liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your biology is appalling.
And more foul excrement based insults.
Get banned.
Like Shelby?
Yes[/quote]
So a doper should be banned?
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your biology is appalling.
And more foul excrement based insults.
Get banned.
Like Shelby?
Yes[/quote]
So a doper should be banned?
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is Shelby who is banned.
And you should be.
But I haven't cheated or doped.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So an intentional doping violation isn't cheating?
A deemed intentional or intentional violation?
So one of them is allowed?
shelby is a lying drug cheat.
urine is a product of the metabolic system, not the digestive tract, but most people would not distinguish since in this case, the substance was ingested via the digestive system.
shelby is still a lying drug cheat
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner 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.
I wonder how many topics there are where you speak so confidently without knowledge?
Maybe “waste elimination” is, but apparently the bladder and urine are not. It was found in her urine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_systemArmstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I’m not that bothered if I am wrong about something, or even about everything.
Then nothing will bother you, since you are wrong about everything. You are truly a leader amongst the brain-dead here.
I’m surely not bothered by your childish insults.
What would be interesting is if you could show me which part is wrong, with real arguments, and sound logic, rather than insults, baseless declarations, or logic fails.
But yeah, let’s go with you could do it if you wanted to, but are not interested and just can’t be bothered. That’s credible.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
A deemed intentional or intentional violation?
So one of them is allowed?
No! Why on earth do you ask that question?,
It would have been more productive if you had answered my question which followed from yours.Answer please.
pupil3142 wrote:
shelby is a lying drug cheat.
urine is a product of the metabolic system, not the digestive tract, but most people would not distinguish since in this case, the substance was ingested via the digestive system.
shelby is still a lying drug cheat
CAS took a different view.Found not to lie and not found to be s cheat.
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.
That settles it then. “ej38282838” has weighed in on the topic. We can all sleep easier now.
Can anyone rule on intent? Would you accept my rulings on intent, integrity, and honesty?
I think no one doubts she ordered and ate a burrito on purpose. Outside the context of the WADA Code, the unanswered questions to date are intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use. For one expressly limited sole purpose, the CAS presumed a temporary answer to intent, but remained silent on fault, negligence, or knowing use.
The WADA lab, the World Athletics, the AIU, and the CAS did not allege, or argue, or demonstrate the necessary elements for cheating, as it is not required by the WADA code in order to determine rule violations, so there would be no reason for them to say it, and no need for the balls you suggest are missing.
rekrunner 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.
That settles it then. “ej38282838” has weighed in on the topic. We can all sleep easier now.
Can anyone rule on intent? Would you accept my rulings on intent, integrity, and honesty?
I think no one doubts she ordered and ate a burrito on purpose. Outside the context of the WADA Code, the unanswered questions to date are intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use. For one expressly limited sole purpose, the CAS presumed a temporary answer to intent, but remained silent on fault, negligence, or knowing use.
The WADA lab, the World Athletics, the AIU, and the CAS did not allege, or argue, or demonstrate the necessary elements for cheating, as it is not required by the WADA code in order to determine rule violations, so there would be no reason for them to say it, and no need for the balls you suggest are missing.
CAS never said her offence was intentional. They said it that was deemed intentional within confines of 10.2..
And 10 et al makes it clear that intentional is only in the confines of 10.
For those who won’t study the rules they will be blind to this.
So… SH was never deem to have been guilty of an intentional violation. This is not pedantically but what the rules explicitly set out and referenced in the decision.
Obviously the above can’t be grasped by those who state that the bladder is part of the digestive system.
Yes… we really do have a poster who argues this.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs 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.
I wonder how many topics there are where you speak so confidently without knowledge?
Maybe “waste elimination” is, but apparently the bladder and urine are not. It was found in her urine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
So how does it get into her urinary tract if not through the digestive system i.e. something she ate or drank? It just turned up in her bladder, miraculously, from nowhere? She stuffed a pill up her urethra - or even more miraculously, someone else did and she didn't know? (Why?!How?) Or it was spontaneously generated? Further, if she ate a contaminated burrito there is only one way it got into her bladder. And yet you deny it was through the digestive tract. The contradictions that coexist in your cranium are truly certifiable.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I wonder how many topics there are where you speak so confidently without knowledge?
Maybe “waste elimination” is, but apparently the bladder and urine are not. It was found in her urine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_systemSo how does it get into her urinary tract if not through the digestive system i.e. something she ate or drank? It just turned up in her bladder, miraculously, from nowhere? She stuffed a pill up her urethra - or even more miraculously, someone else did and she didn't know? (Why?!How?) Or it was spontaneously generated? Further, if she ate a contaminated burrito there is only one way it got into her bladder. And yet you deny it was through the digestive tract. The contradictions that coexist in your cranium are truly certifiable.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So one of them is allowed?
No! Why on earth do you ask that question?,
It would have been more productive if you had answered my question which followed from yours.Answer please.
Why would you distinguish between them, unless to argue one of them isn't true?
liar soorer wrote:
Obviously the above can’t be grasped by those who state that the bladder is part of the digestive system.
Yes… we really do have a poster who argues this.
So elimination of waste products from eating and drinking isn't part of the digestive system? I would be interested to see how long you would last if that were so.
liar soorer wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That settles it then. “ej38282838” has weighed in on the topic. We can all sleep easier now.
Can anyone rule on intent? Would you accept my rulings on intent, integrity, and honesty?
I think no one doubts she ordered and ate a burrito on purpose. Outside the context of the WADA Code, the unanswered questions to date are intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use. For one expressly limited sole purpose, the CAS presumed a temporary answer to intent, but remained silent on fault, negligence, or knowing use.
The WADA lab, the World Athletics, the AIU, and the CAS did not allege, or argue, or demonstrate the necessary elements for cheating, as it is not required by the WADA code in order to determine rule violations, so there would be no reason for them to say it, and no need for the balls you suggest are missing.
CAS never said her offence was intentional. They said it that was deemed intentional within confines of 10.2..
And 10 et al makes it clear that intentional is only in the confines of 10.
For those who won’t study the rules they will be blind to this.
So… SH was never deem to have been guilty of an intentional violation. This is not pedantically but what the rules explicitly set out and referenced in the decision.
So you are saying that something deemed intentional is in fact the opposite of what it says - that it isn't in fact intentional. Yes - you are really that stupid.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So how does it get into her urinary tract if not through the digestive system i.e. something she ate or drank? It just turned up in her bladder, miraculously, from nowhere? She stuffed a pill up her urethra - or even more miraculously, someone else did and she didn't know? (Why?!How?) Or it was spontaneously generated? Further, if she ate a contaminated burrito there is only one way it got into her bladder. And yet you deny it was through the digestive tract. The contradictions that coexist in your cranium are truly certifiable.
Found not via or through.
And you said that the urinary system was part of the digestive system.
Why do you twist and try and lie yourself out of a massive error.
I repeat you support the view that that sample was from, yes FROM, he digestive system.
And what about the core of the post ie deemed. Too complicated for you?
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
CAS never said her offence was intentional. They said it that was deemed intentional within confines of 10.2..
And 10 et al makes it clear that intentional is only in the confines of 10.
For those who won’t study the rules they will be blind to this.
So… SH was never deem to have been guilty of an intentional violation. This is not pedantically but what the rules explicitly set out and referenced in the decision.
So you are saying that something deemed intentional is in fact the opposite of what it says - that it isn't in fact intentional. Yes - you are really that stupid.
In the context of 10.2 as set out in the decision then … yes. Never said it was the opposite; why lie.
But zero evidence you have read the rules.
liar soorer wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
shelby is a lying drug cheat.
urine is a product of the metabolic system, not the digestive tract, but most people would not distinguish since in this case, the substance was ingested via the digestive system.
shelby is still a lying drug cheat
CAS took a different view.Found not to lie and not found to be s cheat.
So coming up with an explanation that isn't believed isn't lying and being found with a performance enhancing drug in her body isn't cheating. Of course it isn't - to Shelby and her toadies like you.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So you are saying that something deemed intentional is in fact the opposite of what it says - that it isn't in fact intentional. Yes - you are really that stupid.
In the context of 10.2 as set out in the decision then … yes. Never said it was the opposite; why lie.
But zero evidence you have read the rules.
I add that the CAS panel must be stupid as well as me following your thinking.