P9 of her submission again says “ possible”
If you read the whole of her submission it takes the same line throughout.
P9 of her submission again says “ possible”
If you read the whole of her submission it takes the same line throughout.
casual obsever wrote:
But, for the umpteenth time, Houliham's case is very very very very very different:
1) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that an intact boar made it into the burrito ("improbable", CAS wrote). {At this point, the case is lost, in contrast to the Lawson and Wilson cases, where the beef - not pork - contamination was judged to be "more likely than not"}
But wait, that is only the beginning. There is more:
2) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that a stomach offal burrito even from an intact boar would have caused such high nandro levels ("improbable", CAS wrote). {extra icing}
3) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that a stomach offal burrito even from an intact boar would have caused such high androgen levels ("highly improbable", CAS wrote). {nail in the coffin}
4) According to CAS, we can rule out that the nandro came from "commercial pork" (not "consistent with", CAS wrote). And according to CAS, the food truck obtained their food from a commercial plant that used commercial pork from commercial farmers.
With that, the coffin was burned, and all ashes spread out over the ocean. Case closed.
Lawson and Wilson had no equivalent to points 2, 3, or 4. Recall that Gatlin was banned just based on 4 (CIR showed synthetic testo, just like it showed synthetic nandro for Houlihan).
The difference with Wilson is that "no fault" was proven on the balance of probability, and the difference with Lawson is that that CAS Panel found that IAAF expert/WADA Lab Head Ayotte materially misled the original Panel. They also found that the burden the IAAF placed on Lawson in order to prove "not intentional" was too high, and that Lawson had done enough to convince the CAS Panel.
After umpteen times, you are still mixing up the probability that a burrito with the wrong kind of pork ended up in her stomach, and the probability that, given a positive test result, this unlikely burrito scenario is the most likely scenario of all other possible scenarios.
Furthermore, neither of these are the relevant probabilities. She was required to convince a panel of "not intentional" "on the balance of probabilities", in order to benefit from a reduced sentence. There aren't many ways to prove that pork was the source of nandrolone unless you have a sample to test.
How on earth was Ayotte allowed to be an expert witness ever again after Lawson?
original liar soorer wrote:
P9 of her submission again says “ possible”
If you read the whole of her submission it takes the same line throughout.
1.) On page 2, "possible" is in reference to "that the burrito was the only possible source." Literally 100% counter to what you are saying.
2.) "Possible" is is not quoting her or an absolute statement from her, but is in regard procedure from the AIU. From the ruling - " Further to the A-Sample analysis, and the Athlete’s invocation of boar offal as a possible source of the AAF, the laboratory should have reported the sample as an Atypical Finding rather than an AAF."
Do you have any reading comprehension?
Can we also now discuss how she has resorted to selling her old race kits and spikes for money?? She needs to find a job.
Kenneth Copeland, Verified Millionaire wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
P9 of her submission again says “ possible”
If you read the whole of her submission it takes the same line throughout.
1.) On page 2, "possible" is in reference to "that the burrito was the only possible source." Literally 100% counter to what you are saying.
2.) "Possible" is is not quoting her or an absolute statement from her, but is in regard procedure from the AIU. From the ruling - " Further to the A-Sample analysis, and the Athlete’s invocation of boar offal as a possible source of the AAF, the laboratory should have reported the sample as an Atypical Finding rather than an AAF."
Do you have any reading comprehension?
Possible means possible which is exactly what I am saying and that was the panels summary to which they added many caveats.Do compreshend.
For further clarity look to her actual submission as per my several quotes.
Your point two is confused. It was her comment about the finding be a possible source.
At no point did she say the Nandrolone was from the Boar/ food. Only possible.
Simples.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
But, for the umpteenth time, Houliham's case is very very very very very different:
1) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that an intact boar made it into the burrito ("improbable", CAS wrote). {At this point, the case is lost, in contrast to the Lawson and Wilson cases, where the beef - not pork - contamination was judged to be "more likely than not"}
But wait, that is only the beginning. There is more:
2) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that a stomach offal burrito even from an intact boar would have caused such high nandro levels ("improbable", CAS wrote). {extra icing}
3) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that a stomach offal burrito even from an intact boar would have caused such high androgen levels ("highly improbable", CAS wrote). {nail in the coffin}
4) According to CAS, we can rule out that the nandro came from "commercial pork" (not "consistent with", CAS wrote). And according to CAS, the food truck obtained their food from a commercial plant that used commercial pork from commercial farmers.
With that, the coffin was burned, and all ashes spread out over the ocean. Case closed.
Lawson and Wilson had no equivalent to points 2, 3, or 4. Recall that Gatlin was banned just based on 4 (CIR showed synthetic testo, just like it showed synthetic nandro for Houlihan).
The difference with Wilson is that "no fault" was proven on the balance of probability, and the difference with Lawson is that that CAS Panel found that IAAF expert/WADA Lab Head Ayotte materially misled the original Panel. They also found that the burden the IAAF placed on Lawson in order to prove "not intentional" was too high, and that Lawson had done enough to convince the CAS Panel.
After umpteen times, you are still mixing up the probability that a burrito with the wrong kind of pork ended up in her stomach, and the probability that, given a positive test result, this unlikely burrito scenario is the most likely scenario of all other possible scenarios.
Furthermore, neither of these are the relevant probabilities. She was required to convince a panel of "not intentional" "on the balance of probabilities", in order to benefit from a reduced sentence. There aren't many ways to prove that pork was the source of nandrolone unless you have a sample to test.
You still don't know the difference between "likely" and "possible". If it was the former Houlihan may have got off; the latter term means she didn't. Quite a crucial linguistic distinction.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The difference with Wilson is that "no fault" was proven on the balance of probability, and the difference with Lawson is that that CAS Panel found that IAAF expert/WADA Lab Head Ayotte materially misled the original Panel. They also found that the burden the IAAF placed on Lawson in order to prove "not intentional" was too high, and that Lawson had done enough to convince the CAS Panel.
After umpteen times, you are still mixing up the probability that a burrito with the wrong kind of pork ended up in her stomach, and the probability that, given a positive test result, this unlikely burrito scenario is the most likely scenario of all other possible scenarios.
Furthermore, neither of these are the relevant probabilities. She was required to convince a panel of "not intentional" "on the balance of probabilities", in order to benefit from a reduced sentence. There aren't many ways to prove that pork was the source of nandrolone unless you have a sample to test.
You still don't know the difference between "likely" and "possible". If it was the former Houlihan may have got off; the latter term means she didn't. Quite a crucial linguistic distinction.
To be more accurate it is “ most likely “ and not “likely” . Does this clarity still mean that she may have got off.?
Come what may I can’t see why. Can you re explain please.
Just want to remind folks there's been a lot of bad press for the meatpacking industry recently. Much worse than even I imagined. I don't see how anyone can defend this industry as being honest, safe and reliable.
Interview of Gail Eisnitz, author of "Slaughterhouse" with Chris Hedges:
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You still don't know the difference between "likely" and "possible". If it was the former Houlihan may have got off; the latter term means she didn't. Quite a crucial linguistic distinction.
To be more accurate it is “ most likely “ and not “likely” . Does this clarity still mean that she may have got off.?
Come what may I can’t see why. Can you re explain please.
She wasn't going to get off because the chances of burrito contamination being the cause of her positive test were deemed to be close to zero. That is as far from "likely" as you could get. But I understand why you don't get it. A handicap like yours makes any degree of intellectual effort well nigh impossible. (That means very far from "likely").
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
To be more accurate it is “ most likely “ and not “likely” . Does this clarity still mean that she may have got off.?
Come what may I can’t see why. Can you re explain please.
She wasn't going to get off because the chances of burrito contamination being the cause of her positive test were deemed to be close to zero. That is as far from "likely" as you could get. But I understand why you don't get it. A handicap like yours makes any degree of intellectual effort well nigh impossible. (That means very far from "likely").
I asked you in the most gentlemanly way to explain the “ crucial linguistic distinction” and you reply with insult after insult.
Now it may be that you are avoiding answering as you have no answer but nevertheless insult after insult cascade from you; as they do on each thread that you post on.
Well, I parked up your racist credentials to move on but I remind readers that you persist in Monkey 🙉 taunts and banana type food jokes.Go back to your WASP manual of superiority and your next mockery of BLM can be anticipated.Re read the Wikipedia source that you happily adopted for the proof that you happily use racial phrases that should no longer be used.
moultonk wrote:
Just want to remind folks there's been a lot of bad press for the meatpacking industry recently. Much worse than even I imagined. I don't see how anyone can defend this industry as being honest, safe and reliable.
Interview of Gail Eisnitz, author of "Slaughterhouse" with Chris Hedges:
https://youtu.be/3R0a0V_HU5A
I think the main problem with CAS was not at the slaughter house end of food production but with the banned steroid enhancers freely available throughout the farming industry.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You still don't know the difference between "likely" and "possible". If it was the former Houlihan may have got off; the latter term means she didn't. Quite a crucial linguistic distinction.
I do know the difference, but in this case, we are dealing with three separate likelihoods which are connected, but not interchangeable. "Possible" is only relevant in a narrow context to falsify ignorant claims of "not possible" or "impossible".
The question before the CAS was not how likely is it that the wrong pork ended up in a burrito in her stomach, but rather, based on the incomplete information before it, with the athlete bearing the full burden of providing evidence that may no longer exist, and bearing the full consequence for any such failures, how likely was it that the athlete's conduct was "not intentional", according to a broadened definition of "intent" specifically for this clause.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You still don't know the difference between "likely" and "possible". If it was the former Houlihan may have got off; the latter term means she didn't. Quite a crucial linguistic distinction.
I do know the difference, but in this case, we are dealing with three separate likelihoods which are connected, but not interchangeable. "Possible" is only relevant in a narrow context to falsify ignorant claims of "not possible" or "impossible".
The question before the CAS was not how likely is it that the wrong pork ended up in a burrito in her stomach, but rather, based on the incomplete information before it, with the athlete bearing the full burden of providing evidence that may no longer exist, and bearing the full consequence for any such failures, how likely was it that the athlete's conduct was "not intentional", according to a broadened definition of "intent" specifically for this clause.
Again: you are spot on with your post.
I have asked for clarity as to what “ likely” has to do with it all but an answer has not been forthcoming.
At least CAS does make their position and arguments clear; unlike the secret world of SafeSport; but I digress.
Ask the people taking over the thread with the "likely" And related arguments. Please stop already. It doesn't even matter which of you is correct anymore don't you get that? Arguments hit a point where it's better just to drop it and move on.
Sincerely,
Everyone else
Renewed Marathoner wrote:
Ask the people taking over the thread with the "likely" And related arguments. Please stop already. It doesn't even matter which of you is correct anymore don't you get that? Arguments hit a point where it's better just to drop it and move on.
Sincerely,
Everyone else
The related arguments go to heart of the WADA code and to whether or not SH can be defined as a cheat and then this then spins off into the morality of associations with others.
Agree re “ likely” ; a reaction to Armstronglivs contaminating matters.
Renewed Marathoner wrote:
Ask the people taking over the thread with the "likely" And related arguments. Please stop already. It doesn't even matter which of you is correct anymore don't you get that? Arguments hit a point where it's better just to drop it and move on.
Sincerely,
Everyone else
Hahahaha
Too late. This drug cheat thread will remain on the front page of the message board for weeks to come.
P.S. CAS was correct of course, unanimously realizing that she cheated intentionally via nandro doping. Hence the full four year ban.
casual obsever wrote:
Renewed Marathoner wrote:
Ask the people taking over the thread with the "likely" And related arguments. Please stop already. It doesn't even matter which of you is correct anymore don't you get that? Arguments hit a point where it's better just to drop it and move on.
Sincerely,
Everyone else
Hahahaha
Too late. This drug cheat thread will remain on the front page of the message board for weeks to come.
P.S. CAS was correct of course, unanimously realizing that she cheated intentionally via nandro doping. Hence the full four year ban.
CAS did no such thing.Read the rules in conjunction with the decision.
Rek runner has explained it all to you several times of late but you just ignore.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You still don't know the difference between "likely" and "possible". If it was the former Houlihan may have got off; the latter term means she didn't. Quite a crucial linguistic distinction.
I do know the difference, but in this case, we are dealing with three separate likelihoods which are connected, but not interchangeable. "Possible" is only relevant in a narrow context to falsify ignorant claims of "not possible" or "impossible".
The question before the CAS was not how likely is it that the wrong pork ended up in a burrito in her stomach, but rather, based on the incomplete information before it, with the athlete bearing the full burden of providing evidence that may no longer exist, and bearing the full consequence for any such failures, how likely was it that the athlete's conduct was "not intentional", according to a broadened definition of "intent" specifically for this clause.
Yet it was ultimately deemed intentional. She failed to rebut the presumption.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
She wasn't going to get off because the chances of burrito contamination being the cause of her positive test were deemed to be close to zero. That is as far from "likely" as you could get. But I understand why you don't get it. A handicap like yours makes any degree of intellectual effort well nigh impossible. (That means very far from "likely").
I asked you in the most gentlemanly way to explain the “ crucial linguistic distinction” and you reply with insult after insult.
Now it may be that you are avoiding answering as you have no answer but nevertheless insult after insult cascade from you; as they do on each thread that you post on.
Well, I parked up your racist credentials to move on but I remind readers that you persist in Monkey 🙉 taunts and banana type food jokes.Go back to your WASP manual of superiority and your next mockery of BLM can be anticipated.Re read the Wikipedia source that you happily adopted for the proof that you happily use racial phrases that should no longer be used.
Delirium tremens.