"I love the pain of a hard long run": Shelby Houlihan is moving up to the Half/Full Marathon in her return.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Bet I get foul abuse rather than an answer.

And yes that did happen.

You are quite possibly the only person on the board who requires explaining what the word "cheat" means.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are beyond help.

No answer, but in this instance no foul abuse just abuse.

You should go away.

But then you would have nothing to say and no one to say it to.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

And yes that did happen.

You are quite possibly the only person on the board who requires explaining what the word "cheat" means.

I asked you what you understand by “ cheat”.

But again no answer.

Cheat means intent.A deliberate attempt to gain unfair advantage or benefit.

Do you agree or disagree etc.?

Or will you evade yet again?

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

No answer, but in this instance no foul abuse just abuse.

You should go away.

But then you would have nothing to say and no one to say it to.

Again no answer.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Bet I get foul abuse rather than an answer.

You get what you deserve.

So; you agree you do issue forth foul abuse.

Go away.

Armstronglivs wrote:

4 years for an intentional ADRV. You were saying?

I thought you said you were fluent in English.

I was saying that under the current WADA code, which is in need of reform, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for an athlete to rebut a presumption of intention when he/she lacks the primary piece of evidence. Without that primary piece of evidence, a conversation that should be about parts of 1 local pig from Oregon during the disruptive periods of a pandemic, turns into a conversation about all of the pigs in the United States and Canada assuming times are normal. And most people will get confused by the statistics which may or may not be representative of this one specific instance.

The case of Simon Getzmann illlustrates this perfectly. In his case he proved his innoncence. Yet he still served a 1-year suspension — 1 year he can never get back, at the personal cost of more than 10,000 Euros, which he will never get back, and, to add insult to injury, it still counts as an ADRV — just a no-fault non-intentional ADRV. We can still call him a doper. All this because of a fault with the manufacturer of the WADA legal pain-killer he was prescribed. But for the luck of having 1 pill left, he would have certainly been condemned to the same 4 years for an intentional ADRV, being unable to prove his innocence to a panel on the balance of probability, despite the reality of his being innocent.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But then you would have nothing to say and no one to say it to.

Again no answer.

Come on; what is a cheat?

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Again no answer.

Come on; what is a cheat?

For crying out loud - let it go. You are coming across like someone who walks into a school playground with a gun.

OVD Much? wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Come on; what is a cheat?

For crying out loud - let it go. You are coming across like someone who walks into a school playground with a gun.

The concept of cheat is central to any moral discussion on drug positives.

If you can’t grasp this then I can’t help you.

Indeed it is central to the Wada Code.

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.

Easy, because the whole reason for having the banned substance in your system is because it gives the user an unfair and unnatural advantage over the 99.999999999% of other runners that aren't taking banned substances.

Unfair advantage using banned substance = cheater. This isn't hard.

A small point is that banned drugs do not have to give enhancement.

However the main point is that intent is central to cheating.And by your use of the word “using” is tautological as we actually have no idea that the drugs have been “ used” ie intent ; only that the are present.

So accidentally having a drug with no intent is not cheating . I would agree that differentiating accidentally presence from deliberate use is rather difficult.

So I agree, mainly, with your first para but see no reason why it automatically leads to the second.

This should not be too hard to grasp.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are quite possibly the only person on the board who requires explaining what the word "cheat" means.

I asked you what you understand by “ cheat”.

But again no answer.

Cheat means intent.A deliberate attempt to gain unfair advantage or benefit.

Do you agree or disagree etc.?

Or will you evade yet again?

Still no answer from the person who is proud he posts like a six year old and uses foul mouthed abuse.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

I asked you what you understand by “ cheat”.

But again no answer.

Cheat means intent.A deliberate attempt to gain unfair advantage or benefit.

Do you agree or disagree etc.?

Or will you evade yet again?

Still no answer from the person who is proud he posts like a six year old and uses foul mouthed abuse.

It would be an exercise in futility, as well as a demonstration of stupidity, to enter into an attempted intellectual discourse with one such as yourself. So I don't.

What a feeble - and false - argument. Your statement that an athlete cannot rebut the presumption of intention without "the primary piece of evidence" presumes - falsely - that they are innocent and that there is evidence that will prove that. The opposite may well be true - and is more likely. The true "primary piece of evidence" is the irrefutable fact that the athlete has committed a violation of the anti-doping rules. There may be no evidence to the contrary - because there is no evidence - that is, except in the mind of a doping denier such as yourself. Houlihan tried to find a "primary piece of evidence" in a pork burrito; it didn't work. If the athlete cannot show that they acted without fault or negligence then the violation stands - and it is logically confirmed as intentional. That is how the system works - and it works better than anti-doping having to presume the athlete is innocent and trying to find evidence of intent beyond a positive test when they are unable to investigate the athlete's actions in the way that law enforcement can do with alleged criminals. The reversal of the onus of proof would defeat every attempt to successfully hold a doper to account. But of course that would suit you.

Your arguments on these issues easily dissolve into irreconcilable contradictions. You are factually and logically required to accept that CAS imposed a 4-year penalty on Houlihan as incontrovertible, and that this was the result of CAS finding there was a violation of the anti-doping rules - a decision which is also an incontrovertible fact. Yet you cavil when CAS uses the word "intentional", as though it means the opposite of what we would understand it to mean, which is that an act is the result of a choice, when at the same time you cannot differ with what CAS meant when it imposed a 4-year ban for the violation. So CAS understood well what it was saying up to the point it used the word "intentional" - and then you think that word included by CAS means the opposite of what anyone would understand it to mean - including CAS. You are ludicrous. But on doping, you always are.

xheueueh3 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.

Easy, because the whole reason for having the banned substance in your system is because it gives the user an unfair and unnatural advantage over the 99.999999999% of other runners that aren't taking banned substances.

Unfair advantage using banned substance = cheater. This isn't hard.

It is for a doping apologist.

xheueueh3 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.

Easy, because the whole reason for having the banned substance in your system is because it gives the user an unfair and unnatural advantage over the 99.999999999% of other runners that aren't taking banned substances.

Unfair advantage using banned substance = cheater. This isn't hard.

If she didn't know anything about that banned substance in her system (which I don't believe, but that's not important for the question) it can't be cheating. She still could be banned, but not because of cheating.

99.999999999% of the runners are not taking banned substances? Well, even if she is the only runner taking banned substances it would mean that there are 100 billion runners.

Are you always thinking that deeply when you post something?

Says the man who has refused to read the rules and go into hiding when asked directly about them.If you had bothered to read them then you would not have said the above.It has all been explained to you.

You make the most alarmingly tautology.

You say that the primary piece of evidence is that is the irrefutable fact that the athlete has committed violation of the anti doping rules.

Armstronglivs wrote:

xheueueh3 wrote:

Easy, because the whole reason for having the banned substance in your system is because it gives the user an unfair and unnatural advantage over the 99.999999999% of other runners that aren't taking banned substances.

Unfair advantage using banned substance = cheater. This isn't hard.

It is for a doping apologist.

What is a doping apologist?

You have been asked many times.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Still no answer from the person who is proud he posts like a six year old and uses foul mouthed abuse.

It would be an exercise in futility, as well as a demonstration of stupidity, to enter into an attempted intellectual discourse with one such as yourself. So I don't.

Been asked to explain what you mean by cheat is hardly intellectual discourse.

Clearly you are cornered .