Gidey just ran the single greatest female running performance ever... Give her the black page! Letesenbet MF Gidey 1:02:52

You really need to do something about that gas.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But you aren't convinced about Shelby, who has incurred a 4 year ban. I guess distance runners don't dope.

Why would you think I'm not convinced about Shelby? I have explained my convictions many times, in the well defined terms of the CAS in the context of the WADA code.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not interested in "an advanced understanding" of what you think - why should I follow a denier down their rabbit hole? - but a simple answer to the question of is Houlihan a doper should have been easy. But not to a doping denier it seems.

I can't give a simple answer until you tell me what the question means.

I gave you the choices of the WADA definition, or a Merriam-Webster definition, and I already gave you an answer for both of these definitions. Or you can bring in your own definition.

Since you said "doper" to you means "Try Shelby Houlihan", there is really no latitude for this tautological identity relation.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not interested in "an advanced understanding" of what you think - why should I follow a denier down their rabbit hole? - but a simple answer to the question of is Houlihan a doper should have been easy. But not to a doping denier it seems.

I can't give a simple answer until you tell me what the question means.

I gave you the choices of the WADA definition, or a Merriam-Webster definition, and I already gave you an answer for both of these definitions. Or you can bring in your own definition.

Since you said "doper" to you means "Try Shelby Houlihan", there is really no latitude for this tautological identity relation.

Armstronglivs behaves like a young child when asked something that is inconvenient to him.

Armstronglivs wrote:

the_rocket wrote:

Showing the negativity of some others in itself is something substantial.

Then I might point out yours, since that is all you have done here. I hope that is "substantial" enough for you.

You didn't understand.

I contributed someting positive, namely that you didn't do so. Comprehenda?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But you aren't convinced about Shelby, who has incurred a 4 year ban. I guess distance runners don't dope.

Why would you think I'm not convinced about Shelby? I have explained my convictions many times, in the well defined terms of the CAS in the context of the WADA code.

"In the well defined terms of the CAS in the context of the WADA code", is she a runner? Is she a woman? Better yet, is she a doper?

the_rocket wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Then I might point out yours, since that is all you have done here. I hope that is "substantial" enough for you.

You didn't understand.

I contributed someting positive, namely that you didn't do so. Comprehenda?

So when you are negative about another poster that is "positive"? You fit in well here. Delusions abound.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not interested in "an advanced understanding" of what you think - why should I follow a denier down their rabbit hole? - but a simple answer to the question of is Houlihan a doper should have been easy. But not to a doping denier it seems.

I can't give a simple answer until you tell me what the question means.

I gave you the choices of the WADA definition, or a Merriam-Webster definition, and I already gave you an answer for both of these definitions. Or you can bring in your own definition.

Since you said "doper" to you means "Try Shelby Houlihan", there is really no latitude for this tautological identity relation.

"Doper" is not a tautology. But let's try it this way - by your own understanding, is Houlihan a doper? Or do you not have an understanding?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I can't give a simple answer until you tell me what the question means.

I gave you the choices of the WADA definition, or a Merriam-Webster definition, and I already gave you an answer for both of these definitions. Or you can bring in your own definition.

Since you said "doper" to you means "Try Shelby Houlihan", there is really no latitude for this tautological identity relation.

"Doper" is not a tautology. But let's try it this way - by your own understanding, is Houlihan a doper? Or do you not have an understanding?

Understanding of what?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Why would you think I'm not convinced about Shelby? I have explained my convictions many times, in the well defined terms of the CAS in the context of the WADA code.

"In the well defined terms of the CAS in the context of the WADA code", is she a runner? Is she a woman? Better yet, is she a doper?

CAS never used the term “ doper”…. did they.

Why invent?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I can't give a simple answer until you tell me what the question means.

I gave you the choices of the WADA definition, or a Merriam-Webster definition, and I already gave you an answer for both of these definitions. Or you can bring in your own definition.

Since you said "doper" to you means "Try Shelby Houlihan", there is really no latitude for this tautological identity relation.

"Doper" is not a tautology. But let's try it this way - by your own understanding, is Houlihan a doper? Or do you not have an understanding?

No one said “ doper “ is a tautology.

Why invent.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Doper" is not a tautology. But let's try it this way - by your own understanding, is Houlihan a doper? Or do you not have an understanding?

Understanding of what?

You have captured yourself perfectly there.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"In the well defined terms of the CAS in the context of the WADA code", is she a runner? Is she a woman? Better yet, is she a doper?

CAS never used the term “ doper”…. did they.

Why invent?

CAS punished her for an intentional doping violation. So that isn't a doper?

Calling a spade a spade is impossible for you doping deniers.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I can't give a simple answer until you tell me what the question means.

I gave you the choices of the WADA definition, or a Merriam-Webster definition, and I already gave you an answer for both of these definitions. Or you can bring in your own definition.

Since you said "doper" to you means "Try Shelby Houlihan", there is really no latitude for this tautological identity relation.

"Doper" is not a tautology. But let's try it this way - by your own understanding, is Houlihan a doper? Or do you not have an understanding?

When asked, you finally defined “doper” as “Shelby Houlihan”, trivializing your question by completely stripping it of any meaning.

I do have a rich and deep understanding, and not a simple and superficial or artificial understanding, but you just said my understanding did not interest you.

To explain my understanding, I directed you to find someone with genuine intelligence and have them explain the CAS report to you, in the context of the WADA code.

But let’s go. Here is my understanding:

- The World Athletics, the AIU, and the CAS did not need to use the term “doper”. Neither do I. Apparently you need to.

- WADA defines “doping” as any rule violation.

- WADA defines “presence” and “use” as rule violations without requiring intent, negligence, fault, or knowing use.

- Merriam-Webster defines doping: “the use of a substance … or technique … to illegally improve athletic performance”; the criteria in this definition has not been met by WADA, WA, the AIU, or the CAS.

In cases of possible accidental ingestion, as the CAS unambiguously found, I think it is not fair to athletes to removal all the benefits of doubt, and treat these marginal results as an AAF, and to presume intentional use. Again — look at the case of Simon Getzmann. He successfully proved his innocence, yet even after clearing his name, WADA still considers it a rule violation, and he suffered a one year suspension, at a personal cost of 10,000 Euros for legal and scientific support. This time and money damage cannot be recovered.

Armstronglivs wrote:

the_rocket wrote:

You didn't understand.

I contributed someting positive, namely that you didn't do so. Comprehenda?

So when you are negative about another poster that is "positive"? You fit in well here. Delusions abound.

You don't understand.

I was not negative about you. I just showed that you often don't contribute something substantiel. That you have mostly negative impact.

But I doubt you will understand now.

the_rocket wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So when you are negative about another poster that is "positive"? You fit in well here. Delusions abound.

You don't understand.

I was not negative about you. I just showed that you often don't contribute something substantiel. That you have mostly negative impact.

But I doubt you will understand now.

Don’t worry , he will soon make a contribution by discussing the nandrolone tec doc. This has been provided on many occasions.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

CAS never used the term “ doper”…. did they.

Why invent?

CAS punished her for an intentional doping violation. So that isn't a doper?

Read the rules; oh you refuse to.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Calling a spade a spade is impossible for you doping deniers.

What is a doping denier?

And don’t use racial terms.