Shelby Houlihan runs 4:03 1500

original liar soorer wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Like Brady?

Was it ruled intentional?

Remind me, was it.

Now deal with the ski comparison/ analogy.Don’t run away.

LOL. Run away? You started that. And then refused to answer. I haven't looked into skiing since ages, and have no interest in doing so now.

Troll somebody else with your comparisons that you don't want to explain.

original liar soorer wrote:There was zero inferring of intent by the CAS panel in their guilty verdict.

"zero inferring of intent"? That's not even funny anymore.

CAS said so outright:

"she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV"

Like you never made Monkey taints or banana like taunts. Really !

Read the early history of doping control.Oh you refuse to read…. sorry!

casual obsever wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:There was zero inferring of intent by the CAS panel in their guilty verdict.

"zero inferring of intent"? That's not even funny anymore.

CAS said so outright:

"she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV"

That was not in relation to the guilty verdict, only in relation to rule 10.

Do read the rules and the decision. Oh ! It may cause you to apologise: so you won’t bother.

And don’t misquote in the future.

LOL. Stop lying. That was part of the "guilty verdict".

Stop pretending I am misquoting.

casual obsever wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

Remind me, was it.

Now deal with the ski comparison/ analogy.Don’t run away.

LOL. Run away? You started that. And then refused to answer. I haven't looked into skiing since ages, and have no interest in doing so now.

Troll somebody else with your comparisons that you don't want to explain.

Closed minds… yet again.

I repeat,Are equipment violations that give benefit cheating or something else.

Oh sorry! You may have to think about something new.

casual obsever wrote:

LOL. Stop lying. That was part of the "guilty verdict".

Stop pretending I am misquoting.

Did not the word deemed appear and was it not in the context of the sentence being lowered and not the guilty decision.

So; yes, deliberate mid quote. Apologise.

I add; why will you not deal with rule 10?

I also repeat that had SH not tried to provide a possible explanation of the positive then there would never been a question of rule 10 being considered and thus no potential for an “ deemed intent “ to appear.

Such is the contradictions within the rules.

Thus rule 10 sits outside the guilty verdict which follows the rules that intent is not considered.

I won’t say all is simple if you bother reading the rules but such is the case.

Shelby is a convicted doper serving a 4 year ban for a doping violation.

create your own truth if you like but it doesn’t change reality.

thoughts and prayers wrote:

Shelby is a convicted doper serving a 4 year ban for a doping violation.

create your own truth if you like but it doesn’t change reality.

But not determined as a cheat.

Can’t change reality can you.

It's not that simple, and still quite technically incorrect.

What is simple is this: if you want to justifiably call her a cheat, it is necessary to show that she acted "dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage". The CAS did not do this, nor did they presume it.

They found nandrolone in her sample and the panel determined her excuse was not credible.

BANNED FOR FOUR YEARS for doping.

Stop trying to sugar coat a turd.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Evidence of "a positive test result"? Isn't that a doping violation. So what was the missing evidence? Oh, right - her excuse.

It could be an ATF or an AAF.

What I said was missing was evidence "of her motivation", which becomes relevant if you want to call her a cheat.

done and done wrote:

They found nandrolone in her sample and the panel determined her excuse was not credible.

BANNED FOR FOUR YEARS for doping.

Stop trying to sugar coat a turd.

Obviously the whole concept of strict liability is beyond you.

done and done wrote:

They found nandrolone in her sample and the panel determined her excuse was not credible.

BANNED FOR FOUR YEARS for doping.

Stop trying to sugar coat a turd.

OK, she was banned for 4 years for the presence/use of nandrolone in her sample.

Some people want to go beyond these facts and findings.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Evidence of "a positive test result"? Isn't that a doping violation. So what was the missing evidence? Oh, right - her excuse.

It could be an ATF or an AAF.

What I said was missing was evidence "of her motivation", which becomes relevant if you want to call her a cheat.

“A positive test result” does not exist in the rules. I wish such as Armstronglivs would stop inventing their own version of the rules and pretending they are the real ones.

And I don’t think the excuse appears either.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This is not logic, but presumption.

Do you want to go back to square one?

Once one understands that the (synthetic!) nandro was not in the burrito, and nandro is not a vitamin contamination (so absurd, not even raised by the defense), only damning possibilities remain, such as:

1) It was a designer cocktail contaminated with nandro;

2) It was a designer cocktail with nandro as a small ingredient;

3) It was testo contaminated with nandro;

4) It was straight out nandro.

All the rest like CAS didn't "prove" intent and her motivation wasn't investigated and citing definitions for cheating from selected dictionaries and whatnot is - while technically correct - irrelevant obfuscation. There is a reason why CAS explicitly mentioned that it was intentional, although that wasn't required - intentional cheating was glaringly obvious in this slam dunk case.

Oh -- I missed this one.

By your logic, all this applies only if she has no excuse? She had an excuse, but simply couldn't prove it to the standard required by the Code.

I don't want to go back to square one, but simply point out that your logic is not logic, but more like wishful thinking.

Calling her a cheat is irrelevant obfuscation, having nothing to do with the CAS verdict. There is a reason why the WA/AIU/CAS did not call her a cheat. The CAS was not asked, and did not determine, cheating. It is so absurd, that it was not even raised by the prosecution.

thoughts and prayers wrote:

Shelby is a convicted doper serving a 4 year ban for a doping violation.

create your own truth if you like but it doesn’t change reality.

Facts.