Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

Come Mr A; any response?

I bet liar soorer can't even tell me what a turbo encabulator does.

Armstronglivs wrote:

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)?

You falsely attributed it to the CAS.

You falsely claimed “It essentially says there is a zero likelihood”.

I rejected both of these statements, as they are false.

And, failing to see the irony, you call me the liar.

Armstronglivs wrote:

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

Probability does not measure credibility.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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

Probability does not measure credibility.

It does - if it is to be believed. Because her excuse was "highly improbable" it wasn't believed.

BS has no probability - is it nonetheless "credible"? I suppose it is for one who chooses to believe it - as you do.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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)?

You falsely attributed it to the CAS.

You falsely claimed “It essentially says there is a zero likelihood”.

I rejected both of these statements, as they are false.

And, failing to see the irony, you call me the liar.

I quoted a report of the decision - which I also re-posted - and you avoided. It referred to "almost zero". So how do you deal with the word "almost"? Is that vastly different from simply saying "zero"? It doesn't even appear to be even "almost one percent" probable. How about a series of "cascading improbabilities" - which was the description in the decision?

I guess if her excuse wasn't of "zero" probability - or even "almost zero" probability - that must make it probable to you. Since you describe yourself as "a mathematician with a statistical bent" you are either utterly incompetent or a barefaced liar. Probably both.

FartKing69 wrote:

I bet liar soorer can't even tell me what a turbo encabulator does.

He couldn't tell you what anything does. But he has read the rules. Even if he doesn't know what they do either.

I dealt with it by saying it was the allegation of the AIU, and not the stated view of the CAS, as you falsely claimed.

If we want to know the CAS's view, we should look at what they said explicitly, rather than what they didn't say.

When you then claimed "there is a zero likelihood" -- not quoting the CAS, and not saying "almost", but explaining your understanding in your own words, I pointed out that the CAS's explicitly stated view that it was "possible", completely contradicts you.

I do not, and did not, describe myself as "a mathematician with a statistical bent", so once again, your fantastic conclusions have no basis in fact or reality.

You falsely quote .

Read paras 135 to 137

FartKing69 wrote:

I bet liar soorer can't even tell me what a turbo encabulator does.

Simples. The key functioning capacitor for your brain.

Armstronglivs wrote:

FartKing69 wrote:

I bet liar soorer can't even tell me what a turbo encabulator does.

He couldn't tell you what anything does. But he has read the rules. Even if he doesn't know what they do either.

So what about the Tech Doc that underpins the claimants position. Answer?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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)?

You falsely attributed it to the CAS.

You falsely claimed “It essentially says there is a zero likelihood”.

I rejected both of these statements, as they are false.

And, failing to see the irony, you call me the liar.

Should have made clear it was Armstronglivs

Near zero was never ever said by CAS .

Never never.

Thus you lie.

Worth a repeat as ignored.

For those of you that don't think she cheated what is your proof since the burden of proof is on her. What has you all so convinced of her innocence? it has to be more than her BS exertion that she accidentally ate the wrong burrito.

aiojfoidjfoidfj wrote:

For those of you that don't think she cheated what is your proof since the burden of proof is on her. What has you all so convinced of her innocence? it has to be more than her BS exertion that she accidentally ate the wrong burrito.

I don’t know if she cheated or not.

Strict liability never tests that.

The flipped burdens and a month gap between test and being told don’t help.

I would have had to find her guilty but would have found the rules unreasonable and unprecedented in normal jurisprudence.

liar soorer wrote:

aiojfoidjfoidfj wrote:

For those of you that don't think she cheated what is your proof since the burden of proof is on her. What has you all so convinced of her innocence? it has to be more than her BS exertion that she accidentally ate the wrong burrito.

I don’t know if she cheated or not.

Strict liability never tests that.

The flipped burdens and a month gap between test and being told don’t help.

I would have had to find her guilty but would have found the rules unreasonable and unprecedented in normal jurisprudence.

I think it is 100% reasonable to expect a professional athlete to know everything that goes into their body. The burden of proof has to be on them to prove a tainted food source. As has been proven over and over again by dope cheats you can't trust them on their word.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Probability does not measure credibility.

It does - if it is to be believed. Because her excuse was "highly improbable" it wasn't believed.

BS has no probability - is it nonetheless "credible"? I suppose it is for one who chooses to believe it - as you do.

Your favorite verb — to believe. Getting struck by lightning, or winning a lottery, is improbable, but credibly happens all the time.

aiojfoidjfoidfj wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

I don’t know if she cheated or not.

Strict liability never tests that.

The flipped burdens and a month gap between test and being told don’t help.

I would have had to find her guilty but would have found the rules unreasonable and unprecedented in normal jurisprudence.

I think it is 100% reasonable to expect a professional athlete to know everything that goes into their body. The burden of proof has to be on them to prove a tainted food source. As has been proven over and over again by dope cheats you can't trust them on their word.

What with food enhancers being allowed in normal food.

And Coke found throughout Parliament.

Get real.

The vast majority of those tested are not professional; have you worked that out.

You have not read what I said; have you?

rekrunner wrote:

Getting struck by lightning, or winning a lottery, is improbable, but credibly happens all the time.

Getting struck by lightning happens, yes, but never such a cascade of five times in the same day to the same person, including twice without a cloud in the sky.