An absolute annihilation of CAS' Shelby Houlihan decision

casual obsever wrote:

sanootage wrote:You mix up words and statements and badly attempt to quote what clearly was not said.

That was not by accident, that is lying and cheating.

This is the second time you falsely accuse me of citing something wrong. The above too was simply copied and pasted, no mixing, no quoting "what clearly was not said". Stop lying, and troll somebody else.

The mixups are not from the copy/pasted quotes, but came earlier, when you paraphrased the findings, and then told us it comes “straight from the CAS”.

For just one example (there are more), you said “1 in 10,000 uncastrated boar” came “straight from the CAS”.

Yet “1 in 10,000” came from the AIU expert, and he spoke only of the subset of cryptorchids.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So you are saying you lied?

Looks like what was unanimous was a determination that she failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source.

Here is what the CAS told us:

“the majority of the Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an ADRV, by virtue of Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the WA ADR.”

You are only ever able to get half the argument. What she failed to do in the unanimous view of the Court was to show the source was other than that she had doped. Once the proffered excuse of accidental contamination is ruled out she has committed a doping violation for which she is responsible. That is deemed an intentional act. But cause and effect aren't part of your limited reasoning tool-kit.

You seem to be largely uninformed.

Contrary to your self-projections, to the extent there is an argument, I get all of it.

But there is no argument here.

The CAS told us plainly what was determined unanimously, and what was concluded by majority.

Despite the attempts at folk-lore retelling, it is immutable in black and white.

Similarly, WADA tells us plainly about cause and effect.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

This is the second time you falsely accuse me of citing something wrong. The above too was simply copied and pasted, no mixing, no quoting "what clearly was not said". Stop lying, and troll somebody else.

The mixups are not from the copy/pasted quotes, but came earlier, when you paraphrased the findings, and then told us it comes “straight from the CAS”.

For just one example (there are more), you said “1 in 10,000 uncastrated boar” came “straight from the CAS”.

Yet “1 in 10,000” came from the AIU expert, and he spoke only of the subset of cryptorchids.

There is a constant and deliberate misuse of the prosecutions words as they appear in the CAS decision as if they were the actual words of the panel.

Further many refuse to see the decision in the round and in the context of the rules and their comments and indeed in the history of the evolving of the WADA Code.

Then some get the race card out because the anomalies in the rules are pointed out.