Shelby Houlihan GoFundMe goes home DEVASTATED!!!

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.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Where did I say that? I guess you are lying again, as usual.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

CAS had no clue where it came from; point out the para in the decision or apology for lie.

It came from her body. Nowhere and no one else.

No answer then; evasion.

Rules; read them!

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Where did I say that? I guess you are lying again, as usual.

That bladder was in the colon. Medical books disagree.

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.

It's definition means intentional, not the opposite. Except to a liar like yourself.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Where did I say that? I guess you are lying again, as usual.

That bladder was in the colon. Medical books disagree.

I didn't say that. Liar. I said the bladder is part of the digestive system. Excretion is a necessary function of digestion. Except in your case, when it is also part of speech.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It came from her body. Nowhere and no one else.

No answer then; evasion.

Rules; read them!

Under the rules she was found guilty of intentional doping. If CAS followed your reasoning she would have walked. But they understand the rules while you don't.

Despite the nonsense spewed endlessly by the doping apologists on this thread Houlihan remains banned from the sport. Nothing they can say will change that outcome.

Armstronglivs wrote:

STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^"""-""""--'-"--^' wrote:

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.

Wow, what a wise and witty comeback, not! Your life must be too miserable to imagine.

You do seem to “wonder” a lot.

You keep saying it was found “in her body” (see above), or “in her digestive system”. That is not where it was found.

The CAS didn’t talk about where it came from, and that played no role in the ban, or the length of the ban.

Sorry to keep popping your little bubbles of imagination.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

No answer then; evasion.

Rules; read them!

Under the rules she was found guilty of intentional doping. If CAS followed your reasoning she would have walked. But they understand the rules while you don't.

She was not; read the rules and read the decision.

Not once have you engaged on Rule 10 … not once.

And again, it was strict liability that got her.

Read read read.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It's definition means intentional, not the opposite. Except to a liar like yourself.

While it inarguably does mean intentional, and not the opposite, the unanswered question is what “intentional” conduct the athlete was supposed to have engaged in:

“As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other

Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew

that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule

violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.”

Was the intentional conduct ordering and eating a burrito?

That conduct is uncontested, and is unarguably intentional.

Is that conduct, i.e. ordering and eating a burrito, known to constitute an ADRV?

Or is there a significant risk that that conduct might constitute or result in an ADRV?

“Intentional” would be much more compelling if it were substantiated, and mapped to real world events, rather than “presumed” or “must be deemed”, based on a lack of proving “not intentional”.

Supertramp wrote:

Shelby Houlihan's GoFundMe has only raised $14,384 as of this moment.

The goal was $300,000.

Looks like she has to get a real job now.

Discus?

Whatever your thoughts on Houlihan, very poor form to gloat about this kind of thing, OP. Show some class.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Despite the nonsense spewed endlessly by the doping apologists on this thread Houlihan remains banned from the sport. Nothing they can say will change that outcome.

Does that bring you comfort and security? Apparently it doesn’t, as you want to rephrase the 4-year ban in other terms you wish to be true, and furthermore you seek acceptance from others wishing they would repeat your understanding in your words.

I can’t speak for any of these alleged doping apologists, but speaking for myself, the 4-year ban, and any chance of reversing the decision, was never my question.

For me these questions are important questions arising from the process:

- Is the current process fair to all athletes in cases of possible no-fault, non-negligent, non-intentional, or no knowledge of ingestion? Recall the case of Simon Getzmann, whose price of innonence still cost him a 1 year suspension, and related income loss, plus 10,000 Euros, and would have been similarly impossible to prove had he not had one painkiller tablet left.

- Was Houlihan railroaded into a 4-year ban by a process which is not fair, as frequently described by USADA chief Travis Tygart? Were it USADA instead of AIU, would the outcome be the same, and would USADA have achieved no ban while navigating within the WADA rules? What does that say about the objectivity of the WADA rules?

- Can we intellectually use terms like “liar” and “cheat” if these things were not decided by a process that does not require deciding them? Why do some feel the need to? Is it rational?

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Under the rules she was found guilty of intentional doping. If CAS followed your reasoning she would have walked. But they understand the rules while you don't.

She was not; read the rules and read the decision.

Not once have you engaged on Rule 10 … not once.

And again, it was strict liability that got her.

Read read read.

Why have you made no ref to Rule 10?

Wrong guess. I guessed he messed up his trolling handles, playing both sides, and found that as telling as hilarious.

And it couldn't have been about me because I never mentioned "long term use due to he hormone levels".

Because those levels were inconsistent with her burrito story. That made sense to me, for it added another part to the cascade of improbable events. This one was actually the only one judged as "highly improbable" by CAS:

STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^"""-""""--'-"--^' wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Being insufferable is something you would know about.

Wow, what a wise and witty comeback, not! Your life must be too miserable to imagine.

You shouldn't assume everyone experiences life the way you do.

It came from her. 4 years.

What was intentional was the consumption of nandrolone. 4 years.