Shelby Houlihan GoFundMe goes home DEVASTATED!!!

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

I have said I would have found her guilty.

But you just refuse to read, Even the rules.

Guilty of what? Not doping.

The charge she faced.

I have said this many times but you refuse to read. But then you need time to work on your next set of vile insults that should have you banned.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

You don’t bother as you would have to read and engage on the rules.

Houlihan is still losing. Like you.

Why won’t you read the rules rather than issuing vile insults.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Apparently they are stronger than you.

Whatever your excuse, the points stand uncontested.

You can't tell the difference between uncontested and ignored. You have lost every argument. Shelby's loss confirms it.

Still think you know more than WADA without reading.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Doping apologist ; what are they.?

Idiots, liars and defenders of cheats. Like you.

More insults and demonstrations of lack of reading.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Idiots, liars and defenders of cheats. Like you.

More insults and demonstrations of lack of reading.

Never defended a cheat. Why do you lie?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Apparently they are stronger than you.

Whatever your excuse, the points stand uncontested.

You can't tell the difference between uncontested and ignored. You have lost every argument. Shelby's loss confirms it.

I guess in la-la land the winner is the one who plugs there ears and shouts the loudest “la la la I can’t hear you”, and “I know you are, but what am I?” and “I’m rubber and you’re glue …” then declare themselves the winner of a contest they also claim they ignored and couldn’t be bothered with.

I do not argue that Shelby didn’t lose, nor that Shelby is not banned for 4 years.

The loss, and the 4-year ban, are given in all of my posts.

I argue how and why these things happened, and why we cannot infer beyond that, no matter how hard we wish.

“Uncontested” and “ignored” are not contradictory.

They are certainly “uncontested”.

It is speculative whether they were “ignored” by someone with the capability to choose.

I simply cannot lose any argument with you that you have ignored and can’t be bothered with.

If you choose not to engage intellectually, I will simply presume reluctant and tacit agreement with all of my arguments that you cannot rebut and cannot contest, because you simply don’t have the required knowledge.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong with objective evidence.

1) OK, Shelby claimed that the lab treated her as "cheat". She didn't say "drug cheat", but obviously that was about cheating with a drug, namely nandrolone.

2) You were also wrong by calling it "baseless".

Webster:

Here we are obviously well beyond baseless rumors. Bases in fact in this case include:

1) She tested positive for nandrolone, well above the limit of 2 ng/ml, a drug forbidden at all times.

2) The Wada lab judged that to be an AAF.

3) AIU provisionally suspended her.

4) AIU charged her with possession and use of said forbidden drug.

5) CAS banned her for an intention ADRV, namely possession and use of said forbidden drug.

"baseless", LOL. You might be able to claim with a straight face that her cheating is only proven to 99.99999999999999%, but "baseless"? An absurd statement, considering all those facts.

LOL - that is obviously wrong too. Will you now start redefining "baseless" as not 100% proven to pretend you were not wrong again?

Baseless as Wada don’t rule on intent.

And appalling if the lab was deemed to make value judgements at all and when only a AAF at that stage.

Read the rules.

Will” casual” please answer repeated question about allegation that SH’s hormone levels showed long term use. Or apology for a big lie.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Guilty of what? Not doping.

The charge she faced.

I have said this many times but you refuse to read. But then you need time to work on your next set of vile insults that should have you banned.

So the charge had nothing to do with doping?

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Houlihan is still losing. Like you.

Why won’t you read the rules rather than issuing vile insults.

But you don't understand the rules. You don't understand anything.

From your arguments we would never know why Houlihan has been banned for 4 years, since you refuse to admit she is a doper.

liar soorer wrote:

Baseless as Wada don’t rule on intent.

And appalling if the lab was deemed to make value judgements at all and when only a AAF at that stage.

Read the rules.

Yet CAS ruled it was an intentional ADRV.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Why won’t you read the rules rather than issuing vile insults.

But you don't understand the rules. You don't understand anything.

Why don’t you read the rules rather than issuing insults many if which are vile.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Baseless as Wada don’t rule on intent.

And appalling if the lab was deemed to make value judgements at all and when only a AAF at that stage.

Read the rules.

Yet CAS ruled it was an intentional ADRV.

Read the rules esp about Doc Package TD.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

The charge she faced.

I have said this many times but you refuse to read. But then you need time to work on your next set of vile insults that should have you banned.

So the charge had nothing to do with doping?

No! That is 100% correct.

liar soorer wrote:

Will” casual” please answer repeated question about allegation that SH’s hormone levels showed long term use. Or apology for a big lie.

Answer?

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

I have said I would have found her guilty.

But you just refuse to read, Even the rules.

Guilty of what? Not doping.

Never charged with doping, ever , never , ever.

Read the rules.

Sorry but you are still wrong. There was no effort to prove “drug cheat”, so it remains very close to zero percent proven. Webster: “having no basis in reason or fact” rekrunner: “baseless rumor that the athlete cheated” From your link, we don’t really know what the WADA lab called her, because they were not quoted, and they are not otherwise on record as calling her a “drug cheat”. It’s not the first time your argument relies on what we don’t know to be considered established fact. Your high quantity/low quality list of bases in facts are bases for “rule violations”, and not “drug cheat”, because the elements required to call it cheating were not required, alleged, argued, demonstrated, or proved. (You keep naming “possession”, but rule 2.1 is “presence”). The only thing you got right was “not in those very words”. If the words were “rule violation”, instead of “drug cheat”, then your post would make some sense, but would also be awkward and unnecessary. So many say they are content and happy that she received a 4-year ban, but the fact that so many feel some unfulfilled need to choose other words that mean different things, without providing any basis for doing so, suggests that they are not happy with how little can be inferred from a 4-year ban, from a process that did not identify the source, and did not demonstrate intent.