rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
This is easily answered: is Houlihan a doper?
But that wasn’t the question. This only confirms my hypothesis. You are looking for security by re-expressing the CAS findings in the context of the WADA Code in your own words.
It is the question. But you won't answer it. We know why.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"The (burrito) explanation presupposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is [very] close to zero," the full decision says.
That was the view CAS took of the evidence. Obviously you haven't caught up with that.
This quote can be found in the CAS report under “The Claimant’s Submissions”.
In other words, that is the view that the AIU took.
Do try to keep up.
You haven't understood it. It essentially says there is a zero likelihood that she failed the dope test because of a contaminated burrito. So the evidence is therefore overwhelmingly that she doped. But you refuse to acknowledge that.
liar soorer wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
+1
Well said, Supertramp.
Of course drug cheats don't mind cheating people out of their money, so sadly, her gofundme isn't exactly surprising.
The decision never ruled she was a cheat.
Strict liability excludes this.
It doesn't, moron. It simply means intention doesn't have to be proven. But the decision found intention as part of her offence, because she couldn't show otherwise.
liar soorer wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
This quote can be found in the CAS report under “The Claimant’s Submissions”.
In other words, that is the view that the AIU took.
Do try to keep up.
An other deliberate attempt to lie and mislead from Armstronglivs and one he has tried to con with before and one that was pointed out without apology.
So quoting the decision is a "lie"? I guess it is to someone who calls himself "liar".
Armstronglivs wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Is Houlihan a doper?
Crickets.
Still crickets. Anything to avoid answering that question.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It doesn't, moron. It simply means intention doesn't have to be proven. But the decision found intention as part of her offence, because she couldn't show otherwise.
Go away , you who posts to irritate only.
I understand the truth would be irritating to one who calls himself "liar".
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
An other deliberate attempt to lie and mislead from Armstronglivs and one he has tried to con with before and one that was pointed out without apology.
So quoting the decision is a "lie"? I guess it is to someone who calls himself "liar".
What !
Go away
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Still crickets. Anything to avoid answering that question.
Cricket! Don’t mention such on this day.
I think having won the toss and looked at the surface I would put the opposite 11 in and got them out before they got in and then got in and hoped not to get out.But we got out well before we got in.
Don’t you agree?
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I understand the truth would be irritating to one who calls himself "liar".
You post only to irritate not debate .
Away … go.
I debate with those capable of it. That isn't you.
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is the question. But you won't answer it. We know why.
Sorry — that was just you changing the subject, once again seeking my approval for your interpretation of a clearly worded verdict.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is the question. But you won't answer it. We know why.
Sorry — that was just you changing the subject, once again seeking my approval for your interpretation of a clearly worded verdict.
The subject is Shelby Houlihan. She has been banned for 4 years for a doping violation - or is that just my "interpretation"? Is she a doper? Yes or no.
9 posts were removed from this page.