Once again -- too many pronouns. What do you mean by "support it"? Support what?
"Speculative hypothesis of ingestion by nandrolone precursor" is self-evident.
"Convicted by presumptions" was made explicit by the CAS.
When the facts are inconvenient there is no end to the difficulties you have with the English language. She was explicitly convicted on "the balance of probabilities".
Perhaps one day you will get round to reading the rules prior to posting falsehoods.
She was innocent before and she is innocent after. That is how our system works. Her suspension is her punishment for being guilty at the time that she got tested.
And you know nothing about doping if you think that an athlete who chooses to dope will only do it once. I suppose you also think that once someone chooses to have sex they won't want to do it again?
Pity we don’t know if she chose to dope.
Bur inventing stuff has never helps you back from peddling untruths over 2000 posts…. has it?
Yes, it would be easy to purchase synthetic nandrolone OTC, but it would NOT be easy to deliberately buy synthetic nandrolone with a high natural-looking isotopic signature as it's not marketed that way.
Yes indeed LOL - that was one of her problems. Mind you, the case was already lost when CAS ruled it was "possible but improbable" that her burrito contained uncastrated boar, so the wrong CIR was just bonus, as was the too high amount of nandro etc etc.
We actually don’t know this; so why do you make things up.
CAS never said this.
But the rules are something you never have bothered to read.
True. They just banned her for intentional doping with nandro, which could easily have been in pill form - not in sauce form - as linked before by Salvitore Stitchmo.
When the facts are inconvenient there is no end to the difficulties you have with the English language. She was explicitly convicted on "the balance of probabilities".
Perhaps one day you will get round to reading the rules prior to posting falsehoods.
And you know nothing about doping if you think that an athlete who chooses to dope will only do it once. I suppose you also think that once someone chooses to have sex they won't want to do it again?
Pity we don’t know if she chose to dope.
Bur inventing stuff has never helps you back from peddling untruths over 2000 posts…. has it?
She did. It didn't find its way into her body by accident. CAS - "intentional" doping.
I ran a fairly high level. I was likely what most would classify as a sub-elite. I coached college track and cross country also. So I had more direct experience than you. I find it interesting that you have dubbed youself the resident expert on doping. How long have you been doping or administering it? If none, then you know less than most of us about the topic. It is especially hilarious when you make accusations and assumptions rather than stating facts.
Then WADA aren't experts either, because they don't dope. (BTW, I do know a top WADA official, and pro athletes). Since you never competed at pro or even elite level by the same token you rule yourself out from discussing what they do. You don't have their experience. If a sub-elite doped they would also tell you they had?
It's telling that your verb of choice is "believe".
That is because you have no facts. What you think is possible isn't "knowledge". It is only your speculation. But of course there is no evidence to actually support it. She failed to establish a defence on the balance of probabilities. And so do you. Always.
Not only is this wrong -- because I have plenty of facts -- it is hypocritical to not practice what you preach.
Putting all the avialable facts together, any speculation, by ignorant fans/pundits and experts alike, that Houlihan intentionally cheated, or doped before 14 Dec 2020, or after 15 Dec 2020, or doped with a synthetic nandrolone precursor, meets your same standard: "you have no facts. What you think is possible isn't "knowledge". It is only your speculation. But of course there is no evidence to actually support it. (You) failed to establish (these) on the balance of probabilities."
Once again -- too many pronouns. What do you mean by "support it"? Support what?
"Speculative hypothesis of ingestion by nandrolone precursor" is self-evident.
"Convicted by presumptions" was made explicit by the CAS.
When the facts are inconvenient there is no end to the difficulties you have with the English language. She was explicitly convicted on "the balance of probabilities".
I still don't know what you mean by "support it".
Which inconvenient facts are you referring to? All of my posts are consistent with all of the facts.
You seem to want to criticize me and my posts, for some deep rooted emotional reasons, while playing the role of travelling preacher, but all of your responses are too general and non-specific and non-responsive, and when challenged, you cannot raise any specific objections with merit. You just keep coming back with the same assumptions and vague points like "doping exists" and vague descriptions like "widespread/endemic" and the same fallacies like "genetics is ridiculous, therefore doping", to circularly conclude your initial assumptions.
I ran a fairly high level. I was likely what most would classify as a sub-elite. I coached college track and cross country also. So I had more direct experience than you. I find it interesting that you have dubbed youself the resident expert on doping. How long have you been doping or administering it? If none, then you know less than most of us about the topic. It is especially hilarious when you make accusations and assumptions rather than stating facts.
Then WADA aren't experts either, because they don't dope. (BTW, I do know a top WADA official, and pro athletes). Since you never competed at pro or even elite level by the same token you rule yourself out from discussing what they do. You don't have their experience. If a sub-elite doped they would also tell you they had?
So a judge can’t deal with a murder or the Police deal with a murder as neither of them have been committed murder.
That is because you have no facts. What you think is possible isn't "knowledge". It is only your speculation. But of course there is no evidence to actually support it. She failed to establish a defence on the balance of probabilities. And so do you. Always.
Not only is this wrong -- because I have plenty of facts -- it is hypocritical to not practice what you preach.
Putting all the avialable facts together, any speculation, by ignorant fans/pundits and experts alike, that Houlihan intentionally cheated, or doped before 14 Dec 2020, or after 15 Dec 2020, or doped with a synthetic nandrolone precursor, meets your same standard: "you have no facts. What you think is possible isn't "knowledge". It is only your speculation. But of course there is no evidence to actually support it. (You) failed to establish (these) on the balance of probabilities."
She tested positive for nandrolone. She could produce no evidence that she was innocent. Expert assessment was that the likelihood of accidental contamination was "near zero". CAS accordingly found an intentional violation because she couldn't show otherwise. Hence she was banned for 4 years. Her appeal failed.
Your continued insistence that her case has shown the system is "flawed" borders on the psychotic.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.