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.
Avoiding the embarrassment of having to read the rules; yet again.
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.
It's possible to quote (a cursory media release) accurately, yet still lie by omission.
The extracted quotes give a false impression that at some point the WA/AIU, and/or its experts, and/or the WADA labs, affirmatively established "intentional doping" with supporting facts and evidence and argument, rather than the result of a default presumption.
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.
It's possible to quote (a cursory media release) accurately, yet still lie by omission.
The extracted quotes give a false impression that at some point the WA/AIU, and/or its experts, and/or the WADA labs, affirmatively established "intentional doping" with supporting facts and evidence and argument, rather than the result of a default presumption.
Further the quote was made out to be from the CAS decision. This falsehood was by intent.
It's possible to quote (a cursory media release) accurately, yet still lie by omission.
The extracted quotes give a false impression that at some point the WA/AIU, and/or its experts, and/or the WADA labs, affirmatively established "intentional doping" with supporting facts and evidence and argument, rather than the result of a default presumption.
Further the quote was made out to be from the CAS decision. This falsehood was by intent.
a) I didn't run away, I just went to work.
b) As expected, you kept lying as expected,
c) You are lying again, as I explicitly wrote: "This is what CAS wrote on June 15, 2021:... "
d) At least rekrunner is "just" pretending there was "a false impression", while you had the audacity to call a direct, correct quote a lie.
e) Debating you and your doper apologist buddy is pointless, as you will just keep lying and insulting and making up stuff.
f) Will you now apologize? After all, even rekrunner confirmed that my quote was correct.
LOL, just kidding, you will of course come up with more lies now.
Further the quote was made out to be from the CAS decision. This falsehood was by intent.
a) I didn't run away, I just went to work.
b) As expected, you kept lying as expected,
c) You are lying again, as I explicitly wrote: "This is what CAS wrote on June 15, 2021:... "
d) At least rekrunner is "just" pretending there was "a false impression", while you had the audacity to call a direct, correct quote a lie.
e) Debating you and your doper apologist buddy is pointless, as you will just keep lying and insulting and making up stuff.
f) Will you now apologize? After all, even rekrunner confirmed that my quote was correct.
LOL, just kidding, you will of course come up with more lies now.
a) wow I am surprised you are employable.But you have gone into hiding many many times in the passed.
b) not one lie from me
c) it was the decision we were addressing and thus it was reasonable that you were quoting from the decision. You were invited to say what para from the decision but you never said it was not from the decision.
d)see above but note that you did not give the actual source ; that was disingenuous.
e)you have failed to explain what a “ doping apologist is” despite scores or requests. Not one thing is made up it is all from the CAS decision and the Wada code.
f) please provide the full source.
Again not a single hint of a lie in the above, please explain if you disagree.
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.
a) wow I am surprised you are employable.But you have gone into hiding many many times in the passed.
b) not one lie from me
c) it was the decision we were addressing and thus it was reasonable that you were quoting from the decision. You were invited to say what para from the decision but you never said it was not from the decision.
d)see above but note that you did not give the actual source ; that was disingenuous.
e)you have failed to explain what a “ doping apologist is” despite scores or requests. Not one thing is made up it is all from the CAS decision and the Wada code.
f) please provide the full source.
Again not a single hint of a lie in the above, please explain if you disagree.
a) A personal attack followed by a lie.
b) See above for several examples of your lies.
c) No it was not. And no, I did not run, I went to work as you just acknowledged under a), but you have to keep repeating that lie.
d) I referred correctly to the document from June 2021. So, not disingenuous at al, so, you are lying again.
....
Good job, you got me to respond again. Keep this up.
Further the quote was made out to be from the CAS decision. This falsehood was by intent.
You are lying again, as I explicitly wrote: "This is what CAS wrote on June 15, 2021:... "
As you should know, the full, reasoned decision was from August 2021. So, you lie on purpose just so that I keep responding (correcting you).
The decision was being discussed and then you made a quote and then did not say it was not from the decision when asked what paragraph.
Why did you not quote from the reasoned decision as you knew it was superior to the press release and it was the decision that was being discussed ? To mislead ?
a) wow I am surprised you are employable.But you have gone into hiding many many times in the passed.
b) not one lie from me
c) it was the decision we were addressing and thus it was reasonable that you were quoting from the decision. You were invited to say what para from the decision but you never said it was not from the decision.
d)see above but note that you did not give the actual source ; that was disingenuous.
e)you have failed to explain what a “ doping apologist is” despite scores or requests. Not one thing is made up it is all from the CAS decision and the Wada code.
f) please provide the full source.
Again not a single hint of a lie in the above, please explain if you disagree.
a) A personal attack followed by a lie.
b) See above for several examples of your lies.
c) No it was not. And no, I did not run, I went to work as you just acknowledged under a), but you have to keep repeating that lie.
d) I referred correctly to the document from June 2021. So, not disingenuous at al, so, you are lying again.
....
Good job, you got me to respond again. Keep this up.
So why have you run away from providing the source ? So why have you run away from explaining what a doping apologist is ; yet again?
To say that you are disingenuous is not a lie it is an opinion.
Do you actually go to work where you get paid? Or is it community pay back? A strict liability problem was it? Only asking in case you are disingenuous once again.
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.
Here you are lying that I lied.
So did CAS prove intent?
Does the Wada code require any intent whatsoever for a guilty verdict.?
Two simple questions for our worker bee of unknown form.
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.
My handles keep getting stolen by those who do not like my questions; how many have you now registered so I can’t use them?
What's the bottom line here? Houlihan is banned. She may not have intentionally taken a banned substance. She tested negative every other time in her life and has never missed a test.
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.
My handles keep getting stolen by those who do not like my questions; how many have you now registered so I can’t use them?
This maniac serves one useful purpose in these threads. Every post he makes convinces that Houlihan doped, that CAS made the right decision and the system works as it should. He should get an award for that.
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.