rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
We all did. But unlike you most of us understood it. She's a doper - that's what an "intentional ADRV" means.
How quickly you speak again for others. Are you afraid to own your arguments?
Apparently you have yet to understand that neither the CAS, nor the AIU called her a “doper”, nor “cheater”, nor judged the burrito explanation “not plausible”, nor “not credible”.
CAS didn't need to apportion a label when convicting and sentencing Houlihan. Courts don't. But a Court decision makes it implicit that someone found guilty of an offence in the criminal code is a "criminal", and so someone who intentionally violates the anti-doping rules by using a banned substance is a "doper". If you don't accept the latter you can't accept the former. But only a person in denial of the Court's decision would argue that patent absurdity. That is you.
CAS dismissed Houlihan's attempted excuse as being too improbable, even though you cavil with equivalent expressions such as "implausible" or "not credible". So if those terms are incorrect why was her excuse rejected - especially since you point out she was seen as a "credible" witness? Her story was plausible and credible - and yet not believed? Surely that is a contradiction? The only way to resolve the contradiction is too understand her excuse wasn't plausible or credible. That wasn't simply because she couldn't produce the "contaminated burrito"; it was because the evidence before the Court suggested such hypothetical contamination was improbable.
You are wasting your efforts here. You need to start a thread proving Earth is only 10,000 years old - against everything science tells us today. Defying fact, logic and truth like a religious fanatic is your specialty.