Oh boy. You have, in the past, conceded that point. But, trolls will be trolls.
This is what CAS wrote on June 15, 2021:
As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.
Which ADRV, you wonder? This is what CAS wrote on June 15, 2021:
Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
Do I need to quote WADA or WA again to show that 2.1/2.2 is doping?
Oh boy. You have, in the past, conceded that point. But, trolls will be trolls.
This is what CAS wrote on June 15, 2021:
As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.
Which ADRV, you wonder? This is what CAS wrote on June 15, 2021:
Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
Do I need to quote WADA or WA again to show that 2.1/2.2 is doping?
Still not banned for intentional doping ; please read the rules.I explained this earlier.
Please read the rules. Start with Rule 1, then rule 2.1 and 2.2, and then stop trolling and apologize for all your lies.
I have not a problem with the above but as the above are strict liability offences there is no need to prove intent and she was quite rightly found guilty. Having been found guilty SH had the burden of proving it was not intentional under Rule10 to gain a reduced sanction. Thus intent was never tested in giving the guilty verdict.
Please read the rules. Start with Rule 1, then rule 2.1 and 2.2, and then stop trolling and apologize for all your lies.
I have not a problem with the above but as the above are strict liability offences there is no need to prove intent and she was quite rightly found guilty. Having been found guilty SH had the burden of proving it was not intentional under Rule10 to gain a reduced sanction. Thus intent was never tested in giving the guilty verdict.
You know this so why troll with your lies.
Then you should stop pretending that she was "not banned for intentional doping", and stop pretending people who quote accurately are lying.
And yes, I know it was strict liability, but does not change the fact that she was banned for intentional doping.
I have not a problem with the above but as the above are strict liability offences there is no need to prove intent and she was quite rightly found guilty. Having been found guilty SH had the burden of proving it was not intentional under Rule10 to gain a reduced sanction. Thus intent was never tested in giving the guilty verdict.
You know this so why troll with your lies.
Then you should stop pretending that she was "not banned for intentional doping", and stop pretending people who quote accurately are lying.
And yes, I know it was strict liability, but does not change the fact that she was banned for intentional doping.
Strict liability does not involve intent. Read Rule 2. For the applications of Rule 10 she could not satisfy the burden and thus for the purposes of Rule 10 it was DEEMED intentional.
The actual guilty verdict had nothing to do with intent. Please read Rule 2.
By the way the second quote from CAS you just provided does not exist. Why do you make stuff up to satisfy your prejudices.? Why?
Then you should stop pretending that she was "not banned for intentional doping", and stop pretending people who quote accurately are lying.
And yes, I know it was strict liability, but does not change the fact that she was banned for intentional doping.
Strict liability does not involve intent. Read Rule 2. For the applications of Rule 10 she could not satisfy the burden and thus for the purposes of Rule 10 it was DEEMED intentional.
The actual guilty verdict had nothing to do with intent. Please read Rule 2.
By the way the second quote from CAS you just provided does not exist. Why do you make stuff up to satisfy your prejudices.? Why?
Give me the para out of CAS then.You could have done but you have chosen not to.
Why is that?
When put under the spotlight you go and runaway; yet again.
Some people like the "real" peanut butter that separates between each use, and it certainly is better for you, but I still prefer creamy JIF. Plus, I don't have to stir before each use.
Give me the para out of CAS then.You could have done but you have chosen not to.
Why is that?
When put under the spotlight you go and runaway; yet again.
Some people like the "real" peanut butter that separates between each use, and it certainly is better for you, but I still prefer creamy JIF. Plus, I don't have to stir before each use.
Now imagine I did this thousands of times using dozens of handles for well over a year. That is you. That is how everyone views you. I hope you are a next-level troll, or at least have some self-awareness to know that your behavior is incredibly obsessive, because the alternative is very disheartening.
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.