Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

ukathleticscoach wrote:

astro wrote:

Whatever you think of her guilt or innocence, she has the right to contest the results legally. I think she doped, but also that she is morally innocent given the pathetic state of the sport where runners on rocket fuel, the most obvious sports frauds we will ever see, are celebrated and allowed to cheat with impunity.

2 wrongs never make a right that's the excuse of everyone behind bars. She's a liar and the scum that has ruined our sport

Didn't you all learn in kindergarten that jusr because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean you can do it too? Never use someone else:s wrongdoing to justify yours.

Just because a minority of other athletes dope, and probably most of them are her teammates anyway, doesn't mean she should too.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

She has not lost an appeal? Your illiteracy on these issues is off the charts.

https://athleticsweekly.com/athletics-news/shelby-houlihan-loses-appeal-against-her-four-year-drugs-ban-1039949217/

"Distance runner is banned for four years after the The Court of Arbitration for Sport dismiss her appeal over positive test."

Go away.

I can understand you saying that when you repeatedly keep getting shown up as the ignorant liar that is also your user name.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Name one!

Well can you name one?

If you weren't so thunderously stupid you would be capable of embarrassment. The CAS hearing was an appeal, as you were told previously.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Name one!

Well can you name one?

Of course I can. LOL. Remember I just gave you the source.

Do you deny to read it?

I could quote CAS directly again via copy/paste, but the last two times I did that to prove you wrong, you called me a cheater. So, no thanks.

Kind of hilarious that you call quoting cheating, when you get so upset each time someone calls a certain convicted doper a cheat.

casual obsever wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Well can you name one?

Of course I can. LOL. Remember I just gave you the source.

Do you deny to read it?

I could quote CAS directly again via copy/paste, but the last two times I did that to prove you wrong, you called me a cheater. So, no thanks.

Kind of hilarious that you call quoting cheating, when you get so upset each time someone calls a certain convicted doper a cheat.

Original source please.

AW misused appeal when they should have said hearing.

But you know that!

Read the CAS decision and quote the para.

So cheater you are, as you know what CAS said but make a choice to deceive.

Shame on you.

And … which “ number of appeals” ? But you know you can’t…. don’t you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Well can you name one?

If you weren't so thunderously stupid you would be capable of embarrassment. The CAS hearing was an appeal, as you were told previously.

Go away

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Go away.

I can understand you saying that when you repeatedly keep getting shown up as the ignorant liar that is also your user name.

Go away

SH was the defendant and AIU the plaintiff in the CAS case; thus she was not appealing, it was the first hearing.

If she gets to the Swiss Court then that will be the appeal.

Simples.

liar soorer wrote:

Original source please.

Again, read II. Factual Background from CAS.

But you know that!

Read the CAS decision and quote the para.

So cheater you are, as you know what CAS said but make a choice to deceive.

Shame on you.

LOL - stop obfuscating and start reading!

casual obsever wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Original source please.

Again, read II. Factual Background from CAS.

But you know that!

Read the CAS decision and quote the para.

So cheater you are, as you know what CAS said but make a choice to deceive.

Shame on you.

LOL - stop obfuscating and start reading!

Read para 20; the decision was based on a hearing not an appeal.

The earlier appeal was on procedural matters as clearly set out at the start of Factual Background and thus not on the AIU ‘s charge.

Why was SH the defendant and not the plaintiff?

liar soorer wrote:

Original source please.

AW misused appeal when they should have said hearing.

But you know that!

Read the CAS decision and quote the para.

So cheater you are, as you know what CAS said but make a choice to deceive.

Shame on you.

And … which “ number of appeals” ? But you know you can’t…. don’t you.

This is one of the many games that are played, hinging on the word “appeal”, as it can also be applied in other contexts.

While you mean to say that the CAS hearing itself was not an appeal, before May 12, before the AIU issued any charge, and before the subsequent CAS hearing, there were appeals to the CAS to lift the suspension to allow her to compete in the US trials (i.e. “First CAS Appeal”, and the subsequent “the Application for Provisional Measures”). There was also the appeal to the Swiss courts for an emergency injunction, again to allow her to compete in the US trials.

While technically “casual obsever” is not wrong to say that appeals were lost, I highly doubt that that is what “I'm getting old here people” meant in the original context.

liar soorer wrote:

The earlier appeal was on procedural matters as clearly set out at the start of Factual Background and thus not on the AIU ‘s charge.

Why was SH the defendant and not the plaintiff?

LOL - then why did you lie that she didn't have an appeal?

More facts:

SH was neither the defendant nor the plaintiff, SH was the Respondent.

AIU?

World Athletics, not AIU, was neither the defendant nor the plaintiff, WA was the Claimant.

rekrunner wrote:

While technically “casual obsever” is not wrong to say that appeals were lost, I highly doubt that that is what “I'm getting old here people” meant in the original context.

"technically", lol. You just mentioned that she lost three appeals.

Before you two try to obfuscate more and more, and call me liar for being correct, this here was the original false statement:

liar soorer wrote:

She has has not lost an appeal.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

While technically “casual obsever” is not wrong to say that appeals were lost, I highly doubt that that is what “I'm getting old here people” meant in the original context.

"technically", lol. You just mentioned that she lost three appeals.

Technically it’s not wrong, but I question the relevance with respect to the original context.

liar soorer wrote:

SH was the defendant and AIU the plaintiff in the CAS case; thus she was not appealing, it was the first hearing.

If she gets to the Swiss Court then that will be the appeal.

Simples.

Swiss is great on a burger!

casual obsever wrote:

Before you two try to obfuscate more and more, and call me liar for being correct, this here was the original false statement:

liar soorer wrote:

She has has not lost an appeal.

Ok, I will take that one.

But when the so called “ appeal “ is referred to it is the actual CAS case that is referenced ; which was not an appeal.

The AW quote refs the hearing and not the procedural appeal.

By saying that she has lost appeals this should only refer to the preliminary procedures appeal.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

"technically", lol. You just mentioned that she lost three appeals.

Technically it’s not wrong, but I question the relevance with respect to the original context.

Correct; and anyone who is genuine would see that.

Besides the actual hearing these preliminary actions would have cost a big pile of money.