The supporting evidence isn't anything Ross says but is the CAS decision, which is the finding that Houlihan doped. But keep believing the moon landings were faked in a warehouse in Arizona.
Doped… meaning?
A banned drug being found in your system for which you have no legitimate explanation. (The excuse you offer is not accepted.) Add to that a finding that it was "intentional". Thus a 4 year ban.
The supporting evidence isn't anything Ross says but is the CAS decision, which is the finding that Houlihan doped. But keep believing the moon landings were faked in a warehouse in Arizona.
Hmmmm. This is a conundrum.
On the one hand, Ross, with his long list of credentials and proven track record, who has read the CAS decision, says he genuinely doesn't know.
On the other hand, Armstronglivs, with no credentials, and no proven history, who has not read the CAS decision, nor Ross' take on it, says he knows.
That is a tough call, but I guess the tie-breaker is to go with the guy letsrun paid money to for his 5000-word breakdown of the CAS decision and supplementary Q&A responses.
But as always, thanks for your unsolicited and unsupported opinions on topics you seem to otherwise know very little about.
The tiebreaker is the decision by CAS on the evidence before it that Houlihan committed a breach of the anti-doping rules that was deemed intentional. How she did it is irrelevant conjecture to that finding.
The supporting evidence isn't anything Ross says but is the CAS decision, which is the finding that Houlihan doped. But keep believing the moon landings were faked in a warehouse in Arizona.
Hmmmm. This is a conundrum.
On the one hand, Ross, with his long list of credentials and proven track record, who has read the CAS decision, says he genuinely doesn't know.
On the other hand, Armstronglivs, with no credentials, and no proven history, who has not read the CAS decision, nor Ross' take on it, says he knows.
That is a tough call, but I guess the tie-breaker is to go with the guy letsrun paid money to for his 5000-word breakdown of the CAS decision and supplementary Q&A responses.
But as always, thanks for your unsolicited and unsupported opinions on topics you seem to otherwise know very little about.
Everything you discus has Shelby eating pork. It is clearly establish she ordered a beef burrito . Shelby said she ordered beef , she had a receipt "beef burrito". Your imagination has you debating a situation that did not happen, and now your imagination has you actually believing she was eating pork all night lol.
On the one hand, Ross, with his long list of credentials and proven track record, who has read the CAS decision, says he genuinely doesn't know.
On the other hand, Armstronglivs, with no credentials, and no proven history, who has not read the CAS decision, nor Ross' take on it, says he knows.
That is a tough call, but I guess the tie-breaker is to go with the guy letsrun paid money to for his 5000-word breakdown of the CAS decision and supplementary Q&A responses.
But as always, thanks for your unsolicited and unsupported opinions on topics you seem to otherwise know very little about.
The tiebreaker is the decision by CAS on the evidence before it that Houlihan committed a breach of the anti-doping rules that was deemed intentional. How she did it is irrelevant conjecture to that finding.
Lol. Did you truly think any tie-breaker was needed? Oh, bless your soul.
Recall the topic was not the CAS decision, but your decision: "She didn't have the nandrolone in her system as a result of anything she ate."
Here's how Ross put it, after having thoroughly read and parsed the CAS decision in 9000 words, reducing it to 5000 words and a Q&A session:
... only one (or maybe a few) people truly know if it was deliberate doping or not. As for what happened, that is indeed the question. I genuinely don’t know.
Do you think he meant that that one person was you? (Rhetorical -- I'm sure you didn't read Ross's Q&A either.)
Everything you discus has Shelby eating pork. It is clearly establish she ordered a beef burrito . Shelby said she ordered beef , she had a receipt "beef burrito". Your imagination has you debating a situation that did not happen, and now your imagination has you actually believing she was eating pork all night lol.
And now we've come full circle and that only took two days.
The relevant question is not what she ordered, but what she actually ate.
I'm discussing the CAS panel finding that what she ate is possibly contrary to what she ordered (see paragraphs 99-101).
Note there is no receipt from Amazon for nandrolone products, so this is pure imagination.
The tiebreaker is the decision by CAS on the evidence before it that Houlihan committed a breach of the anti-doping rules that was deemed intentional. How she did it is irrelevant conjecture to that finding.
Lol. Did you truly think any tie-breaker was needed? Oh, bless your soul.
Recall the topic was not the CAS decision, but your decision: "She didn't have the nandrolone in her system as a result of anything she ate."
Here's how Ross put it, after having thoroughly read and parsed the CAS decision in 9000 words, reducing it to 5000 words and a Q&A session:
... only one (or maybe a few) people truly know if it was deliberate doping or not. As for what happened, that is indeed the question. I genuinely don’t know.
Do you think he meant that that one person was you? (Rhetorical -- I'm sure you didn't read Ross's Q&A either.)
Deliberate enough to incur a violation that was deemed intentional. It wasn't accepted by CAS/WADA as accidental or even unintentional or that she exercised due care in avoiding committing a violation. She couldn't make that case, you can't - and Ross doesn't try. So we have the correct outcome with a 4 year ban and doping apologists like you go home devastated.
Everything you discus has Shelby eating pork. It is clearly establish she ordered a beef burrito . Shelby said she ordered beef , she had a receipt "beef burrito". Your imagination has you debating a situation that did not happen, and now your imagination has you actually believing she was eating pork all night lol.
And now we've come full circle and that only took two days.
The relevant question is not what she ordered, but what she actually ate.
I'm discussing the CAS panel finding that what she ate is possibly contrary to what she ordered (see paragraphs 99-101).
Note there is no receipt from Amazon for nandrolone products, so this is pure imagination.
Since you clearly don't understand how findings of fact are arrived at, what is considered merely "possible" has been negated - trumped - by the exercise of the balance of probabilities, which dismissed the excuse of food contamination. She couldn't produce evidence to support her claim - and neither can you. Your conjecture on this point is rendered irrelevant by the court's decision based on its findings. Despite what you continue to argue, there is no relevance to the question of what she ate because the Court did not accept the explanation of food contamination. As an unsubstantiated excuse, it remains in the realm of bullsh*t.
A banned drug being found in your system for which you have no legitimate explanation. (The excuse you offer is not accepted.) Add to that a finding that it was "intentional". Thus a 4 year ban.
"As for what happened, that is indeed the question. I genuinely don’t know."
As you cannot provide any supporting evidence, I think I'll side with Ross on this point.
The supporting evidence isn't anything Ross says but is the CAS decision, which is the finding that Houlihan doped. But keep believing the moon landings were faked in a warehouse in Arizona.
I suggest you read the rules and it is clear that CAS never said she doped.
Like most people on this board, I was initially a Houlihan supporter for the simple reason I didn't think she fit the profile of what 'I thought' a doper was. My thoughts were mostly rooted in my prejudgments and biased opinion as opposed to any science, data or objective analytical thinking. That's a mindset a lot of us locked ourselves into, but I broke out of it quicker than most once I started to get some information and opened myself up to the possibility and then the likelihood Houlihan was a doper. I caught quite a bit of flack when I came out against Houlihan because at the time the majority of this board was firmly in the Houlihan camp. The things that opened my eyes were precisely the things that caused me to close my eyes in the first place. Being an educated, upper middle-class American White girl who everyone liked and whose career we've followed does not mean you have earned a greater presumption of guilt or innocence over other athletes who are different in certain ways. The other thing that helped me think straight about this situation was the demonization of Prof Christiane Ayotte. This reminded me of the same thing that happened to Dr. Henry Lee, forensic scientist in the OJ Simpson trial and ore recently Dr. Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Advisor to the President. These are smart, highly credentialed, and esteemed individuals who were demonized by some mainly because they were less than perfect at some point in their career now, they are reaching a conclusion that does not fit with your 'opinion'.
With all of that said, I would prefer to see 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person get falsely convicted. That is the logic behind the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal trial. If Houlihan was put before a criminal trial jury, she would be found guilty. Humans have the innate ability to believe what they want to believe, that is why we have cults and all the crazy cultural and political nonsense that is currently dividing us in America. But the facts are the facts, and you don’t get to choose your facts. The facts are, there is overwhelming verifiable evidence of guilt and almost no verifiable evidence of innocence in the Houlihan case.
Everything you discus has Shelby eating pork. It is clearly establish she ordered a beef burrito . Shelby said she ordered beef , she had a receipt "beef burrito". Your imagination has you debating a situation that did not happen, and now your imagination has you actually believing she was eating pork all night lol.
And now we've come full circle and that only took two days.
The relevant question is not what she ordered, but what she actually ate.
I'm discussing the CAS panel finding that what she ate is possibly contrary to what she ordered (see paragraphs 99-101).
Note there is no receipt from Amazon for nandrolone products, so this is pure imagination.
Your imagination has you believing what she ate is in question . the CAS conversation ended when Shelby said she order Beef . You and your wild imagination keep making things up. CAS didn't say she ate pork or Beef and they didn't say she possibly ate pork . Shelby didn't say she ate pork.