Although not true it wouldn't bother me if it was. I'm not making a proposal that I wish others to endorse, as the OP is. P*ssing people off like you I consider a bonus.
In the last 5.5 years, you’ve posted nearly 28,000 times. This board is the center of your life.
It's the centre of yours or you wouldn't know that. Your present obsession is to continue to argue a break for a convicted doper. It won't get anywhere but you like losing.
Writing 28000 posts takes the same amount of time than checking this number by clicking on your user name?
After seeing you post maybe something like 20 times in a single thread in a short period of time, it's most natural to check your full number of posts.
I guess no other poster has such an enormous amount of posts in such a short period of time. Letsrun is the center of your life. At almost 80 years of age, you definitely spend here more time than the people who have started this site. Do you think this is meaningful?
The problem with Shelby’s suspension is that it covers two Olympic years even though the spirit of the standard four-year doping penalty is to cover just one Olympic year.
The elegant solution to this problem is to let Shelby compete this year so she has the opportunity to qualify for the Olympics, then have her serve the fourth year of her suspension next year. This is the fair thing to do.
Who’s with me? Let’s use this thread as a petition to let Shelby compete this year.
I think the OP has a point.
Her four year ban covers two Olympic games, so she is more punished with such a ban than others.
But isn't that life? It's not always fair. Ingebrigtsen has profitted, in 2020 he wouldn't have become Olympic champion.
It's the centre of yours or you wouldn't know that. Your present obsession is to continue to argue a break for a convicted doper. It won't get anywhere but you like losing.
Writing 28000 posts takes the same amount of time than checking this number by clicking on your user name?
After seeing you post maybe something like 20 times in a single thread in a short period of time, it's most natural to check your full number of posts.
I guess no other poster has such an enormous amount of posts in such a short period of time. Letsrun is the center of your life. At almost 80 years of age, you definitely spend here more time than the people who have started this site. Do you think this is meaningful?
70 not 80. But what I ask is "meaningful" is why do you continue to fire off your ineffectual tirades in response to what I post? The obsession here is all yours.
The problem with Shelby’s suspension is that it covers two Olympic years even though the spirit of the standard four-year doping penalty is to cover just one Olympic year.
The elegant solution to this problem is to let Shelby compete this year so she has the opportunity to qualify for the Olympics, then have her serve the fourth year of her suspension next year. This is the fair thing to do.
Who’s with me? Let’s use this thread as a petition to let Shelby compete this year.
I think the OP has a point.
Her four year ban covers two Olympic games, so she is more punished with such a ban than others.
But isn't that life? It's not always fair. Ingebrigtsen has profitted, in 2020 he wouldn't have become Olympic champion.
No one in antidoping cares that she misses two Olympics. If they did the rules would have changed. They haven't and they won't. She is paying the price for her violation. That isn't quantified when a ban is imposed. Not can it be - or should it be. The athlete has to live with the consequences of their breach of the rules.
Your "elegant proposal" has descended to petty personal jibes from the thickest posters on the board. So much winning.
That’s the effect you have on every thread. You bring down the level of discourse with your insults. That’s why I politely asked you to stop making personal attacks.
In the last 5.5 years, you’ve posted nearly 28,000 times. This board is the center of your life.
It's the centre of yours or you wouldn't know that. Your present obsession is to continue to argue a break for a convicted doper. It won't get anywhere but you like losing.
Seriously? It took me 2 seconds to click on your handle and see your posting stats.
You didn’t answer my question. Since you like to go by the letter of the law and dismiss the spirit of the law, does the rulebook say the 4 years have to be served consecutively?
You are starting to sound like one of those sovereign citizens loonies.
Why not try arguing that Shelby Houlihan, the person, was not found to have drugs in her system but rather it was SHELBY HOULIHAN (all caps), the corporate entity strawman as defined by the illegal US Government through the issuance of a birth certificate and social insurance number, who tested positive?
Therefore, the ban only applies to the corporate entity strawman SHELBY HOULIHAN not the person Shelby Houlihan. If the USATF continues to persecute the person Shelby Houlihan by identifying her as the corporate entity strawman SHELBY HOULIHAN then she should apply her rights enshrined in the 1787 treaty between the United States and Morocco grants citizens immunity from US law.
You didn’t answer my question. Since you like to go by the letter of the law and dismiss the spirit of the law, does the rulebook say the 4 years have to be served consecutively?
It doesn't have to. 4 years speaks for itself. If it wasn't so dopers would have long ago gone for the option you suggest. You aren't smarter than any of their lawyers. You aren't smarter than anyone.
You’re all over the place. You dismiss the fact that the documented intent of the penalty was for people to miss the next Olympics (not 2) because the clause about the Olympics got removed from an earlier draft. So you go by the letter of the rule when it favors what you want, but then you say the rule doesn’t have to be explicit about something else that would go against what you want. At least be consistent.
Your "elegant proposal" has descended to petty personal jibes from the thickest posters on the board. So much winning.
That’s the effect you have on every thread. You bring down the level of discourse with your insults. That’s why I politely asked you to stop making personal attacks.
I am not interested in what you think you are "politely asking". If my comments were abusive they would have been removed by the mods. They are not abusive. But you aren't really bothered by personal attacks or you would have made the same request to the posters that have done nothing except make personal attacks against me in the last several pages. But that's ok. They are on your side.
It's the centre of yours or you wouldn't know that. Your present obsession is to continue to argue a break for a convicted doper. It won't get anywhere but you like losing.
Seriously? It took me 2 seconds to click on your handle and see your posting stats.
I wouldn't bother doing that for anyone. It's really easy to get under your skin. That's because you can't cope with being differed with.
It doesn't have to. 4 years speaks for itself. If it wasn't so dopers would have long ago gone for the option you suggest. You aren't smarter than any of their lawyers. You aren't smarter than anyone.
You’re all over the place. You dismiss the fact that the documented intent of the penalty was for people to miss the next Olympics (not 2) because the clause about the Olympics got removed from an earlier draft. So you go by the letter of the rule when it favors what you want, but then you say the rule doesn’t have to be explicit about something else that would go against what you want. At least be consistent.
You simply don't get it. It isn't the "documented intent" of the penalty. That is your interpretation. That it may be a consequence of a penalty does not make it the intent of the penalty. The intent of the penalty is that the athlete is barred from all competition for the period of the ban. That is what a ban means. However, this will have a variety of consequences, depending on the situation of the athlete involved. WADA doesn't concern itself with that; once the athlete is banned the chips fall where they lie. The penalty does not require further specification of what competitions the athlete is excluded from. It is all of them. But what WADA obviously didn't want was that an athlete could be banned and yet compete in time for the Olympics because the ban was for only a short duration. So the Olympics were taken into account for setting the period of the ban but were not its purpose or intent. That you simply can't grasp this distinction is why virtually no one on this thread accept the Houlihan doping-denier supports your proposal, and why antidoping will never support it.
That’s the effect you have on every thread. You bring down the level of discourse with your insults. That’s why I politely asked you to stop making personal attacks.
I am not interested in what you think you are "politely asking". If my comments were abusive they would have been removed by the mods. They are not abusive. But you aren't really bothered by personal attacks or you would have made the same request to the posters that have done nothing except make personal attacks against me in the last several pages. But that's ok. They are on your side.
One of your comments did get removed, deservedly so. I don’t like personal attacks against anyone, but I won’t object to it if people respond to your attacks in kind.
Seriously? It took me 2 seconds to click on your handle and see your posting stats.
I wouldn't bother doing that for anyone. It's really easy to get under your skin. That's because you can't cope with being differed with.
LMAO! Nice try. The truth is you didn’t know how quick and easy it is to see someone’s posting stats until I told you. Add it to the growing list of things you’ve been wrong about.
I am not interested in what you think you are "politely asking". If my comments were abusive they would have been removed by the mods. They are not abusive. But you aren't really bothered by personal attacks or you would have made the same request to the posters that have done nothing except make personal attacks against me in the last several pages. But that's ok. They are on your side.
One of your comments did get removed, deservedly so. I don’t like personal attacks against anyone, but I won’t object to it if people respond to your attacks in kind.
Look. Track and field and drug testing enforcement should not care about the fans...ever. We're just fans. So nope. No Houlihan. On behalf of all of us who don't dope.
You’re all over the place. You dismiss the fact that the documented intent of the penalty was for people to miss the next Olympics (not 2) because the clause about the Olympics got removed from an earlier draft. So you go by the letter of the rule when it favors what you want, but then you say the rule doesn’t have to be explicit about something else that would go against what you want. At least be consistent.
You simply don't get it. It isn't the "documented intent" of the penalty. That is your interpretation. That it may be a consequence of a penalty does not make it the intent of the penalty. The intent of the penalty is that the athlete is barred from all competition for the period of the ban. That is what a ban means. However, this will have a variety of consequences, depending on the situation of the athlete involved. WADA doesn't concern itself with that; once the athlete is banned the chips fall where they lie. The penalty does not require further specification of what competitions the athlete is excluded from. It is all of them. But what WADA obviously didn't want was that an athlete could be banned and yet compete in time for the Olympics because the ban was for only a short duration. So the Olympics were taken into account for setting the period of the ban but were not its purpose or intent. That you simply can't grasp this distinction is why virtually no one on this thread accept the Houlihan doping-denier supports your proposal, and why antidoping will never support it.
Yes, it’s the documented intent. I gave you the news articles and quotes to prove it. That you simply refuse to accept that reality shows you are unable to handle being wrong. So instead you deny, deflect, and insult. You’ve become predictable.
I am not interested in what you think you are "politely asking". If my comments were abusive they would have been removed by the mods. They are not abusive. But you aren't really bothered by personal attacks or you would have made the same request to the posters that have done nothing except make personal attacks against me in the last several pages. But that's ok. They are on your side.
One of your comments did get removed, deservedly so. I don’t like personal attacks against anyone, but I won’t object to it if people respond to your attacks in kind.
Only one? But apparently you can't cope with the heat in the kitchen. So others have to do your work for you.
What you also don't get is that by your persistent whining you make this a personal exchange, but where you of course assume the moral high ground - as your thread subject pleading for a doper also attempts to show.
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.