Gidey just ran the single greatest female running performance ever... Give her the black page! Letesenbet MF Gidey 1:02:52

Armstronglivs, why is it such a big problem for you to admit when you are wrong on something (I'm not talking about this issue her, but generally).

Since years you are acting like a completely unmature person on this board. What's the point in doing so?

Autism? He and rekrunner and casual observer, etc should be quarantined together where they can circle jerk all day long instead of destroying decent threads with retarded unending argument.

You don't understand the rule that you keep mindlessly yapping about . Rule 10.2.3. says "intent" applies when the athlete knew they were committing a violation or knew there was a risk they would be committing a violation and were careless about doing so. Intent doesn't have to be proven. The athlete is responsible for what is found in their body. Following a confirmed positive test there is a presumption of intent unless the athlete can show there was no fault or negligence on their part. Houlihan couldn't, so the CAS Panel accordingly found she had committed an "intentional" violation. The logic is quite simple - except to a denier or a moron (and you are both). If the athlete cannot show the positive test was not their fault it could only be their fault - no one else's. In other words, the violation arose out of their choices - which, by definition, must be "intentional".

letsdrum wrote:

Armstronglivs, why is it such a big problem for you to admit when you are wrong on something (I'm not talking about this issue her, but generally).

Since years you are acting like a completely unmature person on this board. What's the point in doing so?

You should ask yourself that question. Actually most of the board should.

(banned) anuti wrote:

Autism? He and rekrunner and casual observer, etc should be quarantined together where they can circle jerk all day long instead of destroying decent threads with retarded unending argument.

Try defining "decent threads".

More illustration that this poster has not read the rules.Rules he refuses to read and then creates cascades of lies about.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

This is the man who refuses to read 10.2.3.

The panel never upheld the penalty ; you just keep lying.

Try lying your way out of this. Spot the word "intentional" used by the CAS Panel, and the 4-year ban it imposed.

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/shelby-houlihan-found-guilty-of-an-anti-doping-rule-violation-by-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport/

"Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021. The CAS Panel has issued its decision only, without the grounds which will be notified in short order."

• This media release was published by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 15 June 2021. Click here for the original.

You continue to lie, misconstrue, distort and

misquote and show that your intended perspective of not bothering to read the rules are completely born out.

Thus the post above functions and is intended to be a lie.

Go away.

Says the person who lies and will not read.

Go away.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

This is the man who refuses to read 10.2.3.

The panel never upheld the penalty ; you just keep lying.

Try lying your way out of this. Spot the word "intentional" used by the CAS Panel, and the 4-year ban it imposed.

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/shelby-houlihan-found-guilty-of-an-anti-doping-rule-violation-by-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport/

"Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021. The CAS Panel has issued its decision only, without the grounds which will be notified in short order."

• This media release was published by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 15 June 2021. Click here for the original.

Liar again.

Panel never upheld anything.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Try lying your way out of this. Spot the word "intentional" used by the CAS Panel, and the 4-year ban it imposed.

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/shelby-houlihan-found-guilty-of-an-anti-doping-rule-violation-by-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport/

"Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021. The CAS Panel has issued its decision only, without the grounds which will be notified in short order."

• This media release was published by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 15 June 2021. Click here for the original.

Liar again.

Panel never upheld anything.

Tell that to the Sports Integrity Unit - and CAS.

Actually, you are quite insane.

So now we have established you haven't read the Rules.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

More illustration that this poster has not read the rules.Rules he refuses to read and then creates cascades of lies about.

So now we have established you haven't read the Rules.

Have you read about no fault positives?

No cos you refuse to read and then lie to cover up

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Liar again.

Panel never upheld anything.

Tell that to the Sports Integrity Unit - and CAS.

Actually, you are quite insane.

The panel never upheld anything.

Why do you continue lying.

The CAS is like a court, with many similarities and significant differences.

WADA re-defines doping as any rule violation -- Bravo. How do I "lose" when I have told you exactly that many times, and you are really just parroting what I said?

"Presumption of innocence" can be applied in any situation where the choice between innocent and guilty is to be made -- not just criminal courts.

Any "Presumption of intent" as used by the CAS and WADA, can solely be used for the purpose of Article 10.2.

I also told you many times that Houlihan couldn't meet the legal burden required.

You have lost the plot. Do you even remember what you were arguing? We weren't talking about rule violations, or criminal courts, but whether alternatives were "ruled out" and whether "intent" was established as an objective fact.

You said "ruled out" but the CAS did not rule out the possibility of ingestion by burrito.

You said "the only likely and therefore most probable explanation", as if any explanations were entirely ruled out, and as if the likeliness of any alternatives were evaluated as more likely.

Here you presume too much.

Because intent is presumed, no specific details have been established.

This prevents everyone from concluding any specific details about the nature of Houlihan's actions, beyond the narrow purpose of Article 10.2.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Why do you triple-down on ignorance? The CAS doesn’t determine “credibility” at all, except of course when they called Houlihan credible.

As I have shown, reporting the negative result as an AAF rather than an ATF was a subjective interpretation of the TD, and “intentional” is not a finding, nor an objective fact, but merely a presumption established by contract.

The decision is clear. The WADA rules are clear. It boggles my mind that you do not understand their limits.

You completely duck the point that "the balance of probability" is not an argument of percentages, as you have previously maintained, and you can find no reference in the decision to percentages accorded to any argument before the panel. Your falsehoods never cease.

You clearly asked about percentages of credibility. Since credibility was not determined, something I fully addressed, there are also no percentages of credibility to be found. You are right -- I cannot find what the CAS did not attempt to determine.

With respect to intent, the athlete has to meet the burden "balance of probabilities". This is described in many law firms as a likelihood of "greater than 50%". Your ignorance of the law is truly stupefying. Here is a paper that might help you understand how that works:

In the same vein, the CAS confirming something is possible means a non-zero probability greater than 0%.

When the CAS finds that Houlihan's explanation is possible, but did not meet the burden of "balance of probabilities", this gives us both the upper (not greater than 50%) and lower bound (greater than 0%) of the likelihood actually determined by CAS, based on the limited evidence before them.

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

Armstronglivs, why is it such a big problem for you to admit when you are wrong on something (I'm not talking about this issue her, but generally).

Since years you are acting like a completely unmature person on this board. What's the point in doing so?

You should ask yourself that question. Actually most of the board should.

This illustrates my point very well. You are following my posts for years? No? But you know that I never admit when I'm wrong on something?

What's wrong with you?

letsdrum wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You should ask yourself that question. Actually most of the board should.

This illustrates my point very well. You are following my posts for years? No? But you know that I never admit when I'm wrong on something?

What's wrong with you?

He is an illiterate compulsive liar. And had admitted such.

But he refuses to read the rules or around the subject; so what do you expect from the person who has contaminated so many threads.

That's progress. Yet you need to read the Article once again more closely.

Besides being "specially" redefined solely for the purpose of Article 10.2, it is also greatly relaxed, by starting out with "... is meant to identify ...". 10.2.3 explains the wishful thinking behind the usage of the word "intentional".

The consequence of "presumption of intent", means we cannot be sure, out here in the real world, that Houlihan engaged in the conduct that is meant by WADA.

It is precisely the "presumption" that makes it so weak -- there is no data, no evidence, no proof, no arguments, no findings, and no conclusions, no anything, of real world substance.

We are all left to imagine -- did Houlihan engage in such conduct? What conduct exactly? Did she know it was, or it risked, being a violation? There was no burden to find out, so this is all left to everyone's imagination.

The CAS is free to presume that such conduct that meets what is meant by WADA happened, whether it really happened or not, for the purpose of Article 10.2.