Shelby Houlihan GoFundMe goes home DEVASTATED!!!

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not the subject - as you seek to deflect yet again. The question, on a thread about a convicted doper, is do you accept she is a doper. If you thought 'yes' then that is all that you needed say. That you flannel on, trying to throw up a verbal smokescreen about what the word 'doper' means, can safely be taken as a 'no'. Hence, you confirm that you are a doping denier. You always have been and you always will be.

That was the subject of the post you responded to.

It brings you security, like a flannel blanket, to try and reword the decision to confirm your bias.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Of all the speculative possibilities you venture what is the most probable on the basis of the evidence presented to CAS ? That she didn't dope - or she did?

There was only one possibility with evidence presented to the CAS — accidental ingestion of a small amount from a burrito without knowledge.

Doper…. habitual, regular etc etc. This is the meaning some wish to associate with SH. No evidence ever presented.

liar soorer wrote:

Doper…. habitual, regular etc etc. This is the meaning some wish to associate with SH. No evidence ever presented.

convicted doper works for me.

the evidence that she’s serving a 4 year ban for a doping violation seems to support this.

thoughts and prayers wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Doper…. habitual, regular etc etc. This is the meaning some wish to associate with SH. No evidence ever presented.

convicted doper works for me.

the evidence that she’s serving a 4 year ban for a doping violation seems to support this.

If you have your own language system that would be ok.

liar soorer wrote:

thoughts and prayers wrote:

convicted doper works for me.

the evidence that she’s serving a 4 year ban for a doping violation seems to support this.

If you have your own language system that would be ok.

just the facts

Yes indeed. Well deserved full four years for her intentional anti-doping rule violation with nandrolone. Not "just" too many missed tests or tampering or using a forbidden method, it was full hard core classical doping with roids. No matter how much the drug cheat apologists want to deflect and obfuscate.

Bye Shelburrito!

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

While it may have been theoretically possible that the presence of a banned substance in her system was through food contamination CAS accepted the AIU argument on the evidence presented that it was of almost zero probability. Of the arguments on the table as to how she tested positive for nandrolone that only left intentional doping, which was the finding accordingly of the Court. The result was a 4 year ban.

“theoretically” is your word.

“contamination” is your word.

“zero probability” are the AIU’s words.

“possible” is the CAS’s word.

No other possibilities were considered at all, let alone considered more likely.

What was merely "possible" gave way to what was "probable" - thus an "intentional ADRV" and a 4 year ban.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Of all the speculative possibilities you venture what is the most probable on the basis of the evidence presented to CAS ? That she didn't dope - or she did?

There was only one possibility with evidence presented to the CAS — accidental ingestion of a small amount from a burrito without knowledge.

I asked what was probable, not what was possible. A "possibility" that cannot be proven, that has been described as being of "zero probability", remains mere conjecture, without convincing evidential support - little more than air. Do you understand the difference between possible and probable? It appears not. All of your arguments are mere conjecture, without convincing evidential support.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Of all the speculative possibilities you venture what is the most probable on the basis of the evidence presented to CAS ? That she didn't dope - or she did?

There was only one possibility with evidence presented to the CAS — accidental ingestion of a small amount from a burrito without knowledge.

So why was that "possibility" not accepted as probable?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not the subject - as you seek to deflect yet again. The question, on a thread about a convicted doper, is do you accept she is a doper. If you thought 'yes' then that is all that you needed say. That you flannel on, trying to throw up a verbal smokescreen about what the word 'doper' means, can safely be taken as a 'no'. Hence, you confirm that you are a doping denier. You always have been and you always will be.

That was the subject of the post you responded to.

It brings you security, like a flannel blanket, to try and reword the decision to confirm your bias.

Speaking there of a flannel security blanket. Is she a doper?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

While it may have been theoretically possible that the presence of a banned substance in her system was through food contamination CAS accepted the AIU argument on the evidence presented that it was of almost zero probability. Of the arguments on the table as to how she tested positive for nandrolone that only left intentional doping, which was the finding accordingly of the Court. The result was a 4 year ban.

The result was that the ban was not overturned or its length reduced.

I don't know why you guys continue to rehash the CAS decision. She has been banned for 4 years and she has about 3 years left which will take her through the 2024 Olympics and that's what matters. She will not be successful in challenging the ban in Swiss Federal Court.

The only issue is not that she has been banned for an intentional doping violation but that rekrunner cannot accept she is therefore a doper. The word is not in his vocabulary nor of the other doping apologists.

liar soorer wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The result was that the ban was not overturned or its length reduced.

I don't know why you guys continue to rehash the CAS decision. She has been banned for 4 years and she has about 3 years left which will take her through the 2024 Olympics and that's what matters. She will not be successful in challenging the ban in Swiss Federal Court.

There was no ban that existed nor any length that was not reduced.

And she didn't test positive for a banned substance - but if she did it must have been the missing burrito - and CAS didn't ban her for 4 years for an "intentional ADRV". I can see your reasoning here - or attempts at it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

There was no ban that existed nor any length that was not reduced.

And she didn't test positive for a banned substance - but if she did it must have been the missing burrito - and CAS didn't ban her for 4 years for an "intentional ADRV". I can see your reasoning here - or attempts at it.

She never tested positive, get your terms right or go away.

Armstronglivs wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The result was that the ban was not overturned or its length reduced.

I don't know why you guys continue to rehash the CAS decision. She has been banned for 4 years and she has about 3 years left which will take her through the 2024 Olympics and that's what matters. She will not be successful in challenging the ban in Swiss Federal Court.

The only issue is not that she has been banned for an intentional doping violation but that rekrunner cannot accept she is therefore a doper. The word is not in his vocabulary nor of the other doping apologists.

Read the rules; apologise and go away

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That was the subject of the post you responded to.

It brings you security, like a flannel blanket, to try and reword the decision to confirm your bias.

Speaking there of a flannel security blanket. Is she a doper?

No; now go away

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

There was only one possibility with evidence presented to the CAS — accidental ingestion of a small amount from a burrito without knowledge.

I asked what was probable, not what was possible. A "possibility" that cannot be proven, that has been described as being of "zero probability", remains mere conjecture, without convincing evidential support - little more than air. Do you understand the difference between possible and probable? It appears not. All of your arguments are mere conjecture, without convincing evidential support.

Read the Code and then away with you

casual obsever wrote:

Yes indeed. Well deserved full four years for her intentional anti-doping rule violation with nandrolone. Not "just" too many missed tests or tampering or using a forbidden method, it was full hard core classical doping with roids. No matter how much the drug cheat apologists want to deflect and obfuscate.

Bye Shelburrito!

Answer the previous Q. What hormone levels were raised .

thoughts and prayers wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

If you have your own language system that would be ok.

just the facts

No evidence of being a doper; in fact the opposite was proven.Read the decision.