Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Low probability"? How low is "zero" probability of burrito contamination? Zero likelihood is about as close as "the most likely source of the nandrolone" as Earth is to Alpha Centauri. Only in a mind like yours can zero likelihood be compatible with "most likely".

You don’t like “low probability”? Are you arguing “high probability”?

What you missed is that “close to zero” was an allegation from the AIU, and not an established fact you can take for granted.

It wasn't an "allegation" by the AIU, it was a conclusion reached after assessing the evidence and was accepted by the Court; hence Houlihan's excuse was rejected and she was "found to have committed an intentional ADRV". You lose again.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Oh boy. Back to square 1. No, it was not accidental.

I am glad that doper misses 2 Olympics. Too bad she couldn't have gotten a life ban.

Back? The AIU arguments and the CAS findings never really took us out of square 1.

The process 1) did not determine the source of the nandrolone, 2) did not determine intent, 3) did not determine the behavior meant by intent, and 4) her claim that the burrito was the most likely, or the only possible, source of the nandrolone stands unrebutted to any intellectual standard by all opposing parties with no alternative source proposed or evaluated.

Hard-out lying again.

Determining the source of the nandrolone was not required. It was found in her body. She is responsible for what is in her body. She could not show accidental contamination and so the Court determined she had doped intentionally, as the decision states explicitly. The result was a 4 year ban - which shows that everything you have argued is either wrong or irrelevant.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You don’t like “low probability”? Are you arguing “high probability”?

What you missed is that “close to zero” was an allegation from the AIU, and not an established fact you can take for granted.

It wasn't an "allegation" by the AIU, it was a conclusion reached after assessing the evidence and was accepted by the Court; hence Houlihan's excuse was rejected and she was "found to have committed an intentional ADRV". You lose again.

The quote was not the conclusion reached by CAS.

But more importantly you sort to say that the quote was what the CAS panel had actually said which is not a truth.

Only gotten $105 total in the last four days. Enough to pay for her gas money, I guess.

$14,589 right now. I wonder if that guy that gave $2,000 is regretting it yet? Maybe she'll send him a postcard from wherever she drives her van next.

I do love that she will miss 2 Olympics. She should be banned for life.

I don't know why she gets any defense from anyone

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't an "allegation" by the AIU, it was a conclusion reached after assessing the evidence …

The CAS told us it came from the “claimant”:

“The Claimant’s submissions on the merits may be summarized as follows:”

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Back? The AIU arguments and the CAS findings never really took us out of square 1.

The process 1) did not determine the source of the nandrolone, 2) did not determine intent, 3) did not determine the behavior meant by intent, and 4) her claim that the burrito was the most likely, or the only possible, source of the nandrolone stands unrebutted to any intellectual standard by all opposing parties with no alternative source proposed or evaluated.

Hard-out lying again.

Determining the source of the nandrolone was not required. It was found in her body. She is responsible for what is in her body. She could not show accidental contamination and so the Court determined she had doped intentionally, as the decision states explicitly. The result was a 4 year ban - which shows that everything you have argued is either wrong or irrelevant.

Looks like you agree with point 1), maybe you don’t understand point 2), and did not address points 3) and 4).

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't an "allegation" by the AIU, it was a conclusion reached after assessing the evidence …

The CAS told us it came from the “claimant”:

“The Claimant’s submissions on the merits may be summarized as follows:”

Do you ever think he will say “ yes that is correct, I made a mistake”?

Or will he repeat the same lie in a weeks time as he keeps doing?

I wish she would just admit what everyone knows. Until the she is a liar in addition to a cheater.

And yes, having a banned substance in your body is cheating no matter what. No assiinine talk of intent. I don't care about intent, I care only about the result.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hard-out lying again.

Determining the source of the nandrolone was not required. It was found in her body. She is responsible for what is in her body. She could not show accidental contamination and so the Court determined she had doped intentionally, as the decision states explicitly. The result was a 4 year ban - which shows that everything you have argued is either wrong or irrelevant.

Looks like you agree with point 1), maybe you don’t understand point 2), and did not address points 3) and 4).

The only thing I agree with is that your arguments are irrelevant and misleading.

liar soorer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The CAS told us it came from the “claimant”:

“The Claimant’s submissions on the merits may be summarized as follows:”

Do you ever think he will say “ yes that is correct, I made a mistake”?

Or will he repeat the same lie in a weeks time as he keeps doing?

Perhaps you could point to that part of the decision where CAS accepts Houlihan's excuse as the most probable explanation for how the nandrolone came to be present in her body?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't an "allegation" by the AIU, it was a conclusion reached after assessing the evidence …

The CAS told us it came from the “claimant”:

“The Claimant’s submissions on the merits may be summarized as follows:”

So where were the claimant's submissions disputed by the Court?

freddiey wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't an "allegation" by the AIU, it was a conclusion reached after assessing the evidence and was accepted by the Court; hence Houlihan's excuse was rejected and she was "found to have committed an intentional ADRV". You lose again.

The quote was not the conclusion reached by CAS.

But more importantly you sort to say that the quote was what the CAS panel had actually said which is not a truth.

The Panel did not dispute the submission claim, which means it was endorsed. It was why her excuse failed the test of probability and she was found by the Panel to have intentionally doped.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Do you ever think he will say “ yes that is correct, I made a mistake”?

Or will he repeat the same lie in a weeks time as he keeps doing?

Perhaps you could point to that part of the decision where CAS accepts Houlihan's excuse as the most probable explanation for how the nandrolone came to be present in her body?

Evasive ; go away

Armstronglivs wrote:

freddiey wrote:

The quote was not the conclusion reached by CAS.

But more importantly you sort to say that the quote was what the CAS panel had actually said which is not a truth.

The Panel did not dispute the submission claim, which means it was endorsed. It was why her excuse failed the test of probability and she was found by the Panel to have intentionally doped.

Twister ; again( go away

liar soorer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The CAS told us it came from the “claimant”:

“The Claimant’s submissions on the merits may be summarized as follows:”

Do you ever think he will say “ yes that is correct, I made a mistake”?

Or will he repeat the same lie in a weeks time as he keeps doing?

Admit you are wrong!

Armstronglivs wrote:

The only thing I agree with is that your arguments are irrelevant and misleading.

It's also irrelevant and misleading to call her a doper, a liar, and a cheater.

The CAS and the AIU did not.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The CAS told us it came from the “claimant”:

“The Claimant’s submissions on the merits may be summarized as follows:”

So where were the claimant's submissions disputed by the Court?

We don't need to infer the CAS's view from what wasn't said about the AIU's allegations, as they told us explicitly in a detailed report.

It would be misleading to not quote the CAS directly.