition.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Is she a doper?" is an ambiguous question? Only to a doping denier. I could just as easily ask, is she a runner or even is she a woman? So ambiguous.

If I ask you a question I am asking it of you only. But then, as we see on thread after thread, this is a question you will do anything to avoid answering.

Since you are asking, I’d first like to know what your question means.

It is you who does everything to avoid clarifying your question.

If we don’t have a common understanding, then the simple yes or simple no that you seek will be ambiguous.

Surely you possess the minimum intelligence to understand that.

Don’t you?

WADA made it ambiguous by altering the definition of doping to include many acts I would not call doping.

Almost all of what WADA defines as doping you would not call doping.

Of course you don't know what my question means: doping doesn't exist - so how can Houlihan be a doper?

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I quoted from the CAS decision, which contained the AIU statement of "near-zero" probability, you lying f*ckwit. CAS did not differ with or reject that description but accorded with it by dismissing Houlihan's case as "highly improbable". So, was CAS correct - was her excuse improbable?

f

Foul insults ; you should be banned.

The problem was that the AIU summary position was presented as if it was what CAS actual said as their opinion.

You know this but still lie.

If there was a ban for lying you and rekrunner would have been flushed down the latrine long ago. You have been repeatedly unable to show where CAS rejected the AIU submissions - which it effectively endorsed otherwise Houlihan would have met the necessary standard of probability. She didn't.

Yes, we do - but you don't because you defend the wrongdoer, as you show with the doping argument. In sports, a doping offence is not a minor infraction.

A doper need only be convicted of one offence - doping, which is the taking of a banned substance. No other offences need be proven.

I also add that Wada ban substances that have no performance help.But you no this but still contort.

Is a whereabouts offence cheating?

Armstronglivs wrote:

I quoted from the CAS decision, which contained the AIU statement of "near-zero" probability, you lying f*ckwit. CAS did not differ with or reject that description but accorded with it by dismissing Houlihan's case as "highly improbable". So, was CAS correct - was her excuse improbable?

Actually you linked to and quoted from “insidethegames.biz”.

You attributed that view to the CAS, although your link said “the full decision says”.

When I pointed out your error, you tried to interpret it for me, with “It essentially says there is a zero likelihood”.

Then I pointed out that error — in essence it does not say “zero likelihood”.

Now you are rudely calling me a liar, because of your own failures to accurately describe the situation.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It was the only one with fanciful and dubious evidence, that did not convince the Panel because the evidence was unconvincing - it was the doping equivalent of 'the dog ate my homework'. The evidence that ensured her conviction was an incontrovertible test that confirmed the presence in her body of a banned substance. From her failure to show accidental contamination that left only an intentional act; like the remnants of a meal in her stomach the safe assumption is that it was from her consuming it - and not being force-fed or some other cause beyond her volition.

You only asked me to consider the subset of possibilities with evidence presented to the CAS.

Out of all one of the possibility, I gave you the one and only possibility that is inarguably the most probable.

One other possibility was proposed, but without any evidence.

The evidence of the test result of the presence of nandrolone is not evidence of the source of the nandrolone. You keep conflating the criteria for violation with the criteria for length of sanction.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I quoted from the CAS decision, which contained the AIU statement of "near-zero" probability, you lying f*ckwit. CAS did not differ with or reject that description but accorded with it by dismissing Houlihan's case as "highly improbable". So, was CAS correct - was her excuse improbable?

Actually you linked to and quoted from “insidethegames.biz”.

You attributed that view to the CAS, although your link said “the full decision says”.

When I pointed out your error, you tried to interpret it for me, with “It essentially says there is a zero likelihood”.

Then I pointed out that error — in essence it does not say “zero likelihood”.

Now you are rudely calling me a liar, because of your own failures to accurately describe the situation.

I agree and he has been told this a multiplicity of times.

That he persists makes him a liar and a cheat.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Innocent of other possible offences until charged and proven.

Read the Nandrolone Tech Doc and you will find you are wrong.

We don’t call some one for a minor criminal offence a criminal in normal discourse… do we ?

Yes, we do - but you don't because you defend the wrongdoer, as you show with the doping argument. In sports, a doping offence is not a minor infraction.

A doper need only be convicted of one offence - doping, which is the taking of a banned substance. No other offences need be proven.

Another contorted evasive response that tries to assume much that has not been said.

How would you apply proportionality as required by the Wada code. Oh! You refuse to read the Code.

This appears to be a tender subject for some……