Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

Pro News/Info/Results Distance

Page 21 of 35

1 20 21 22 35

2 years ago 12/09/2021 9:12am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
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.

The lying never stops with you doping apologists. The hearing before CAS was an appeal.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1112446/cas-full-decision-shelby-houlihan

The 28-year-old received her four-year sanction from the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), and this was upheld after an appeal to the CAS in June.

But the part of the decision that you doping deniers choke on is this:

"The (burrito) explanation presupposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is [very] close to zero," the full decision says.

Close to zero! That is an elegant way of saying her excuse is complete bullsh*t.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 9:15am EST

re: liar soorer

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.

Wrong, simpleton. The CAS hearing was an appeal from the 4 year ban imposed by the AIU. She lost it.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 9:18am EST

re: casual obsever

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.

She lost the one to CAS, as we have seen. And 'liar liar pants on fire' has lost his reason.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 9:46am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
Wrong, simpleton. The CAS hearing was an appeal from the 4 year ban imposed by the AIU. She lost it.

Go away

2 years ago 12/09/2021 9:47am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
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:
She lost the one to CAS, as we have seen. And 'liar liar pants on fire' has lost his reason.

Go away

2 years ago 12/09/2021 9:48am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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.
The lying never stops with you doping apologists. The hearing before CAS was an appeal.
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1112446/cas-full-decision-shelby-houlihan
The 28-year-old received her four-year sanction from the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), and this was upheld after an appeal to the CAS in June.
But the part of the decision that you doping deniers choke on is this:
"The (burrito) explanation presupposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is [very] close to zero," the full decision says.
Close to zero! That is an elegant way of saying her excuse is complete bullsh*t.

Go away

2 years ago 12/09/2021 9:51am EST

re: liar soorer

liar soorer wrote:
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:
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.

I repeat the above and further point out the following the test result she was suspended, not banned,subject to a hearing.

Simples

2 years ago 12/09/2021 9:57am EST

re: liar soorer

Para 20 if the CAS decision makes it clear that the panel had an hearing with AIU being the plaintiff and not SH as the plaintiff.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 10:03am EST

re: liar soorer

liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
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.
I repeat the above and further point out the following the test result she was suspended, not banned,subject to a hearing.
Simples

AIU never gave a four year ban prior to the CAS decision.

Why do people lie about this.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 10:27am EST

re: liar soorer

liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
I repeat the above and further point out the following the test result she was suspended, not banned,subject to a hearing.
Simples
AIU never gave a four year ban prior to the CAS decision.
Why do people lie about this.

Yes, why do you? The AIU imposed a 4 year sanction - ban - whatever you want to call it - that meant she couldn't compete. CAS upheld that penalty. Liar.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 10:29am EST

re: liar soorer

liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
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.
I repeat the above and further point out the following the test result she was suspended, not banned,subject to a hearing.
Simples

The 4 year penalty was upheld. Wasn't that good news for those opposed to doping?

2 years ago 12/09/2021 11:56am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:The 4 year penalty was upheld. Wasn't that good news for those opposed to doping?

It was indeed great news that this doper got banned.

But, be careful, some people here want to get technical… technically Shelby did not appeal to CAS.

Shelby asked World Athletics to skip the Disciplinary Tribunal’s (first instance) decision, in essence forfeiting it, and asked World Athletics to go straight to CAS, basically appealing the Charge of an intentional anti-doping rule violation instead of directly appealing the four-year ban for her intentional anti-doping rule violation.

Technically therefore, it was World Athletics who went to CAS:

CAS wrote:

The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Shelby Houlihan is upheld.[/quote]

However, given that this was basically an appeal, giving in Shelby’s request, CAS treated that as an appeal:

CAS wrote:
In light of the 12 May 2021 ADRV against the Athlete, the Parties agreed that this matter may be heard in a single hearing, directly at CAS under CAS appellate procedures, with no requirement for a prior hearing at the WA level, further to Article 8.2.6 of the WA ADR.

And

CAS wrote:
On 20 May 2021, the CAS Court Office initiated the present arbitration and specified, as requested by the Claimant, that it had been assigned to the CAS Ordinary Arbitration Division but would be dealt with according to the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division rules, Articles R38 et seq. of the CAS Code.

This goes back to WA anti-doping rule 8.6.1:

WA wrote:
8.6.1 Pursuant to Article 8.5 of the Code, anti-doping rule violations asserted against International-Level Athletes and other Persons may, with the consent of the Athlete or other Person, the Integrity Unit and WADA, be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS under CAS appellate procedures, with no requirement for a prior hearing, or as otherwise agreed by the parties.

Mind you, all of the above was Shelby’s choice. So IF anyone considers that procedure as unfair, blame Shelby.

Long story short: it was technically not an appeal, but was treated as an appeal by CAS. Hence several sources have – technically incorrect – called this an appeal. Of course, arguing that the poor cheat had no appeal is of no relevance.

Technically Shelby has earlier filed several other appeals, and lost them all. Some may consider that relevant, some may not.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 11:58am EST

re: casual obsever

Mangled quote, sorry. Corrected: Technically therefore, it was World Athletics who went to CAS:

CAS wrote:
The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Shelby Houlihan is upheld.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 11:59am EST

re: liar soorer

liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
I repeat the above and further point out the following the test result she was suspended, not banned,subject to a hearing.
Simples
AIU never gave a four year ban prior to the CAS decision.
Why do people lie about this.

I repeat this point.

AIU never gave a four year ban prior to the CAS decision.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 12:05pm EST

re: liar soorer

liar soorer wrote:I repeat this point.
AIU never gave a four year ban prior to the CAS decision.

While you are technically correct, that is not relevant. Game over.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 12:11pm EST

re: casual obsever

casual obsever wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:The 4 year penalty was upheld. Wasn't that good news for those opposed to doping?
It was indeed great news that this doper got banned.
But, be careful, some people here want to get technical… technically Shelby did not appeal to CAS.
Shelby asked World Athletics to skip the Disciplinary Tribunal’s (first instance) decision, in essence forfeiting it, and asked World Athletics to go straight to CAS, basically appealing the Charge of an intentional anti-doping rule violation instead of directly appealing the four-year ban for her intentional anti-doping rule violation.
Technically therefore, it was World Athletics who went to CAS:
CAS wrote:
The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Shelby Houlihan is upheld.

However, given that this was basically an appeal, giving in Shelby’s request, CAS treated that as an appeal:

CAS wrote:
In light of the 12 May 2021 ADRV against the Athlete, the Parties agreed that this matter may be heard in a single hearing, directly at CAS under CAS appellate procedures, with no requirement for a prior hearing at the WA level, further to Article 8.2.6 of the WA ADR.

And

CAS wrote:
On 20 May 2021, the CAS Court Office initiated the present arbitration and specified, as requested by the Claimant, that it had been assigned to the CAS Ordinary Arbitration Division but would be dealt with according to the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division rules, Articles R38 et seq. of the CAS Code.

This goes back to WA anti-doping rule 8.6.1:

WA wrote:
8.6.1 Pursuant to Article 8.5 of the Code, anti-doping rule violations asserted against International-Level Athletes and other Persons may, with the consent of the Athlete or other Person, the Integrity Unit and WADA, be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS under CAS appellate procedures, with no requirement for a prior hearing, or as otherwise agreed by the parties.

Mind you, all of the above was Shelby’s choice. So IF anyone considers that procedure as unfair, blame Shelby.

Technically Shelby has earlier filed several other appeals, and lost them all. Some may consider that relevant, some may not.[/quote]

I think we are agreed that Para20 made it clear it was a hearing.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 12:12pm EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
I repeat the above and further point out the following the test result she was suspended, not banned,subject to a hearing.
Simples
The 4 year penalty was upheld. Wasn't that good news for those opposed to doping?

Go away.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 12:13pm EST

re: casual obsever

casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:I repeat this point.
AIU never gave a four year ban prior to the CAS decision.
While you are technically correct, that is not relevant. Game over.

Let’s see what happens if she can take it to appeal in the Swiss Courts.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 12:16pm EST

re: casual obsever

casual obsever wrote:
Mangled quote, sorry. Corrected:
Technically therefore, it was World Athletics who went to CAS:
CAS wrote:
The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Shelby Houlihan is upheld.

Yes , you are correct ; I think I get that bit wrong as well.

2 years ago 12/09/2021 12:54pm EST

re: liar soorer

liar soorer wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Mangled quote, sorry. Corrected:
Technically therefore, it was World Athletics who went to CAS:
Yes , you are correct ; I think I get that bit wrong as well.

Lots of arguing over pedantics. Simple fact is she is a doper and is banned,and rightly so.

Page 21 of 35

1 20 21 22 35

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

Jump To A Page

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow casual obsever

Block casual obsever

Follow casual obsever

Block casual obsever

Follow casual obsever

Block casual obsever

Follow Birkoboy

Block Birkoboy

Jump To A Page

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.