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.
Your brainpower is now fully exposed.
You are so staggeringly thick that you don't realise that was exactly the point I was making in response to another poster.
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.
You continue to invent your own views on the decision.
If you bother to read Rule 10 and the exact words of the decision you will realise how prejudiced you are.
Why over a 1000 posts have you never dealt with Rule 10? Is it because it would expose your brain limitations and cause to make correct quotes?
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.
It looks like you are responding to another post. None of that really responds to anything I said, nor contradicts it. I guess, lacking any evidence otherwise, I can presume we are in full agreement with my statements.
I will say this. Liar soorer has to be somehow connected to Houlihan. A friend? A relative? Some random guy she said hi to at a race 10 years ago and now he is her Burrito Champion and defends her honor online from afar? Who knows, but thousands and thousands of delusional posts repeating the same thing over and over does nothing to make her look more innocent.
I will say this. Liar soorer has to be somehow connected to Houlihan. A friend? A relative? Some random guy she said hi to at a race 10 years ago and now he is her Burrito Champion and defends her honor online from afar? Who knows, but thousands and thousands of delusional posts repeating the same thing over and over does nothing to make her look more innocent.
She was guilty and I don’t accept the Burrito argument.
Funny how the rules and the decision keep putting it all in context and are not delusional. Have you bothered to read them?
I will say this. Liar soorer has to be somehow connected to Houlihan. A friend? A relative? Some random guy she said hi to at a race 10 years ago and now he is her Burrito Champion and defends her honor online from afar? Who knows, but thousands and thousands of delusional posts repeating the same thing over and over does nothing to make her look more innocent.
She was guilty and I don’t accept the Burrito argument.
Funny how the rules and the decision keep putting it all in context and are not delusional. Have you bothered to read them?
Dude, I'm not falling for your most popular catch phrase right off the bat! If you are going to troll me for the next 25 pages, you're going to have to bring your A game or at least try a bit harder. Pro tip: Pure brunt force trolling works well in certain circumstances, but you need to bring a little subtlety from time to time.
You are so staggeringly thick that you don't realise that was exactly the point I was making in response to another poster.
I fully understand that you made one of the Bizzare comments to an other poster.
So you then repeat the same point..Next you will be saying a Doctor can’t treat a dying patient because be is not dead.
Do you really think you are fit to post?
Good God, you still haven't grasped it. If you were of sufficient intelligence to see what you have failed to understand you would feel humiliated. So your dullness at least saves you that.
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.
It looks like you are responding to another post. None of that really responds to anything I said, nor contradicts it. I guess, lacking any evidence otherwise, I can presume we are in full agreement with my statements.
Only if you agreed with what I said above. I rather doubt that. But you don't appear to deny that you are bordering on the psychotic.
There was a poster who said that all the medical text books are wrong because the bladder is part of the digestive system.
Now ; who was thus one wonders?
There wasn't a poster who said that. However, the banned substance was found in Houlihan's urine. Do you have a scientific explanation for how it could have got there, that didn't either require ingestion or injection?
There was a poster who said that all the medical text books are wrong because the bladder is part of the digestive system.
Now ; who was thus one wonders?
There wasn't a poster who said that. However, the banned substance was found in Houlihan's urine. Do you have a scientific explanation for how it could have got there, that didn't either require ingestion or injection?
You repeatably said it and then kept defending yourself for saying it.
Now to compound your fragile medical knowledge by ignoring via the skin.But such is not really the issue; the issue is who can say what they ate the previous month ?
I fully understand that you made one of the Bizzare comments to an other poster.
So you then repeat the same point..Next you will be saying a Doctor can’t treat a dying patient because be is not dead.
Do you really think you are fit to post?
Good God, you still haven't grasped it. If you were of sufficient intelligence to see what you have failed to understand you would feel humiliated. So your dullness at least saves you that.
But you said that Wada were not fit nor capable to deal with doping matters because they have not doped.
She was guilty and I don’t accept the Burrito argument.
Funny how the rules and the decision keep putting it all in context and are not delusional. Have you bothered to read them?
Dude, I'm not falling for your most popular catch phrase right off the bat! If you are going to troll me for the next 25 pages, you're going to have to bring your A game or at least try a bit harder. Pro tip: Pure brunt force trolling works well in certain circumstances, but you need to bring a little subtlety from time to time.
Read the rules and the decision; that advice is not trolling.
Not brute force but clear logic.
Read stuff prior to posting.You will be surprised.
Dude, I'm not falling for your most popular catch phrase right off the bat! If you are going to troll me for the next 25 pages, you're going to have to bring your A game or at least try a bit harder. Pro tip: Pure brunt force trolling works well in certain circumstances, but you need to bring a little subtlety from time to time.
Read the rules and the decision; that advice is not trolling.
Not brute force but clear logic.
Read stuff prior to posting.You will be surprised.
Writing "dId YoU eVeN rEaD tHe CaS rEpOrT?" thousands of times, under dozens of handles to 3 different posters seems like a bit more like brute force than clear logic especially when your response is typically unrelated to the post you are replying to.
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.