Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

Armstronglivs wrote:

CAS says she is guilty of a doping violation and has suspended her. It has been widely reported as a fact. Do you need to read their decision to understand that? More particularly - do you need to see the burrito before you make up your mind - because you haven't seen that either?

You keep forgetting the only question on the table. There is no question what the CAS decided.

Here's what the CAS also said:

"The CAS Panel has issued its decision only, without the grounds which will be notified in short order."

If your question now is what I need, there is nothing in this saga, that rises to something I need. I don't really need to ever decide the truthfulness of Shelby's "story" at all.

Apparently she ordered carne asada -- so I don't need to see a burrito.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

CAS says she is guilty of a doping violation and has suspended her. It has been widely reported as a fact. Do you need to read their decision to understand that? More particularly - do you need to see the burrito before you make up your mind - because you haven't seen that either?

You keep forgetting the only question on the table. There is no question what the CAS decided.

Here's what the CAS also said:

"The CAS Panel has issued its decision only, without the grounds which will be notified in short order."

If your question now is what I need, there is nothing in this saga, that rises to something I need. I don't really need to ever decide the truthfulness of Shelby's "story" at all.

Apparently she ordered carne asada -- so I don't need to see a burrito.

Waffle waffle. Without equivocation, do you accept the CAS decision, that Houlihan is a doper? Yes or no.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You keep forgetting the only question on the table. There is no question what the CAS decided.

Here's what the CAS also said:

"The CAS Panel has issued its decision only, without the grounds which will be notified in short order."

If your question now is what I need, there is nothing in this saga, that rises to something I need. I don't really need to ever decide the truthfulness of Shelby's "story" at all.

Apparently she ordered carne asada -- so I don't need to see a burrito.

Waffle waffle. Without equivocation, do you accept the CAS decision, that Houlihan is a doper? Yes or no.

That is a loaded, equivocal question. I didn't find "a doper" in the CAS Media Release.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Waffle waffle. Without equivocation, do you accept the CAS decision, that Houlihan is a doper? Yes or no.

That is a loaded, equivocal question. I didn't find "a doper" in the CAS Media Release.

Still gaslighting. The question wasn't "loaded" - Shelby was. "Yes" or "no" is a strange interpretation of "equivocal". You didn't find a "doper"? CAS did - her name is Shelby and she got suspended 4 years for a doping violation. I can see you need help crossing the road.

But your answer is a "no" - it's just that you can't find that word in your apologist's vocabulary.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The question wasn't "loaded" - Shelby was. "Yes" or "no" is a strange interpretation of "equivocal". You didn't find a "doper"? CAS did - her name is Shelby and she got suspended 4 years for a doping violation. I can see you need help crossing the road.

But your answer is a "no" - it's just that you can't find that word in your apologist's vocabulary.

"Yes" or "No" are answers -- it is your question that I interpreted as equivocal, as it uses ambiguous phrasing not found in the CAS media release. You essentially alter what CAS finds and ask me to agree with your interpretation.

I can only interpret the CAS findings according to definitions and obligations in the context of the WADA code, and what the CAS was asked to decide.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The question wasn't "loaded" - Shelby was. "Yes" or "no" is a strange interpretation of "equivocal". You didn't find a "doper"? CAS did - her name is Shelby and she got suspended 4 years for a doping violation. I can see you need help crossing the road.

But your answer is a "no" - it's just that you can't find that word in your apologist's vocabulary.

"Yes" or "No" are answers -- it is your question that I interpreted as equivocal, as it uses ambiguous phrasing not found in the CAS media release. You essentially alter what CAS finds and ask me to agree with your interpretation.

I can only interpret the CAS findings according to definitions and obligations in the context of the WADA code, and what the CAS was asked to decide.

"Yes or no?" is a question, you illiterate moron.

"I can only interpret the CAS findings according to definitions and obligations in the context of the WADA code, and what the CAS was asked to decide."[/quote]

And your interpretation is - what? Absolutely nothing. You refuse to acknowledge what the world knows, that CAS has ruled that Houlihan has committed a doping violation. You also refuse to acknowledge whether or not she is a doper, based on that ruling - or whether you believe her excuse. Your credentials as a doping apologist are proven. No amount of vacuous gaslighting can conceal that. You are a joke. The only relevant question now is how many of Axis-IV disorders properly describe your condition.

Armstronglivs wrote:

And your interpretation is - what? Absolutely nothing. You refuse to acknowledge what the world knows, that CAS has ruled that Houlihan has committed a doping violation. You also refuse to acknowledge whether or not she is a doper, based on that ruling - or whether you believe her excuse. Your credentials as a doping apologist are proven. No amount of vacuous gaslighting can conceal that. You are a joke. The only relevant question now is how many of Axis-IV disorders properly describe your condition.

I've already explained what was wrong with your question.

A "refusal to acknowledge" does not fit the definition of apologist.

You need to enrich your vocabulary.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And your interpretation is - what? Absolutely nothing. You refuse to acknowledge what the world knows, that CAS has ruled that Houlihan has committed a doping violation. You also refuse to acknowledge whether or not she is a doper, based on that ruling - or whether you believe her excuse. Your credentials as a doping apologist are proven. No amount of vacuous gaslighting can conceal that. You are a joke. The only relevant question now is how many of Axis-IV disorders properly describe your condition.

I've already explained what was wrong with your question.

A "refusal to acknowledge" does not fit the definition of apologist.

You need to enrich your vocabulary.

Whatever the question was or is, you can't answer it - further proof that a doping gaslighter fits the definition of apologist perfectly. Axis-IV to a 'T'.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Whatever the question was or is, you can't answer it - further proof that a doping gaslighter fits the definition of apologist perfectly. Axis-IV to a 'T'.

You do have a rich name-calling vocabulary.

As I said, I can't answer a defective question, with an unequivocal "yes" or "no".

Maybe it proves a gaslighter is an apologist, but unfortunately, having expressed no opinion on the topic, I am neither.

I can wait patiently until CAS releases their grounds.