How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

ChatGPT also likes deranged as an explanation.

So you don't know how to ask a question?

Interesting. ChatGPT didn't agree with your question, answering I may not be a troll, but probably better described as a "pedantic contrarian" (I don't really agree, but then again, a "pedantic contrarian" wouldn't either, hmmmm), but I do agree with "dogged skeptic".

I wonder though how ChatGPT determined that I notably "defend athletes like Lance Armstrong". Ever since I read the "L'Equipe" article "Le Mensonge Armstrong" from 2005, through the 2009 Ashenden interview in "nyvelocity" through the USADA's 2012 Reasoned Decision, through the UCI's CIRC report in 2015, and thereafter to the present and for the remaining future, there was never any single fiber in my being that defended Lance Armstrong's journey to the dark side, nor the evil and vindictive way he treated investigative reporters, former friends (e.g. Betsy Andreu), teammates (e.g. pressuring them to dope to help him), former teammates, former staff, competitors, and even the true American legend Greg LeMond (Trek stopped selling his bikes at a huge financial cost to LeMond), for daring to question his comeback. I usually only chime in now to point out to those who still say "Lance never failed a test" that Lance actually failed at least 10 tests in the 1999 TdF alone -- 4x for corticosteroids and 6x for EPO in subsequent research that triggered the L'Equipe article.

I was standing at the finish line in Verdun in his first TdF victory in 1993 -- according to affidavits in the USADA Reasoned Decision, he was clean then, only resorting to doping in 1995.

You don't know how to use ChatGPT.

Another misleading question. ChatGPT also doesn't like this question, answering a reworded dowplayed question with "likely reasons" why I "seem to ignore or dismiss so many facts" to "many frustrated Letsrun users". In other words, I don't ignore facts, but it just seems that way to frustrated users, who seem to have been persuaded by some combination of too few facts, mixed with opinion, presumption, faith and fallacy, clinging to their own version of fixed conclusions and stubbornness and blind spots.

The fact is that I tend to ask for more facts when it seems there are too few, or missing, facts to arrive at many popular conclusions. And I tend to downplay/ignore/discard opinions (especially lacking bases in fact) and presumptions and faith and fallacy, from forum users, pseudo-experts, and expert witnesses and CAS arbitrators alike, artificially propped up as facts designed to bridge that gap.

To answer this question it looks like ChatGPT trawled the letsrun posts of the frustrated users and aggregated their claims is if the user claims themselves were true.

Since it is a Houlihan thread, it may surprise many users that I don't have a fixed conclusion about whether Houlihan intentionally doped with an exogenous banned substance. That remains a possibility, but one (IMO) not sufficiently supported by all of the known facts, ignoring none. My fixed conclusion is that, in some cases, the WADA Code can lead the WADA Lab, the WA/AIU, and the CAS to railroad both guilty and innocent athletes alike to 4-year bans, and we will never know which is which, precisely because there are too few facts. The Code does not require conclusive facts, but instead substitutes key presumptions that make prosecuting and convicting athletes (both the innocent and guilty) easier and cheaper and faster, at the expense of accuracy and certainty, and punishes the innocent athletes who cannot or do not find or produce sufficient facts, as if they were guilty.

"if she plausibly consumed boar offal (she claimed she did)"

Implausible (.) That is all. Good night and good luck

"Plausible" is about "belief", and not about "fact".

Not believing she consumed boar offal brings you no closer to establishing any other "plausible" (or not "plausible") alternative scenario would be more likely in this specific instance.

Poor reading comprehension, or outright trolling?

I asked a question "Q: Is rekrunner from letsrun a troll?" that could have been answered with a yes or no, but you make "hatGPT didn't agree with your question" out of that.

What did it actually say? Here are some highlights:

"Many users do view him as a troll because of his persistence, unusual positions, and argumentative style.
However, whether he’s a "troll" depends on how you define it"

So now you can't deny it anymore (depending on the other poster's definition).

Doubly false. "Why does rekrunner ignore so many facts" wasn't a misleading question, but a follow-up question afer ChatGPT's conclusion:

"rekrunner likely ignores facts not out of ignorance, but due to a mix of stubborn skepticism, identity-driven reasoning, and an argumentative mindset."

There you have it. ChatGPT also noticed that you ignore facts, all by itself. No leading required for such an obvious observation.

Finally, ChatGPT got this one about you right too:

"If you're debating him, know that you're not likely to change his mind—only your own blood pressure."

Check n mate

See -- there you go again, predictably showing your real colors -- asking if I'm "outright trolling" (which definition?), after you just showed us all that there are better descriptions.

ChatGPT's answer didn't agree that "troll" was the best term to use in your question, suggesting better alternatives: "He's probably better described as a pedantic contrarian or dogged skeptic rather than a classic troll." If you claim that can be a "yes" or "no", ChatGPT's response is clearly a nuanced "not really, unless you mean something else".

Curious that whenever I point out something like it "depends on how you define it", I am called pedantic. So when ChatGPT is pedantic, is that more acceptable? ChatGPT doesn't consider me a "classic troll".

I do not deny that many users have a view, but it's unclear what their view is, or means, when they do not first define the terms they use, especially considering that they could deviate from the classic meaning. It's to easy to say you are right when the terms are not defined uniquely between the writer and the reader (i.e. no fair moving the goalposts).

She most certainly did not cheat knowingly.

Why has she not had someone take a test proving they are clean and eat a burrito and fail to prove her point?

Follow-up question? You've got the order backwards. ChatGPT's conclusion "rekrunner likely ignores facts ...." is clearly the TL;DR response to your "follow-up question" (and not vice-versa) which baselessly suggests to ChatGPT I ignore so many facts.

The question is misleading because I give due consideration to all facts brought to my attention. I explicitly solicit and welcome any and all new facts.

You are unlikely to change my mind without providing any new facts which I am currently unaware of. But anyone can change my mind by providing new facts which seem to be missing. I make it easy by telling you where I think the gaps are in the facts that prevent me from jumping to conclusions.

using that stupidGPT makes these discussion even stupider.....

'ChatGPT doesn't consider me a "classic troll".'

ChatGPT doesn't consider you are anything. You aren't coherent enough.