Ps
Anything from you about SH results showing long term use due to he hormone levels.
Or is it an apology?
Or did you mean to lie?
Ps
Anything from you about SH results showing long term use due to he hormone levels.
Or is it an apology?
Or did you mean to lie?
Armstronglivs wrote:
STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^"""-""""--'-"--^' wrote:
You've got serious insecurity issues.
Speaking of the brain-dead, here is one of them.
You must be insufferable to live with, unless...you're alone and your Mistress/Master is this site;). I think the latter may be the answer.
STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^"""-""""--'-"--^' wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Speaking of the brain-dead, here is one of them.
You must be insufferable to live with, unless...you're alone and your Mistress/Master is this site;). I think the latter may be the answer.
Being insufferable is something you would know about.
liar soorer wrote:
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?
Yet you refuse to admit she is a doper. So in your books she isn't guilty of doping, is she?
rekrunner 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.
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?
So, to sum up that apparently meaningless drivel, the banned substance wasn't found in her body? It was in the air? Or in someone else's body?
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.
The medical textbooks aren't wrong. But a retard like you would have no understanding of what they say. They say Shelby doped, because she was found to have a banned substance in her system.
liar soorer wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
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.
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:
https://www.fanatix.com/news/sports-top-ten-most-notorious-drug-cheats/127407/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.
Liar. CAS did not say deemed intentional "for the purpose only of Rule 10". That is your fabrication and a pathetic attempt to deny the meaning of the word as it was applied by CAS. It means that in the absence of an excuse the Court could accept she is responsible for a banned substance found in her body - no one or nothing else.
I guessed “possession” was a simple, honest mistake — probably a leftover from Salazar. As for the rest, I guess we will have to 100% disagree. I didn’t bring “prove” into the conversation. I said “presumptuous” and “baseless”. It was you who said I “might be able to claim with a straight face that her cheating is only proven to 99.99999999999999%”. Dictionary definitions of “cheat” require deceit, fraud, trickery, dishonesty, etc., even if the WADA code does not. All of these elements are 0% proven, with no basis to be found in the detailed CAS report, or elsewhere. The CAS report gives no basis for any necessary element that would allow anyone to call it cheating, because, as you said, there was no need. Therefore, you need to multiply your “absolute minimum” by zero. On the contrary, the CAS found her and her witnesses credible, not deceptive, fraudulent, tricky, or dishonest. This statement itself is a basis that the CAS does not consider her a cheat, but rather an athlete who could not meet the burden of arguing the WADA lab made mistakes, and unlucky enough not to be able to prove that her ingestion of nandrolone was not intentional, to a panel on the balance of probability. As for your top-10, some of them would be “cheats” by this definition, as there was deception, fraud, trickery, and dishonesty. If we were omniscient, Shelby may very well be a cheat, but lacking any basis, it would be premature and baseless to call her that. To date, I have only seen this baseless presumption from those who presume she is a cheat, assuming the conclusion and concluding the assumption.
casual obsever 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.
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:
https://www.fanatix.com/news/sports-top-ten-most-notorious-drug-cheats/127407/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.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So, to sum up that apparently meaningless drivel, the banned substance wasn't found in her body? It was in the air? Or in someone else's body?
It was drivel because you kept making claims and then abandoning them with new claims once there were shown to be false.
For your information, it was found in a lab from a urine sample in a bottle. The testers did not take her body back to the lab and probe her insides for nandrolone.
liar soorer wrote:
Ps
Anything from you about SH results showing long term use due to he hormone levels.
Or is it an apology?
Or did you mean to lie?
LOL - you are asking liar soorer as liar soorer...
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
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.
Liar. CAS did not say deemed intentional "for the purpose only of Rule 10". That is your fabrication and a pathetic attempt to deny the meaning of the word as it was applied by CAS. It means that in the absence of an excuse the Court could accept she is responsible for a banned substance found in her body - no one or nothing else.
Actually it is WADA’s fabrication that defines the meaning of the word, and the limited purpose, as it was applied by the CAS:
“Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.”
Surely your law qualification means you might know a lawyer who can understand that.
casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Ps
Anything from you about SH results showing long term use due to he hormone levels.
Or is it an apology?
Or did you mean to lie?
LOL - you are asking liar soorer as liar soorer...
I guess from the history, he was asking you. I guess you guessed it too, responding to his post.
I am curious why they spent any effort discussing the broader “androgen levels” separately, as she was charged with nandrolone, not any other androgens, and they also addressed nandrolone specifically.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Told you many times that I would have found her guilty.
Why won’t you read?
Yet you refuse to admit she is a doper. So in your books she isn't guilty of doping, is she?
Yes ; we just don’t know .
If you read the rules it will be clear.
Like if you read a medical book the bladder is not in the digestive system.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So, to sum up that apparently meaningless drivel, the banned substance wasn't found in her body? It was in the air? Or in someone else's body?
It was drivel because you kept making claims and then abandoning them with new claims once there were shown to be false.
For your information, it was found in a lab from a urine sample in a bottle. The testers did not take her body back to the lab and probe her insides for nandrolone.
It was "found in a lab"? I wonder where the urine sample came from if not from her? It seems a bit superfluous to "probe her insides for nandrolone" (where did I say that?) when that is where it had to come from in order to be in her urine sample. I guess you like to think that if it was "found in a lab" (like, it just turned up?) it didn't really come from her.
Fortunately CAS was very clear about where it came from, so she has been banned for 4 years.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Liar. CAS did not say deemed intentional "for the purpose only of Rule 10". That is your fabrication and a pathetic attempt to deny the meaning of the word as it was applied by CAS. It means that in the absence of an excuse the Court could accept she is responsible for a banned substance found in her body - no one or nothing else.
Actually it is WADA’s fabrication that defines the meaning of the word, and the limited purpose, as it was applied by the CAS:
“Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.”
Surely your law qualification means you might know a lawyer who can understand that.
Mr A is too busy try to locate his bladder in his colon to bother reading .
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yet you refuse to admit she is a doper. So in your books she isn't guilty of doping, is she?
Yes ; we just don’t know .
If you read the rules it will be clear.
Like if you read a medical book the bladder is not in the digestive system.
So a medical book proves she isn't a doper? That she was found to have committed an "intentional ADRV" suggests CAS didn't really know if she had doped?
A medical book would suggest you should have a brain but the evidence in your case appears otherwise.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It was drivel because you kept making claims and then abandoning them with new claims once there were shown to be false.
For your information, it was found in a lab from a urine sample in a bottle. The testers did not take her body back to the lab and probe her insides for nandrolone.
It was "found in a lab"? I wonder where the urine sample came from if not from her? It seems a bit superfluous to "probe her insides for nandrolone" (where did I say that?) when that is where it had to come from in order to be in her urine sample. I guess you like to think that if it was "found in a lab" (like, it just turned up?) it didn't really come from her.
Fortunately CAS was very clear about where it came from, so she has been banned for 4 years.
CAS had no clue where it came from; point out the para in the decision or apology for lie.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Yes ; we just don’t know .
If you read the rules it will be clear.
Like if you read a medical book the bladder is not in the digestive system.
So a medical book proves she isn't a doper? That she was found to have committed an "intentional ADRV" suggests CAS didn't really know if she had doped?
A medical book would suggest you should have a brain but the evidence in your case appears otherwise.
Why not deal with rules and not insults.
liar soorer wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Actually it is WADA’s fabrication that defines the meaning of the word, and the limited purpose, as it was applied by the CAS:
“Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.”
Surely your law qualification means you might know a lawyer who can understand that.
Mr A is too busy try to locate his bladder in his colon to bother reading .
So you're really trying to argue that the banned substance wasn't in her body? It just somehow turned up in a lab with her name on the specimen bottle?
casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Ps
Anything from you about SH results showing long term use due to he hormone levels.
Or is it an apology?
Or did you mean to lie?
LOL - you are asking liar soorer as liar soorer...
To you as asked 6 times.