Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
A failure to show lack of intent is also not a basis for a claim of cheating. It remains baseless.
A failure to show lack of intent leaves intent as the only inference, as was determined by CAS. So she cheated.
Wrong yet again.Read the rules.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
And then you would look at all the circumstances and the burden would be on the prosecution to show intent.
Bit of foot shooting! But thank you for allowing the real world to be compared with WADA.
But then you argued and continued to argue that the bladder is part of the digestive system.
Intent is shown by the possession of stolen goods for which no credible excuse is provided. You're welcome.
So wrong
It is always particularly gratifying when a cheater is caught. Career over.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Intent is shown by the possession of stolen goods for which no credible excuse is provided. You're welcome.
So wrong
Possession is not a strict liability offence.
Apologise for being a intellectual fraud .
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
A failure to show lack of intent is also not a basis for a claim of cheating. It remains baseless.
A failure to show lack of intent leaves intent as the only inference, as was determined by CAS. So she cheated.
CAS never ruled on inference
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is always particularly gratifying when a cheater is caught. Career over.
Rules don’t rule on intent.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Intent is shown by the possession of stolen goods for which no credible excuse is provided. You're welcome.
Wrong wrong wrong.
I add .
Utter intellectual garbage. You fail to understand strict liability .
Fail fail fail.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs has just nuked himself.
I thought he would never out do the bladder in the colon stupidity but he has managed to do that.
I could not have thought of a better example to show the unfairness and limitations of doping control.
I never thought I would ever say it …. but thank you Armstronglivs 🥰
I never mentioned a colon. Liar is certainly your name. But you do know something about a rectum because you have just disappeared up that of rekrunner. Houlihan had a banned substance in her system with no credible excuse for how it got there, like a stash of stolen goods in her garage. CAS took the only reasonable view. We can all celebrate that the system works as it should.
You said that the urinary system was part of the digestive system.
I wish it was like a stash of stolen goods and not be a strict liability offence. Well done for saying doping offences should not be a strict liability offence.
So wonderful that Armstronglivs should now admit that anti doping rules should be the same as shoplifting and not be a strict liability offence.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
So wrong
Possession is not a strict liability offence.
Apologise for being a intellectual fraud .
Intent is inferred from the facts. Just like Shelby having a banned substance she couldn't explain away.
liar soorer wrote:
So wonderful that Armstronglivs should now admit that anti doping rules should be the same as shoplifting and not be a strict liability offence.
Unfortunately for you - and her - CAS said her offence was intentional.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
A failure to show lack of intent leaves intent as the only inference, as was determined by CAS. So she cheated.
CAS never ruled on inference
CAS inferred she doped as she couldn't show lack of intent. Well done, CAS.
Well, this circle **** of childish banter does nothing to change the fact that Shelby is done and the Go Fund Me raising money for.... whatever, is also done. Good riddance and let's all just be happy for a small victory in catching a doper.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
CAS never ruled on inference
CAS inferred she doped as she couldn't show lack of intent. Well done, CAS.
They did no such thing. Read the rules
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
So wonderful that Armstronglivs should now admit that anti doping rules should be the same as shoplifting and not be a strict liability offence.
Unfortunately for you - and her - CAS said her offence was intentional.
No… deemed under specific and limited rule 10.
Do read the rules
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Possession is not a strict liability offence.
Apologise for being a intellectual fraud .
Intent is inferred from the facts. Just like Shelby having a banned substance she couldn't explain away.
No such thing as inferred in non strict liability offences.
Do read stuff.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I never mentioned a colon. Liar is certainly your name. But you do know something about a rectum because you have just disappeared up that of rekrunner. Houlihan had a banned substance in her system with no credible excuse for how it got there, like a stash of stolen goods in her garage. CAS took the only reasonable view. We can all celebrate that the system works as it should.
You said that the urinary system was part of the digestive system.
I wish it was like a stash of stolen goods and not be a strict liability offence. Well done for saying doping offences should not be a strict liability offence.
Shelby did have the equivalent of "a stash of stolen goods". It was called nandrolone and was found in her body. She put it there.
Perhaps you could also explain how nandrolone could have found its way into her bladder if she didn't consume it. The burrito defence completely collapses if it wasn't from something she ate. Only a moron like you doesn't see the contradictions in your arguments.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Intent is inferred from the facts. Just like Shelby having a banned substance she couldn't explain away.
No such thing as inferred in non strict liability offences.
Do read stuff.
Factual inferences are drawn all the time in court cases. I would tell you to read stuff but it wouldn't help.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Unfortunately for you - and her - CAS said her offence was intentional.
No… deemed under specific and limited rule 10.
Do read the rules
That which is deemed is thereby stated as fact. From everything you say you can be deemed irremediably stupid.
RD A-hole wrote:
Well, this circle **** of childish banter does nothing to change the fact that Shelby is done and the Go Fund Me raising money for.... whatever, is also done. Good riddance and let's all just be happy for a small victory in catching a doper.
Her sycophants here cannot accept their loss.