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.[/quote]
You should be very happy then, because it happens every time you open your mouth.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
More insults and demonstrations of lack of reading.
Never defended a cheat. Why do you lie?
Shelby Houlihan = doping cheat.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So the charge had nothing to do with doping?
No! That is 100% correct.
Banned for 4 years for an intentional ADRV. You need psychiatric help.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Guilty of what? Not doping.
Never charged with doping, ever , never , ever.
Read the rules.
I wonder why she was found guilty of a doping offence then - an intentional ADRV?
Armstronglivs wrote:
From your arguments we would never know why Houlihan has been banned for 4 years, since you refuse to admit she is a doper.
When you say “we would never know”, you can only speak for yourself.
The CAS was able to explain in 44 pages why she was banned for 4 years, without once calling her a doper.
I haven’t refused anything — as a matter of fact it was you who have consistently refused to clarify which definition you meant, except once to say tautologically “doper means Houlihan”, rendering the question self-answering, and once to have me define “doper” based on what I understand, after telling me what I understand doesn’t interest you.
Regardless, I covered all the bases, and gave you two admissions, one based on WADA’s definition, and one on Merriam-Webster’s.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
casual obsever wrote:
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?
An intentional ADRV is a drug cheat. Just as that is proven so you prove out of your own mouth by denying it that you are doping apologist.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I wonder why she was found guilty of a doping offence then - an intentional ADRV?
It’s easy to see why you wonder so much.
Armstronglivs wrote:
An intentional ADRV is a drug cheat. Just as that is proven so you prove out of your own mouth by denying it that you are doping apologist.
Maybe according to your religion.
Recall “intentional ADRV” is something to be interpreted in the narrow frame of the WADA Code, while “drug cheat” has no meaning in that frame.
But even if it were true, recall that “intent” was not proven, but presumed and deemed without basis. So it follows that, at best, “drug cheat” is equally not proven, but presumed and deemed without basis.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
From your arguments we would never know why Houlihan has been banned for 4 years, since you refuse to admit she is a doper.
When you say “we would never know”, you can only speak for yourself.
The CAS was able to explain in 44 pages why she was banned for 4 years, without once calling her a doper.
I haven’t refused anything — as a matter of fact it was you who have consistently refused to clarify which definition you meant, except once to say tautologically “doper means Houlihan”, rendering the question self-answering, and once to have me define “doper” based on what I understand, after telling me what I understand doesn’t interest you.
Regardless, I covered all the bases, and gave you two admissions, one based on WADA’s definition, and one on Merriam-Webster’s.
So Houlihan is not a doper then?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I wonder why she was found guilty of a doping offence then - an intentional ADRV?
It’s easy to see why you wonder so much.
So she wasn't found guilty of an intentional ADRV?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
An intentional ADRV is a drug cheat. Just as that is proven so you prove out of your own mouth by denying it that you are doping apologist.
Maybe according to your religion.
Recall “intentional ADRV” is something to be interpreted in the narrow frame of the WADA Code, while “drug cheat” has no meaning in that frame.
But even if it were true, recall that “intent” was not proven, but presumed and deemed without basis. So it follows that, at best, “drug cheat” is equally not proven, but presumed and deemed without basis.
An intentional ADRV is not a drug cheat then? If that is so then it appears WADA has no interest in catching drug cheats - it simply wants to stop athletes eating Mexican takeaways.
How on earth can WADA have presumed intent when an athlete is found with a banned drug in their digestive system? We all know that it gets there by some sort of miracle that doesn't involve the athlete. Eating a burrito obviously requires intent but doping doesn't - it is always accidental.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I wonder why she was found guilty of a doping offence then - an intentional ADRV?
It’s easy to see why you wonder so much.
You put so much time and effort into being wrong. Just move on.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Maybe according to your religion.
Recall “intentional ADRV” is something to be interpreted in the narrow frame of the WADA Code, while “drug cheat” has no meaning in that frame.
But even if it were true, recall that “intent” was not proven, but presumed and deemed without basis. So it follows that, at best, “drug cheat” is equally not proven, but presumed and deemed without basis.
An intentional ADRV is not a drug cheat then? If that is so then it appears WADA has no interest in catching drug cheats - it simply wants to stop athletes eating Mexican takeaways.
How on earth can WADA have presumed intent when an athlete is found with a banned drug in their digestive system? We all know that it gets there by some sort of miracle that doesn't involve the athlete. Eating a burrito obviously requires intent but doping doesn't - it is always accidental.
You have been told dozens of times that Wada does not rule on intent only that substances are present.
You may then jump to implications but Wada does not.
I would very much prefer to intent and thus cheating to be explicit within the rules.
If you bothered to read that published by Wada and USADA you would realise that they are fully aware of innocent presence.
Why will you not engage with that written by Wada eg The Rules.
Sorry…. Prefer they ruled on intent.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It’s easy to see why you wonder so much.
So she wasn't found guilty of an intentional ADRV?
Deemed intent for 10.2.3 and subject to comment on such as expressed in the rules.
The overriding rule is that it a non intent code.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
When you say “we would never know”, you can only speak for yourself.
The CAS was able to explain in 44 pages why she was banned for 4 years, without once calling her a doper.
I haven’t refused anything — as a matter of fact it was you who have consistently refused to clarify which definition you meant, except once to say tautologically “doper means Houlihan”, rendering the question self-answering, and once to have me define “doper” based on what I understand, after telling me what I understand doesn’t interest you.
Regardless, I covered all the bases, and gave you two admissions, one based on WADA’s definition, and one on Merriam-Webster’s.
So Houlihan is not a doper then?
No idea; prefer the Code was set out to determine intent and even then habitual.
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
You should be very happy then, because it happens every time you open your mouth.[/quote]
Meaningless drivel .
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
No! That is 100% correct.
Banned for 4 years for an intentional ADRV. You need psychiatric help.
Does not rule on doping on that substance present.Not my fault the rules are a mess.
Engage on the rules and no insults.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
An intentional ADRV is a drug cheat. Just as that is proven so you prove out of your own mouth by denying it that you are doping apologist.
Maybe according to your religion.
Recall “intentional ADRV” is something to be interpreted in the narrow frame of the WADA Code, while “drug cheat” has no meaning in that frame.
But even if it were true, recall that “intent” was not proven, but presumed and deemed without basis. So it follows that, at best, “drug cheat” is equally not proven, but presumed and deemed without basis.
100% correct
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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.
An intentional ADRV is a drug cheat. Just as that is proven so you prove out of your own mouth by denying it that you are doping apologist.
Mangled English .