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.
A tautology.
The system should not work so it catches those that have not cheated in the same way as it catches those that do.How can that be morally aspirational?
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.
Are you saying that you did not know they were strict liability offences and thus could not be guilty of lying?
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.
A tautology.
The system should not work so it catches those that have not cheated in the same way as it catches those that do.How can that be morally aspirational?
One way or another they have all cheated. But if they can provide a defence for why a banned substance is in their body then they haven't cheated. Simple - except to a moron. But keep up the good work. Your arguments invariably convince that the system works.
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?
Hahahaha what? I know I'm going to regret writing this, but why not just register one handle and post under that? If you post under an unregistered handle, by definition, that handle is not yours.
My username has been registered for almost 20 years, it's worked well.
The system should not work so it catches those that have not cheated in the same way as it catches those that do.How can that be morally aspirational?
One way or another they have all cheated. But if they can provide a defence for why a banned substance is in their body then they haven't cheated. Simple - except to a moron. But keep up the good work. Your arguments invariably convince that the system works.
How on earth have they all cheated in one way or another.
And you still have not grasped that come what may they all get a conviction. Further, even if you prove where “ it” came from and such was not by intent you can still get the full sanction.
You may be right in saying it shows that the system works. Yes indeed so and that it punishes non cheats.
Ir also causes those who have been negligent to be tarnished with being a cheat for life.
By the way! You said very recently that generally a conviction for an anti doping offence was cheating , now you say invariably.
Which is it ? And how do you know esp given USADA’s opinion on non cheat convictions? is USADA full of morons.
And did you not get one of your bans for calling people morons?
Maybe you girls should just DM each other so the rest of us don't have to read this drivel. My vote is for whomever didn't misspell past. I can't go through even more brain damage to look back and figure out who that was.
Maybe you girls should just DM each other so the rest of us don't have to read this drivel. My vote is for whomever didn't misspell past. I can't go through even more brain damage to look back and figure out who that was.
I think that all should realise the problems caused by strict liability and convicting those that have not cheated.
Otherwise the real drivel that has passed by in the past saying that they hope such at SH will suffer a painful death will continue.
One way or another they have all cheated. But if they can provide a defence for why a banned substance is in their body then they haven't cheated. Simple - except to a moron. But keep up the good work. Your arguments invariably convince that the system works.
How on earth have they all cheated in one way or another.
And you still have not grasped that come what may they all get a conviction. Further, even if you prove where “ it” came from and such was not by intent you can still get the full sanction.
You may be right in saying it shows that the system works. Yes indeed so and that it punishes non cheats.
Ir also causes those who have been negligent to be tarnished with being a cheat for life.
By the way! You said very recently that generally a conviction for an anti doping offence was cheating , now you say invariably.
Which is it ? And how do you know esp given USADA’s opinion on non cheat convictions? is USADA full of morons.
And did you not get one of your bans for calling people morons?
As I said, you provide a very useful service. The truth will always be the opposite of what lunatic maintains.
Maybe you girls should just DM each other so the rest of us don't have to read this drivel. My vote is for whomever didn't misspell past. I can't go through even more brain damage to look back and figure out who that was.
I think that all should realise the problems caused by strict liability and convicting those that have not cheated.
Otherwise the real drivel that has passed by in the past saying that they hope such at SH will suffer a painful death will continue.
Though you don't know it, you are the best champion the system could have.
One way or another they have all cheated. But if they can provide a defence for why a banned substance is in their body then they haven't cheated. Simple - except to a moron. But keep up the good work. Your arguments invariably convince that the system works.
How on earth have they all cheated in one way or another.
And you still have not grasped that come what may they all get a conviction. Further, even if you prove where “ it” came from and such was not by intent you can still get the full sanction.
You may be right in saying it shows that the system works. Yes indeed so and that it punishes non cheats.
Ir also causes those who have been negligent to be tarnished with being a cheat for life.
By the way! You said very recently that generally a conviction for an anti doping offence was cheating , now you say invariably.
Which is it ? And how do you know esp given USADA’s opinion on non cheat convictions? is USADA full of morons.
And did you not get one of your bans for calling people morons?
Ironic, isn't it, that the morons are never banned?
How on earth have they all cheated in one way or another.
And you still have not grasped that come what may they all get a conviction. Further, even if you prove where “ it” came from and such was not by intent you can still get the full sanction.
You may be right in saying it shows that the system works. Yes indeed so and that it punishes non cheats.
Ir also causes those who have been negligent to be tarnished with being a cheat for life.
By the way! You said very recently that generally a conviction for an anti doping offence was cheating , now you say invariably.
Which is it ? And how do you know esp given USADA’s opinion on non cheat convictions? is USADA full of morons.
And did you not get one of your bans for calling people morons?
As I said, you provide a very useful service. The truth will always be the opposite of what lunatic maintains.
How on earth have they all cheated in one way or another.
And you still have not grasped that come what may they all get a conviction. Further, even if you prove where “ it” came from and such was not by intent you can still get the full sanction.
You may be right in saying it shows that the system works. Yes indeed so and that it punishes non cheats.
Ir also causes those who have been negligent to be tarnished with being a cheat for life.
By the way! You said very recently that generally a conviction for an anti doping offence was cheating , now you say invariably.
Which is it ? And how do you know esp given USADA’s opinion on non cheat convictions? is USADA full of morons.
And did you not get one of your bans for calling people morons?
As I said, you provide a very useful service. The truth will always be the opposite of what lunatic maintains.
How on earth can you say that when you have never read the rules?
How on earth have they all cheated in one way or another.
And you still have not grasped that come what may they all get a conviction. Further, even if you prove where “ it” came from and such was not by intent you can still get the full sanction.
You may be right in saying it shows that the system works. Yes indeed so and that it punishes non cheats.
Ir also causes those who have been negligent to be tarnished with being a cheat for life.
By the way! You said very recently that generally a conviction for an anti doping offence was cheating , now you say invariably.
Which is it ? And how do you know esp given USADA’s opinion on non cheat convictions? is USADA full of morons.
And did you not get one of your bans for calling people morons?
As I said, you provide a very useful service. The truth will always be the opposite of what lunatic maintains.
You have been asked dozens of times as to what percentage of convictions of non cheaters would you accept as being ok with you.
I found this quite amusing. Despite Houlihan having been caught and banned by the AIU in 2021, the USADA has still been regularly PED testing Houlihan since that time and all the USADA testing has returned no positives.
Number of times the USADA has tested Houlihan per quarter:
Q1 2021: 3
Q2 2021: 6
Q3 2021: 6
Q4 2021: 0
Q1 2022: 4
Q2 2022: 9
Q3 2022: 3
Q4 2022: 0
So base on this, I certainly "believe" Jerry Schumacher when he says Houlihan is "clean". After all, the USADA drug testing works and they are not reclassifying positive tests as negatives, right? The AIU must be wrong with their laser like targetted testing of American athletes.
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.