If I want to attack someone you're a much easier target. Thicker than a bunch of planks.
I know you like to target women. You are a weak man.
So being "thicker than a bunch of planks" is referring to the female gender? Most women wouldn't see it that way. But you certainly fit the description, as you show.
This is a doping thread - as the Houlihan threads also are. What they show is the irreconcilable inconsistencies in your arguments about doping. There is just as much evidence of Houlihan doping as there is of the youngster who is the subject of this thread, but you want to avoid accepting that; you find Houlihan's conviction "uncompelling". When it comes to professionals doping you always do; only schoolboys dope.
There is a consistency when you follow the evidence in each case, and here the differences are easy to reconcile.
In the father/son case, there is a significant difference in the evidence, as USADA -- the anti-doping organization -- investigated and identified the source: "USADA initiated an investigation that uncovered evidence demonstrating that Michael Vowell, 49, administered his own prescription testosterone gel to his minor child".
Yet a confirmed positive test for which the athlete had no adequate excuse was not as "compelling" to you.
It doesn't matter where the drug came from or who administered it if it was in the athlete's body and they had no acceptable explanation.
Since it wasn't accidental contamination Houlihan remained the source.
This factless gibberish is also not compelling. No one ever spoke of "accidental contamination".
But if Houlihan remains the source of the nandrolone, as you insist, then it is by definition endogenous, and therefore she didn't dope.
"Accidental contamination" would have been eating a contaminated burrito, you m*ron. CAS didn't buy it. It found her guilt compelling, so it convicted her.
She was the source in the sense she was the author of her doping, not that the substance was endogenous - which was ruled out. Twisting words only makes you look an even bigger jerk.
This factless gibberish is also not compelling. No one ever spoke of "accidental contamination".
But if Houlihan remains the source of the nandrolone, as you insist, then it is by definition endogenous, and therefore she didn't dope.
"Accidental contamination" would have been eating a contaminated burrito, you m*ron. CAS didn't buy it. It found her guilt compelling, so it convicted her.
She was the source in the sense she was the author of her doping, not that the substance was endogenous - which was ruled out. Twisting words only makes you look an even bigger jerk.
This is still pure uncompelling gibberish. No one established the source of the nandrolone however awkward way you want to say it.
USADA investigated, and established the source of the testosterone in the father/son doping.
That alone is a significant difference that makes it more compelling.
"Accidental contamination" would have been eating a contaminated burrito, you m*ron. CAS didn't buy it. It found her guilt compelling, so it convicted her.
She was the source in the sense she was the author of her doping, not that the substance was endogenous - which was ruled out. Twisting words only makes you look an even bigger jerk.
This is still pure uncompelling gibberish. No one established the source of the nandrolone however awkward way you want to say it.
USADA investigated, and established the source of the testosterone in the father/son doping.
That alone is a significant difference that makes it more compelling.
The source is irrelevant. What is relevant is the nature of the substance, that it is a banned drug, and that it is confirmed in the athlete's system. If the athlete can't show accidental contamination or at least lack of negligence then how it got there doesn't matter, the athlete is responsible.
Doping scandal covered up because the same 2 LRC posters just can't shut up.
Yes, I wish they would delete all that off topic gibberish and keep the thread focused on this particular incident.
Unfortunately there are enough doping cases to have many many threads.
The subject of this thread has been commented on here at length. It's chief significance is that it confirms doping can be found in schools and amongst mediocre athletes. So it will be rife in the pros.
I know him and have spoken to him a few times. I used to run on the track while his team practiced. He and his son were not good runners, but his daughter was extremely talented. If he was doing this to a 12-year-old girl, he should be locked up.
This is still pure uncompelling gibberish. No one established the source of the nandrolone however awkward way you want to say it.
USADA investigated, and established the source of the testosterone in the father/son doping.
That alone is a significant difference that makes it more compelling.
The source is irrelevant. What is relevant is the nature of the substance, that it is a banned drug, and that it is confirmed in the athlete's system. If the athlete can't show accidental contamination or at least lack of negligence then how it got there doesn't matter, the athlete is responsible.
This is still pure uncompelling gibberish. No one established the source of the nandrolone however awkward way you want to say it.
USADA investigated, and established the source of the testosterone in the father/son doping.
That alone is a significant difference that makes it more compelling.
The source is irrelevant. What is relevant is the nature of the substance, that it is a banned drug, and that it is confirmed in the athlete's system. If the athlete can't show accidental contamination or at least lack of negligence then how it got there doesn't matter, the athlete is responsible.
Not quite right. What is relevant is endogenous or exogenous. Endogenous nandrolone is not banned. Responsible doesn't mean exogenous. To make the argument compelling, you would necessarily need to establish the source, before you can establish its exogenous/endogenous origin. Houlihan's failure to persuade a panel of the source is not a compelling basis for any speculated alternative.
Yes, I wish they would delete all that off topic gibberish and keep the thread focused on this particular incident.
Unfortunately there are enough doping cases to have many many threads.
The subject of this thread has been commented on here at length. It's chief significance is that it confirms doping can be found in schools and amongst mediocre athletes. So it will be rife in the pros.
They are completely right -- this is not a Houlihan thread, and discussing Houlihan's case at all is wholly off-topic, because there is virtually nothing in common with this father/son case that wasn't disputed and didn't go to arbitration. I can only guess you want to hijack yet another thread to beat a dead horse because deep down you know your previous discussions were lacking.
This is a doping thread - as the Houlihan threads also are. What they show is the irreconcilable inconsistencies in your arguments about doping. There is just as much evidence of Houlihan doping as there is of the youngster who is the subject of this thread, but you want to avoid accepting that; you find Houlihan's conviction "uncompelling". When it comes to professionals doping you always do; only schoolboys dope.
There is a consistency when you follow the evidence in each case, and here the differences are easy to reconcile.
In the father/son case, there is a significant difference in the evidence, as USADA -- the anti-doping organization -- investigated and identified the source: "USADA initiated an investigation that uncovered evidence demonstrating that Michael Vowell, 49, administered his own prescription testosterone gel to his minor child".
But usada is presuming intent!! how does USADA know the father intended for the kid to run while he was using the testosterone?? They are being railroaded. wha, wha, wha...
The father can't be the source, it has to be from flying pigs.
But usada is presuming intent!! how does USADA know the father intended for the kid to run while he was using the testosterone?? They are being railroaded. wha, wha, wha...
The father can't be the source, it has to be from flying pigs.
I'm always prepared to listen to fact-based, reasoned arguments, but preferably from the father/son team first.
Intent doesn't appear to have played any role in determining the length of the sanction, and the father/son apparently did not attempt to argue no fault, no negligence, or non-intent. USADA said that "Seth Vowell qualified for a reduced two-year period of ineligibility", so he certainly wasn't railroaded to a 4-year ban for intentional doping.
The father received a lifetime ban for this first offense, so USADA must have also factored in "aggravating circumstances". The father might be able to contest that, and reduce it to a finite 8 years or less, for a first offense -- I don't know -- but he accepted the lifetime ineligibility without contest, and he did give testosterone to a minor.
The source USADA identified wasn't the father (gross!), but the father's prescription testosterone gel. Perhaps he got the idea from the publicity surrounding Salazar.