Shelby Houlihan GoFundMe goes home DEVASTATED!!!

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

No, not as defined or understood by every medical textbook or teaching hospital regarding urine.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

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.

The CAS Panel said an intentional ADRV. That's the part an odious doping denier refuses to see. And you are truly odious, as well as being devoid of reason.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

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?

The digestive system doesn't end at the stomach - or we would all be dead. You are truly an A-grade moron. But your stupid attempted pedantry aside, the drug was found in her body as the result of her consuming it. So that is why she has been banned.

Never said it ended with the stomach; why lie ?

And why an insult.

You seem to know more than all medical text books and medical schools.

And no drugs were found in any part of her body. Read the rules prior to posting.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

I add that the CAS panel must be stupid as well as me following your thinking.

The CAS Panel said an intentional ADRV. That's the part an odious doping denier refuses to see. And you are truly odious, as well as being devoid of reason.

CAS never said that !

Why do you continue to lie.

And then insults that should see you banned.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The digestive system doesn't end at the stomach - or we would all be dead. You are truly an A-grade moron. But your stupid attempted pedantry aside, the drug was found in her body as the result of her consuming it. So that is why she has been banned.

Never said it ended with the stomach; why lie ?

And why an insult.

You seem to know more than all medical text books and medical schools.

And no drugs were found in any part of her body. Read the rules prior to posting.

The urinary tract isn't part of the body? In your case, I would suggest you have a bowel where the brain should be.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The CAS Panel said an intentional ADRV. That's the part an odious doping denier refuses to see. And you are truly odious, as well as being devoid of reason.

CAS never said that !

Why do you continue to lie.

And then insults that should see you banned.

You are truly a barefaced liar. That is exactly what CAS said.

Shelby messaged. She wants you to stop defending her. You're making it doubly embarrassing for her.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

CAS never said that !

Why do you continue to lie.

And then insults that should see you banned.

You are truly a barefaced liar. That is exactly what CAS said.

Deemed in the context only of rule 10.

Thus some who had many AAF’ s would not plead Rule 10 and would never be defined as intentional. Too difficult?

Banned yet for vile insults?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Shelby messaged. She wants you to stop defending her. You're making it doubly embarrassing for her.

Told you many times that I would have found her guilty.

Why won’t you read?

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Never said it ended with the stomach; why lie ?

And why an insult.

You seem to know more than all medical text books and medical schools.

And no drugs were found in any part of her body. Read the rules prior to posting.

The urinary tract isn't part of the body? In your case, I would suggest you have a bowel where the brain should be.

Yes it is part of; never said otherwise; why come up with an other lie?

Read the Nandrolone Tec Doc.

More vile insults!

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

I add that the CAS panel must be stupid as well as me following your thinking.

The CAS Panel said an intentional ADRV. That's the part an odious doping denier refuses to see. And you are truly odious, as well as being devoid of reason.

Said “deemed “ and only in the context of rule 10.

More insults.

Should be banned.

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.

Recall just yesterday, you said: “…an athlete is found with a banned drug in their digestive system”

to which I said: “The banned drug was found in her urine”

Then you said: “waste elimination (is) part of the digestive system”.

I said apparently not the bladder, and not the urine.

Now you say “(got) into” and “through the digestive system”.

And you say I “deny it was through the digestive system”, and accuse me of “contradiction”.

I did not contradict me, and neither did you.

Why do you keep changing your story? If you meant “got into” and “through”, that is not what you said.

If you forget your words from yesterday, how can we rely on anything you say that is more than 1 day old?

Armstronglivs says that all medical text books are wrong.

And yet this person thinks he can comment of Wada rules that he has never read.

Armstronglivs says that all medical text books are wrong.

And yet this person thinks he can comment of Wada rules that he has never read.

Contractions abound with the man who knows more about the body then every medical school.

Then compounded by lies and vile insults.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs says that all medical text books are wrong.

And yet this person thinks he can comment of Wada rules that he has never read.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs says that all medical text books are wrong.

And yet this person thinks he can comment of Wada rules that he has never read.

I recall a rumour of some years ago that a certain steroid was only excreted in poo. Thus Mr A maybe right.

We wondered what position the drug tester would take to watch the poo leaving the body without being covered in it.

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.

I never said there was an effort to prove drug cheat. There was none, because there was no need, not because she isn't a drug cheat.

rekrunner wrote:

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”).

Presence, yes thank you, don't know why possession was on my mind.

But as for the rest, I disagree 100%.

Getting banned for an "intentional ADRV" with a forbidden anabolic steroid is - at the absolute minimum - a basis to be a drug cheat, whether "intentional" was deemed or presumed or concluded or proven.

I really don't see how you could seriously argue against that, unless you view "basis" as equivalent to "proof". This is getting absurd.

See for example here:

Some of those " top ten most notorious drug cheats" weren't "proven" to be cheats either, using your definition. Same goes for Gatlin, Kiprop, Jeptoo etc.

Deemed intentional only for the purposes of Rule10.

The Wada code is explicit they do not rule on mens rea .

Do read; study and ingest.

You may wish WADA did but but WADA does not.

I repeat I would wish they did.

That fannytix goes beyond WADA does not make such correct.