Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

In there closing comments.

Quote them.

There ?

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!).

I could well invent that they were implicit in saying that she was not a cheat but had to follow the stupid rules.

liar soorer 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 could well invent that they were implicit in saying that she was not a cheat but had to follow the stupid rules.

That would be a typical invention on your part.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You can't use those terms. They aren't in your vocabulary.

Why invent?

Yes, why do you?

liar soorer 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!).

Never confirmed anything.

The AIU found there was a violation; CAS confirmed it.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Where is there?

Typo

Now go away

So quote the closing comments where they explicitly reject the AIU submissions.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So where did CAS reject the claimant's submissions?

By never repeating them.

They came to the same finding, that her excuse was "improbable" - both the AIU and CAS used the same term of description. That is an endorsement of the AIU position by CAS. Hence, a 4 year ban.

The Houli-clann is rich and privileged too.

No kids work. Stop asking for money. Get a J O B.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Typo

Now go away

So quote the closing comments where they explicitly reject the AIU submissions.

Never said that. You invent again.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Never confirmed anything.

The AIU found there was a violation; CAS confirmed it.

Again you contort the language.

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.

But you said the CAS’s view was “zero probability” — that was the point of contention.

Now we have seen that no one held the view of “zero probability”, and that you quoted the “claimant’s submission”, falsely attributing it to the CAS.

Your moving of the goalposts to completely meet me confirms you accept that you were wrong, even if you don’t want to admit it. Your action speaks for you.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

But you said the CAS’s view was “zero probability” — that was the point of contention.

Now we have seen that no one held the view of “zero probability”, and that you quoted the “claimant’s submission”, falsely attributing it to the CAS.

Your moving of the goalposts to completely meet me confirms you accept that you were wrong, even if you don’t want to admit it. Your action speaks for you.

Key is that he knowingly falsely misattributes a quote and then refuses to accept this as a lie.But then has a massive history of such.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

By never repeating them.

They came to the same finding, that her excuse was "improbable" - both the AIU and CAS used the same term of description. That is an endorsement of the AIU position by CAS. Hence, a 4 year ban.

AIU never came up with a findings.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

But you said the CAS’s view was “zero probability” — that was the point of contention.

Now we have seen that no one held the view of “zero probability”, and that you quoted the “claimant’s submission”, falsely attributing it to the CAS.

Your moving of the goalposts to completely meet me confirms you accept that you were wrong, even if you don’t want to admit it. Your action speaks for you.

Your lying never ends. My quote supplied from the decision was "near-zero". So are you now telling me you will accept that because it isn't absolute zero (which wasn't my claim)?

liar soorer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But you said the CAS’s view was “zero probability” — that was the point of contention.

Now we have seen that no one held the view of “zero probability”, and that you quoted the “claimant’s submission”, falsely attributing it to the CAS.

Your moving of the goalposts to completely meet me confirms you accept that you were wrong, even if you don’t want to admit it. Your action speaks for you.

Key is that he knowingly falsely misattributes a quote and then refuses to accept this as a lie.But then has a massive history of such.

Any apology from Armstronglivs ?

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has released its full decision following the four-year ban handed to American runner Shelby Houlihan, which says her explanation "presupposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities".

CAS's panel said it was possible that she was handed the wrong burrito.

But it said the uncastrated boar explanation "simply cannot be accepted".

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

So how close to zero does it have to be for you to accept it has no credibility?

Armstronglivs wrote:

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

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has released its full decision following the four-year ban handed to American runner Shelby Houlihan, which says her explanation "presupposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities".

CAS's panel said it was possible that she was handed the wrong burrito.

But it said the uncastrated boar explanation "simply cannot be accepted".

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

You have done it again!

You mix up what AIU said and the actual decision.

Why do you keep lying.

Inside the games makes the same mistake and you have been told that.

Read para 135 to 137 to hear was the CAS actually said.

You just won’t read stuff will you ?

It must be 30 times this has been made clear.

How are you getting on with the Tec Doc; he who has much experience studying such matters?

Are you still going on?

You must be Shelby or someone very close to be this committed.Unlucky you got caught cheating now go and get a proper job.