liar soorer 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?
Admit you are wrong!
That you are incapable of. And you are always wrong.
liar soorer 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?
Admit you are wrong!
That you are incapable of. And you are always wrong.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
They did not need to use those terms. The terms were implicit from their decision. A person who is found guilty of a doping violation is a doper. A doper is a cheater and especially so when the decision says the violation is intentional. A person whose attempted excuse is rejected and accorded near zero probability is lying. But the AIU and CAS didn't need to guild their lily with terms of outright condemnation - they simply confirmed the violation, labelled it intentional and banned her for 4 years. That's what a doper, cheater and a liar will get. But they will always have their defenders in the likes of you (and the one who calls himself "liar"soorer - how apt!).
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
In that detailed report they explicitly rejected Houlihan's excuse; where did they reject the AIU submissions on her excuse?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
What you don't understand, since you don't understand how the judicial process works, is that CAS does not undertake its own independent investigation; it forms a view on the arguments and evidence supplied by the parties. On the burrito excuse it was therefore faced with a choice between the arguments supplied by the AIU and those offered by Houlihan. The Panel did not accept Houlihan's arguments, which means those supplied by the AIU were accepted. It was either one or the other - there was no middle ground - that is, unless CAS explicitly differed with elements of the AIU case. It didn't.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It's also irrelevant and misleading to call her a doper, a liar, and a cheater.
The CAS and the AIU did not.
They did not need to use those terms. The terms were implicit from their decision. A person who is found guilty of a doping violation is a doper. A doper is a cheater and especially so when the decision says the violation is intentional. A person whose attempted excuse is rejected and accorded near zero probability is lying. But the AIU and CAS didn't need to guild their lily with terms of outright condemnation - they simply confirmed the violation, labelled it intentional and banned her for 4 years. That's what a doper, cheater and a liar will get. But they will always have their defenders in the likes of you (and the one who calls himself "liar"soorer - how apt!).
You invent/ contort and ignore.And read the rules and then go away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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.
What you don't understand, since you don't understand how the judicial process works, is that CAS does not undertake its own independent investigation; it forms a view on the arguments and evidence supplied by the parties. On the burrito excuse it was therefore faced with a choice between the arguments supplied by the AIU and those offered by Houlihan. The Panel did not accept Houlihan's arguments, which means those supplied by the AIU were accepted. It was either one or the other - there was no middle ground - that is, unless CAS explicitly differed with elements of the AIU case. It didn't.
No evidence at all that the statement as presented by AIU was accepted. You falsely ascribe that said by AIU was said by CAS. You lie .
Go away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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.
In that detailed report they explicitly rejected Houlihan's excuse; where did they reject the AIU submissions on her excuse?
In there closing comments.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Admit you are wrong!
That you are incapable of. And you are always wrong.
Admit you are wrong. Then go away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
They did not need to use those terms. The terms were implicit from their decision. A person who is found guilty of a doping violation is a doper. A doper is a cheater and especially so when the decision says the violation is intentional. A person whose attempted excuse is rejected and accorded near zero probability is lying. But the AIU and CAS didn't need to guild their lily with terms of outright condemnation - they simply confirmed the violation, labelled it intentional and banned her for 4 years. That's what a doper, cheater and a liar will get. But they will always have their defenders in the likes of you (and the one who calls himself "liar"soorer - how apt!).
I do not need to use these terms.
I have long ago confirmed what can be found in the detailed CAS report, in the context of the WADA code.
We cannot imply "cheater" or "liar" on that basis, in that context.
Armstronglivs wrote:
In that detailed report they explicitly rejected Houlihan's excuse; where did they reject the AIU submissions on her excuse?
I was talking about the CAS report that still found her burrito story possible, and didn't comment on the accuracy of the AIU submissions.
Armstronglivs wrote:
What you don't understand, since you don't understand how the judicial process works, is that CAS does not undertake its own independent investigation; it forms a view on the arguments and evidence supplied by the parties. On the burrito excuse it was therefore faced with a choice between the arguments supplied by the AIU and those offered by Houlihan. The Panel did not accept Houlihan's arguments, which means those supplied by the AIU were accepted. It was either one or the other - there was no middle ground - that is, unless CAS explicitly differed with elements of the AIU case. It didn't.
You don't understand how the intellectual process works.
If we want to know the CAS's view, we need to look at the statements that can be attributed to the CAS, and not from the "claimant's submission".
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In that detailed report they explicitly rejected Houlihan's excuse; where did they reject the AIU submissions on her excuse?
In there closing comments.
Quote them.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
They did not need to use those terms. The terms were implicit from their decision. A person who is found guilty of a doping violation is a doper. A doper is a cheater and especially so when the decision says the violation is intentional. A person whose attempted excuse is rejected and accorded near zero probability is lying. But the AIU and CAS didn't need to guild their lily with terms of outright condemnation - they simply confirmed the violation, labelled it intentional and banned her for 4 years. That's what a doper, cheater and a liar will get. But they will always have their defenders in the likes of you (and the one who calls himself "liar"soorer - how apt!).
I do not need to use these terms.
I have long ago confirmed what can be found in the detailed CAS report, in the context of the WADA code.
We cannot imply "cheater" or "liar" on that basis, in that context.
You can't use those terms. They aren't in your vocabulary.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What you don't understand, since you don't understand how the judicial process works, is that CAS does not undertake its own independent investigation; it forms a view on the arguments and evidence supplied by the parties. On the burrito excuse it was therefore faced with a choice between the arguments supplied by the AIU and those offered by Houlihan. The Panel did not accept Houlihan's arguments, which means those supplied by the AIU were accepted. It was either one or the other - there was no middle ground - that is, unless CAS explicitly differed with elements of the AIU case. It didn't.
You don't understand how the intellectual process works.
If we want to know the CAS's view, we need to look at the statements that can be attributed to the CAS, and not from the "claimant's submission".
So where did CAS reject the claimant's submissions?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In that detailed report they explicitly rejected Houlihan's excuse; where did they reject the AIU submissions on her excuse?
I was talking about the CAS report that still found her burrito story possible, and didn't comment on the accuracy of the AIU submissions.
The AIU submissions said her story was "improbable"; CAS explicitly agreed, using the same term in its decision. So she was banned for 4 years for intentional doping.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In that detailed report they explicitly rejected Houlihan's excuse; where did they reject the AIU submissions on her excuse?
In there closing comments.
Where is there?
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
In there closing comments.
Where is there?
Typo
Now go away
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I was talking about the CAS report that still found her burrito story possible, and didn't comment on the accuracy of the AIU submissions.
The AIU submissions said her story was "improbable"; CAS explicitly agreed, using the same term in its decision. So she was banned for 4 years for intentional doping.
Contorted
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It's also irrelevant and misleading to call her a doper, a liar, and a cheater.
The CAS and the AIU did not.
They did not need to use those terms. The terms were implicit from their decision. A person who is found guilty of a doping violation is a doper. A doper is a cheater and especially so when the decision says the violation is intentional. A person whose attempted excuse is rejected and accorded near zero probability is lying. But the AIU and CAS didn't need to guild their lily with terms of outright condemnation - they simply confirmed the violation, labelled it intentional and banned her for 4 years. That's what a doper, cheater and a liar will get. But they will always have their defenders in the likes of you (and the one who calls himself "liar"soorer - how apt!).
Never confirmed anything.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You don't understand how the intellectual process works.
If we want to know the CAS's view, we need to look at the statements that can be attributed to the CAS, and not from the "claimant's submission".
So where did CAS reject the claimant's submissions?
By never repeating them.