Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
A problem that USADA and WADA recognise.
Fortunately the problem of the doper Houlihan has been addressed.
Another refusal to deal with the argument at hand and thus more lies from you.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
A problem that USADA and WADA recognise.
Fortunately the problem of the doper Houlihan has been addressed.
Another refusal to deal with the argument at hand and thus more lies from you.
casual obsever wrote:
No rekrunner. No double dipping: those are two different points, see 109 and 114.
And no, "commercial pork" is the correct wording straight from CAS, see 119.
And of course, by adding more - evidently correct - points to your "All we can really say", I proved that we can say more.
Ultimately this is a good example how easy it is for dopers to get away with a positive test. All they'd have to come up with, is a scenario that is viewed possible and not improbable (see also Wilson's case). Houlihan on the other hand, well, see above for the cascade of improbable and highly improbable and not consistent events.
So you are repeating the CAS repeating themselves?
What is the *significant* difference between "nandro" and "androgen"? Do we even care about androgen in this case?
Paragraph 119 includes as its basis ignoring soy-fed diets in favor of corn-fed diets.
While you proved *you* "can say more"- after all the CAS said 44-pages worth - the point was that you are not *really* saying anything more than what is encapsulated in "all we can really say..."
You can say a lot but that doesn't mean it correctly reflects what is even in the report.
You wanted to add a few "we can rule out on the balance of probability ...", according to the CAS, but the CAS did not rule these possibilities out, but instead they said, at each step, it is possible.
You are also misrepresenting, or misunderstanding, what needed to be shown on the balance of probability. The probability of "not intentional" is not the same probability as intact boar meat/organ in a burrito.
In cases of no-fault and non-negligence, it should be automatic to get away with a positive test, with the exception of annulling the specific results that were achieved under the influence, like Ajee Wilson. Simon Getzmann shows how much luck plays a role in an athlete's ability to identify the source. Even Ajee Wilson shows how much luck plays a role, by being lucky enough to have an ADO working to protect athletes. Without preserving the remaining portion of the burrito, Houlihan has a slim chance to convince a panel against an aggressive prosecution, under the 2015 WADA code.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
No rekrunner. No double dipping: those are two different points, see 109 and 114.
And no, "commercial pork" is the correct wording straight from CAS, see 119.
And of course, by adding more - evidently correct - points to your "All we can really say", I proved that we can say more.
Ultimately this is a good example how easy it is for dopers to get away with a positive test. All they'd have to come up with, is a scenario that is viewed possible and not improbable (see also Wilson's case). Houlihan on the other hand, well, see above for the cascade of improbable and highly improbable and not consistent events.
So you are repeating the CAS repeating themselves?
What is the *significant* difference between "nandro" and "androgen"? Do we even care about androgen in this case?
Paragraph 119 includes as its basis ignoring soy-fed diets in favor of corn-fed diets.
While you proved *you* "can say more"- after all the CAS said 44-pages worth - the point was that you are not *really* saying anything more than what is encapsulated in "all we can really say..."
You can say a lot but that doesn't mean it correctly reflects what is even in the report.
You wanted to add a few "we can rule out on the balance of probability ...", according to the CAS, but the CAS did not rule these possibilities out, but instead they said, at each step, it is possible.
You are also misrepresenting, or misunderstanding, what needed to be shown on the balance of probability. The probability of "not intentional" is not the same probability as intact boar meat/organ in a burrito.
In cases of no-fault and non-negligence, it should be automatic to get away with a positive test, with the exception of annulling the specific results that were achieved under the influence, like Ajee Wilson. Simon Getzmann shows how much luck plays a role in an athlete's ability to identify the source. Even Ajee Wilson shows how much luck plays a role, by being lucky enough to have an ADO working to protect athletes. Without preserving the remaining portion of the burrito, Houlihan has a slim chance to convince a panel against an aggressive prosecution, under the 2015 WADA code.
4 years for an intentional ADRV. You were saying?
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Fortunately the problem of the doper Houlihan has been addressed.
Another refusal to deal with the argument at hand and thus more lies from you.
4 years. So satisfying.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
So you are repeating the CAS repeating themselves?
What is the *significant* difference between "nandro" and "androgen"? Do we even care about androgen in this case?
Paragraph 119 includes as its basis ignoring soy-fed diets in favor of corn-fed diets.
While you proved *you* "can say more"- after all the CAS said 44-pages worth - the point was that you are not *really* saying anything more than what is encapsulated in "all we can really say..."
You can say a lot but that doesn't mean it correctly reflects what is even in the report.
You wanted to add a few "we can rule out on the balance of probability ...", according to the CAS, but the CAS did not rule these possibilities out, but instead they said, at each step, it is possible.
You are also misrepresenting, or misunderstanding, what needed to be shown on the balance of probability. The probability of "not intentional" is not the same probability as intact boar meat/organ in a burrito.
In cases of no-fault and non-negligence, it should be automatic to get away with a positive test, with the exception of annulling the specific results that were achieved under the influence, like Ajee Wilson. Simon Getzmann shows how much luck plays a role in an athlete's ability to identify the source. Even Ajee Wilson shows how much luck plays a role, by being lucky enough to have an ADO working to protect athletes. Without preserving the remaining portion of the burrito, Houlihan has a slim chance to convince a panel against an aggressive prosecution, under the 2015 WADA code.
4 years for an intentional ADRV. You were saying?
Read the rules. Oh ; you refuse to
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
A problem that USADA and WADA recognise.
Fortunately the problem of the doper Houlihan has been addressed.
Another refusal to deal with the argument at hand and thus more lies from you.[/quote
In a corner and won’t answer except by foul potty mouthed insults.
Go away.
This post was removed.
She was caught with a baned substance in her system. That is cheating. Even if she didn't know she took a banned substance, which I do not believe for a minute, just having a banned substance in her system makes her a cheat. I'm glad she is suspended and wish it was longer.
xheueueh3 wrote:
She was caught with a baned substance in her system. That is cheating. Even if she didn't know she took a banned substance, which I do not believe for a minute, just having a banned substance in her system makes her a cheat. I'm glad she is suspended and wish it was longer.
Wrong.
Why would someone who has a banned product in their system be a cheat?
Note I said person and not directly SH.
liar soorer wrote:
xheueueh3 wrote:
She was caught with a baned substance in her system. That is cheating. Even if she didn't know she took a banned substance, which I do not believe for a minute, just having a banned substance in her system makes her a cheat. I'm glad she is suspended and wish it was longer.
Wrong.
Why would someone who has a banned product in their system be a cheat?
Note I said person and not directly SH.
You need at least half a brain to understand this. You don't have even that.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
4 years for an intentional ADRV. You were saying?
Read the rules. Oh ; you refuse to
The rules don't change the outcome; they confirm it. CAS applied the rules. You are unable to grasp that because of your apparent intellectual impairment.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Fortunately the problem of the doper Houlihan has been addressed.
Another refusal to deal with the argument at hand and thus more lies from you.[/quote
In a corner and won’t answer except by foul potty mouthed insults.
Go away.
Houlihan has been banned for 4 years. So that is a "potty mouthed insult"? It has come from CAS, no less.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Another refusal to deal with the argument at hand and thus more lies from you.[/quote
In a corner and won’t answer except by foul potty mouthed insults.
Go away.
Houlihan has been banned for 4 years. So that is a "potty mouthed insult"? It has come from CAS, no less.
Cas made no ref to manure , excrement or farts etc etc.
You do in your child like insults.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Read the rules. Oh ; you refuse to
The rules don't change the outcome; they confirm it. CAS applied the rules. You are unable to grasp that because of your apparent intellectual impairment.
I agree with the judgement and have said so several times but not what you then go on to say.
If you read the rules there is a tiny hope you would understand; but you cascade foul abuse instead.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Wrong.
Why would someone who has a banned product in their system be a cheat?
Note I said person and not directly SH.
You need at least half a brain to understand this. You don't have even that.
Help me then, explain.
Help me understand what you think the word cheat means.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You need at least half a brain to understand this. You don't have even that.
Help me then, explain.
Help me understand what you think the word cheat means.
Bet I get foul abuse rather than an answer.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Houlihan has been banned for 4 years. So that is a "potty mouthed insult"? It has come from CAS, no less.
Cas made no ref to manure , excrement or farts etc etc.
You do in your child like insults.
That is only because CAS wasn't talking about you. But you haven't a clue what CAS decided and why.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You need at least half a brain to understand this. You don't have even that.
Help me then, explain.
Help me understand what you think the word cheat means.
You are beyond help.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Help me then, explain.
Help me understand what you think the word cheat means.
Bet I get foul abuse rather than an answer.
And yes that did happen.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Help me then, explain.
Help me understand what you think the word cheat means.
Bet I get foul abuse rather than an answer.
You get what you deserve.
Ingebrigtsen brothers release incredibly catchy Olympic music video (listen here + full lyrics)
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out
No scholarship limits anymore! (NCAA Track and Field inequality is going to get way worse, right?)
FBI Director: Trump wonders if trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel