Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Never defended a cheat. Why do you lie?
Shelby Houlihan = doping cheat.
Wish it was the basis of the rules ; but it is not.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Never defended a cheat. Why do you lie?
Shelby Houlihan = doping cheat.
Wish it was the basis of the rules ; but it is not.
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.
That is correct, as I have just explained.
WADA does have an interest in catching drug cheats. This interest caused them to relax the requirements for prosecution to make it easier to convict both the guilty and the innocent who cannot prove “not intentional”.
The WADA Code presumes intent for all athletes seeking a sanction reduction under 10.2.1.1.
The banned drug was found in her urine, not in her digestive system.
Please try to keep up — I’ve said all of these things before.
the macdaddy og yoo wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It’s easy to see why you wonder so much.
You put so much time and effort into being wrong. Just move on.
I’m not that bothered if I am wrong about something, or even about everything.
I would be interested if someone could show me which part is wrong, with real arguments, and sound logic, rather than yet another anonymous poster making a baseless declaration, or committing some kind of logic fail.
Until then …
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
That is correct, as I have just explained.
WADA does have an interest in catching drug cheats. This interest caused them to relax the requirements for prosecution to make it easier to convict both the guilty and the innocent who cannot prove “not intentional”.
The WADA Code presumes intent for all athletes seeking a sanction reduction under 10.2.1.1.
The banned drug was found in her urine, not in her digestive system.
Please try to keep up — I’ve said all of these things before.
This means that if you are positive with loads of substances and don’t bother to try and get a reduced sanction then 10.2.3 does not a apply and thus there would be not a single reference to intent.I have made this explicit several times before.
Also para 10 in the 2015 Code did refer to “ cheat”, but such is removed in entirety in 2021 Code.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It’s funny how quickly you jump to accusations of “falsely claimed”, then completely fail to demonstrate any false claim from me.
Recall my statement was that “only “fans”” “call her a “drug cheat””, and that doing so would be “premature” and “baseless”....
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:
having no basis in reason or fact
baseless rumors that the baseball player was using steroids
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.
rekrunner wrote:
I’m always happy to be corrected if I am wrong, if you can demonstrate it.
LOL - that is obviously wrong too. Will you now start redefining "baseless" as not 100% proven to pretend you were not wrong again?
Of the five points only 2 and 3 are correct.
Why do you lie or are you incompetent?
Answer please.
I don't care if WADA rules on intent. I will right now. There is zero chance that substance gets into her system without her purposely putting it there.
Since WADA and CAS don't have the balls to say what she is, a dirty drug cheat I will.
If they had the balls they would proclaim what they should have. Shelby is a dirty cheater and will be banned for life.
ej38282838 wrote:
I don't care if WADA rules on intent. I will right now. There is zero chance that substance gets into her system without her purposely putting it there.
Since WADA and CAS don't have the balls to say what she is, a dirty drug cheat I will.
If they had the balls they would proclaim what they should have. Shelby is a dirty cheater and will be banned for life.
liar soorer wrote:
ej38282838 wrote:
I don't care if WADA rules on intent. I will right now. There is zero chance that substance gets into her system without her purposely putting it there.
Since WADA and CAS don't have the balls to say what she is, a dirty drug cheat I will.
If they had the balls they would proclaim what they should have. Shelby is a dirty cheater and will be banned for life.
Wada science says the opposite ref zero chance.
The banned drug was found in her urine, not in her digestive system.[/quote]
You've really topped yourself there. So waste elimination isn't part of the digestive system? In your case I would understand that since you are full of it.
I’m not that bothered if I am wrong about something, or even about everything.(quote)
Then nothing will bother you, since you are wrong about everything. You are truly a leader amongst the brain-dead here.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The banned drug was found in her urine, not in her digestive system.
You've really topped yourself there. So waste elimination isn't part of the digestive system? In your case I would understand that since you are full of it.[/quote]
Your biology is appalling.
And more foul excrement based insults.
Get banned.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I’m not that bothered if I am wrong about something, or even about everything.(quote)
Then nothing will bother you, since you are wrong about everything. You are truly a leader amongst the brain-dead here.
Childish response and more insults.
Get banned.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I’m not that bothered if I am wrong about something, or even about everything.(quote)
Then nothing will bother you, since you are wrong about everything. You are truly a leader amongst the brain-dead here.
You've got serious insecurity issues.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Shelby Houlihan = doping cheat.
Wish it was the basis of the rules ; but it is not.
So an intentional doping violation isn't cheating?
STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^"""-""""--'-"--^' wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I’m not that bothered if I am wrong about something, or even about everything.(quote)
Then nothing will bother you, since you are wrong about everything. You are truly a leader amongst the brain-dead here.
You've got serious insecurity issues.
Speaking of the brain-dead, here is one of them.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I’m not that bothered if I am wrong about something, or even about everything.(quote)
Then nothing will bother you, since you are wrong about everything. You are truly a leader amongst the brain-dead here.
Childish response and more insults.
Get banned.
It is Shelby who is banned.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The banned drug was found in her urine, not in her digestive system.
You've really topped yourself there. So waste elimination isn't part of the digestive system? In your case I would understand that since you are full of it.
Your biology is appalling.
And more foul excrement based insults.
Get banned.[/quote]
Like Shelby?
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
You've really topped yourself there. So waste elimination isn't part of the digestive system? In your case I would understand that since you are full of it.
Your biology is appalling.
And more foul excrement based insults.
Get banned.
Like Shelby?[/quote]
Yes
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Childish response and more insults.
Get banned.
It is Shelby who is banned.
And you should be.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Wish it was the basis of the rules ; but it is not.
So an intentional doping violation isn't cheating?
A deemed intentional or intentional violation?