A saboteur who doped Shelby appears to be as mythical as a unicorn - or, if you prefer, fairies at the bottom of the garden.
-
10
-
The Truuth wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
My point - except to the pedants here - is that the nandrolone was found in Houlihan's body. Is that being disputed? Does it matter where exactly it was found? Is the positive test being disputed? If not, then this discussion is completely irrelevant. She claimed to have eaten a burrito. I imagine she digested it but if you and others insist the drug wasn't in her "digestive system" it's a puzzle how it made its way to her bladder.
You persistently argued that it was found in her digestive system.
You defended your position with vigour that it was found there.
This is different from saying that it was in her digestive system.
For this to be pointed out does not mean; and you have been told this many times; that it was not at some point in her digestive system.
Your lack of education in this area should disqualify from ever thinking you are a fit person to post.
I add that you persisted in saying that Asprin had no side effects because your drug use had shown non.
You are unfit to be taken remotely serious on anything to do with science.
Further; you have said that it matters not that non cheaters are convicted.
You are morally as well as scientifically bankrupt. Go away.
All need to read the above.
10 -
I am Bozo wrote:
Ecclesiastes wrote:
We are now 29 pages down the road and none of you self-professed "Bozos" are any closer to compiling a list of possible saboteurs who could have doped up Houlihan. No progress at all. Just innuendo and bathroom talk.
Hot burrito slop, running down the side of a wok. Melted Velveeta cheese, hog mauls, hog bauls, swill and spill, sauce all over your shorts and socks.
Are you any closer? Isn't compiling a list of saboteurs also just innuendo and bathroom talk?
No, I'm not any closer, Bozo. I don't follow women's track, and don't know who is in Houlihan's orbit (motive and opp).
There are many here who do, however. Are you one of them, Bozo? Why so tight lipped? Cat got your tongue? Yeah, we thought so.
00 -
I would just like to offer my congrats to liar soorer for being a brilliant troll.
Rek and Armstrong are annoying and spend far too much time on this, some posts are way too long for any subject on lr
But liar soorer has an incredible skill for trolling to the point where half the posts make me want to slap them. I'm not threatening violence, just saying oh my god, the way you write/speak is just perfect, assuming you are on the wind up, which you must be...
I wish one day we find out you are Shelby!
Anyway. Congrats :)
20 -
LOL. I also wonder, how many people are in real life Shelby + liar soorer + rekrunner + twoggle + moultonk. Gotta be either 2 or 3.
10 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Once again you want to steer the topic away from your real-world failure to offer a sound rebuttal, and into your rich world of fantasies.
Speaking there of fantasies, the unicorn is really just an extinct Siberian rhinoceros in your view - despite the fact that it is a term that is used to refer to a creature of mythology? You have completely missed the point of referring to "unicorns", which is your attributing existence without evidence. But I see you still do it.
It's not my view -- others called it the Siberian unicorn, and found fossils. I guess it can also mean the mythical magical creature, but you weren't that specific.
I got your point all too well. You are uncomfortable with reality, so you bring in fantasies.
You think possibilites require evidence as a necessity in order to become possibilities, and you think you can demonstrate this with examples of fantasy.
It's possible, as evidenced earlier, that's because you don't really know what "evidence" means.
According to experts who study the field of possibility:
"Possibility theory is driven by the principle of minimal specificity. It states that any hypothesis not known to be impossible cannot be ruled out."
"It is a principle of minimal commitment that stipulates that anything that is not explicitly declared impossible should remain possible (in other words, one has not to be more restrictive about the possible situations than what is enforced by the available pieces of knowledge)."
13 -
Fxtydf wrote:
The Truuth wrote:
You persistently argued that it was found in her digestive system.
You defended your position with vigour that it was found there.
This is different from saying that it was in her digestive system.
For this to be pointed out does not mean; and you have been told this many times; that it was not at some point in her digestive system.
Your lack of education in this area should disqualify from ever thinking you are a fit person to post.
I add that you persisted in saying that Asprin had no side effects because your drug use had shown non.
You are unfit to be taken remotely serious on anything to do with science.
Further; you have said that it matters not that non cheaters are convicted.
You are morally as well as scientifically bankrupt. Go away.
All need to read the above.
Because you wrote it, liar soorer sock-puppet?
20 -
"I got your point all too well. You are uncomfortable with reality, so you bring in fantasies."(quote)
You can't help but describe yourself with everything you say.
20 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Speaking there of fantasies, the unicorn is really just an extinct Siberian rhinoceros in your view - despite the fact that it is a term that is used to refer to a creature of mythology? You have completely missed the point of referring to "unicorns", which is your attributing existence without evidence. But I see you still do it.
It's not my view -- others called it the Siberian unicorn, and found fossils. I guess it can also mean the mythical magical creature, but you weren't that specific.
I got your point all too well. You are uncomfortable with reality, so you bring in fantasies.
You think possibilites require evidence as a necessity in order to become possibilities, and you think you can demonstrate this with examples of fantasy.
It's possible, as evidenced earlier, that's because you don't really know what "evidence" means.
According to experts who study the field of possibility:
"Possibility theory is driven by the principle of minimal specificity. It states that any hypothesis not known to be impossible cannot be ruled out."
"It is a principle of minimal commitment that stipulates that anything that is not explicitly declared impossible should remain possible (in other words, one has not to be more restrictive about the possible situations than what is enforced by the available pieces of knowledge)."
So here is the creature that you believe possibly existed - because your "possibility theory" says so. Lack of evidence - as in all things, as we see with your view of Shelby's defence - isn't a problem for you.
unicorn, mythological animal resembling a horse or a goat with a single horn on its forehead. The unicorn appeared in early Mesopotamian artworks, and it also was referred to in the ancient myths of India and China.
20 -
casual obsever wrote:
LOL. I also wonder, how many people are in real life Shelby + liar soorer + rekrunner + twoggle + moultonk. Gotta be either 2 or 3.
I don't know how many of them are the same person but I would take a bet they are all related.
20 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
"I got your point all too well. You are uncomfortable with reality, so you bring in fantasies."(quote)
You can't help but describe yourself with everything you say.
I used to play "I'm rubber you're glue ..." when I was a small child.
You are the one bringing unicorns, sasquatch, and garden fairies into the thread.
01 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
LOL. I also wonder, how many people are in real life Shelby + liar soorer + rekrunner + twoggle + moultonk. Gotta be either 2 or 3.
I don't know how many of them are the same person but I would take a bet they are all related.
He wonders and you don't know.
01 -
GGGG wrote:
You mean this rule from the WADA code...
"2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or
Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
2.1.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no
Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. Athletes
are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or
its Metabolites or Markers found to be present
in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary
that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use
on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order
to establish an anti-doping rule violation under
Article 2.1."00 -
The Truuth wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
My point - except to the pedants here - is that the nandrolone was found in Houlihan's body. Is that being disputed? Does it matter where exactly it was found? Is the positive test being disputed? If not, then this discussion is completely irrelevant. She claimed to have eaten a burrito. I imagine she digested it but if you and others insist the drug wasn't in her "digestive system" it's a puzzle how it made its way to her bladder.
You persistently argued that it was found in her digestive system.
You defended your position with vigour that it was found there.
This is different from saying that it was in her digestive system.
For this to be pointed out does not mean; and you have been told this many times; that it was not at some point in her digestive system.
Your lack of education in this area should disqualify from ever thinking you are a fit person to post.
I add that you persisted in saying that Asprin had no side effects because your drug use had shown non.
You are unfit to be taken remotely serious on anything to do with science.
Further; you have said that it matters not that non cheaters are convicted.
You are morally as well as scientifically bankrupt. Go away.
A warning for those who are in danger of being taken in my Armstronglivs gross limitations.Ones he has not refuted.
01 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
LOL. I also wonder, how many people are in real life Shelby + liar soorer + rekrunner + twoggle + moultonk. Gotta be either 2 or 3.
I don't know how many of them are the same person but I would take a bet they are all related.
I bet they all have actually read the WADA CODE.A prerequisite I would think.
00 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It's not my view -- others called it the Siberian unicorn, and found fossils. I guess it can also mean the mythical magical creature, but you weren't that specific.
I got your point all too well. You are uncomfortable with reality, so you bring in fantasies.
You think possibilites require evidence as a necessity in order to become possibilities, and you think you can demonstrate this with examples of fantasy.
It's possible, as evidenced earlier, that's because you don't really know what "evidence" means.
According to experts who study the field of possibility:
"Possibility theory is driven by the principle of minimal specificity. It states that any hypothesis not known to be impossible cannot be ruled out."
"It is a principle of minimal commitment that stipulates that anything that is not explicitly declared impossible should remain possible (in other words, one has not to be more restrictive about the possible situations than what is enforced by the available pieces of knowledge)."
So here is the creature that you believe possibly existed - because your "possibility theory" says so. Lack of evidence - as in all things, as we see with your view of Shelby's defence - isn't a problem for you.
unicorn, mythological animal resembling a horse or a goat with a single horn on its forehead. The unicorn appeared in early Mesopotamian artworks, and it also was referred to in the ancient myths of India and China.
These aren't my theories, but what experts in the field of possibility say.
According to them, it would be up to you to explicitly declare it is impossible either based on knowledge or as something beyond what knowledge would enforce.
CAS expressly did not do that for Shelby, ruling instead it was possible, but requiring more evidence to rule more likely than not. In fact even you argued with emphasis "CAS accepted contamination was possible on the evidence submitted."
It's rather odd now to see this U-turn, now arguing "lack of evidence".
Contrary to your misrepresentations, my view of Shelby's defence is that she was burdened with an impossible task requiring luck to succeed without the best evidence of being able to test the alleged source one month after the fact.
My view of the CAS's decision are elements like "intentional" lack evidence -- contrary to your delusions, this is a problem for me.
10 -
Ecclesiastes wrote:
I am Bozo wrote:
Are you any closer? Isn't compiling a list of saboteurs also just innuendo and bathroom talk?
No, I'm not any closer, Bozo. I don't follow women's track, and don't know who is in Houlihan's orbit (motive and opp).
There are many here who do, however. Are you one of them, Bozo? Why so tight lipped? Cat got your tongue? Yeah, we thought so.
Sorry if I offended you.
But from the lack of progress, it would seem that not many of the self-professed Bozos here know who is in Houlihan's orbit (motive and opp).
Neither do I, and wouldn't like to speculate.
00 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"I got your point all too well. You are uncomfortable with reality, so you bring in fantasies."(quote)
You can't help but describe yourself with everything you say.
I used to play "I'm rubber you're glue ..." when I was a small child.
You are the one bringing unicorns, sasquatch, and garden fairies into the thread.
Because you claim anything is "possible" even without evidence. Hence, your fantasies. And garden fairies.
00 -
Fxtydf wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I don't know how many of them are the same person but I would take a bet they are all related.
I bet they all have actually read the WADA CODE.A prerequisite I would think.
That is because at least one of them has breached it.
00 -
"Contrary to your misrepresentations, my view of Shelby's defence is that she was burdened with an impossible task requiring luck to succeed without the best evidence of being able to test the alleged source one month after the fact."(quote)
Unlike you - but like the expert evidence before the Panel - I consider Houlihan was lucky that the alleged source wasn't there to test, as the experts estimated the likelihood of the burrito being the cause of her positive test was "close to zero". Not a leg to stand on. Houlihan's failure was like that of any guilty party in proceedings, which is a weak case. To say that if they had a stronger case they might have won is blindingly obvious - but that is exactly what they don't have.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.