Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

liar soorer wrote:

aiojfoidjfoidfj wrote:

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?

You just drone on about things that don't matter. You attack the process or pick apart the minutia of terms but ignore the big picture. It is quite simple and doesn't need page after page of arguing. The only three things that matter are:

A banned substance was found in her system.

The banned substance was in a high enough concentration that it was deemed against the rules.

She could not prove that the substance was accidentally ingested.

All the arguing about intent, the process, strict liability, whether she cheated, and everything else is just fluff that doesn't matter. All that matters is the presence of a banned substance without a credible explanation. You and others can keep working yourself into a froth trying to find technicalities for this positive and explain them away but it is a fools errand and doesn't really matter.

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.

We can think of this two ways: within the “arbitration process” and within the “intellectual process”.

First, the “arbitration process” did not find she “cheated”. They found, solely based on the unexplained presence in her urine, that she violated rules that don’t require demonstrating intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge of use. In front of the CAS, her burden of explanation was only for the sole purpose of qualifying for a reduced or vacated sentence, and not for reversing her guilt. That is, even if the burrito story is true, she remains guilty of rule violations that don’t care about any story. They found that her explanation fell short of the standard required to rebut the presumption of intent, so as a consequence, she was not able to reduce or vacate her sanction for these rule violations. This is an example of insufficient evidence, and not “proof” of cheating.

When applying the “intellectual process” the burden of any claim is on the one who makes it. If you want to say she is a “cheater”, that is your burden to prove, not Houlihan’s, nor mine, to disprove. This intellectual burden cannot be changed by any contractual arrangement between WADA and WADA signatories, and athletes subject to WADA. I am not a party to that contract, so not bound to observe any such contractual limitations. I don’t claim she cheated or didn’t cheat, but that “cheating” was not a finding of the “arbitration process”, and an intellectual claim of “cheating” is your burden, and cannot survive the “intellectual process” without it. In the “intellectual process” the basis for such a claim cannot be a presumption that it is so, as that is an intellectual logical fallacy called “begging the question” or “assuming the conclusion”. The basis can also not be a CAS finding that the opposite could not be proved, as that is a logical fallacy called “false dichotomy”.

The question of cheating, or not cheating, is not one that has, or can be, decided, without further proof.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

What more credibly happens is doping - it happens all the time. Getting accidentally doped through eating wild pigs balls is a mythical as the existence of unicorns.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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

What more credibly happens is doping - it happens all the time. Getting accidentally doped through eating wild pigs balls is a mythical as the existence of unicorns.

Not what Wada says ; do read.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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

What more credibly happens is doping - it happens all the time. Getting accidentally doped through eating wild pigs balls is a mythical as the existence of unicorns.

But this is just you, expressing your uninformed opinion of what you find credible.

You are a strong believer and worshipper of dope and doping.

The plain fact is that the CAS did not rule on credibility, except to expressly point out that Houlihan was credible, and her character witnesses were compelling.

Her failure was not credibility, but evidentiary.

Your failure is both credibility, and evidentiary.

I just donated a second time! I can't wait till payday.

soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What more credibly happens is doping - it happens all the time. Getting accidentally doped through eating wild pigs balls is a mythical as the existence of unicorns.

Not what Wada says ; do read.

Read it yet and ready to aplogise

liar soorer wrote:

soorer wrote:

Not what Wada says ; do read.

Read it yet and ready to aplogise

Any of you reading the Wada Tec Doc and then apologising ?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What more credibly happens is doping - it happens all the time. Getting accidentally doped through eating wild pigs balls is a mythical as the existence of unicorns.

But this is just you, expressing your uninformed opinion of what you find credible.

You are a strong believer and worshipper of dope and doping.

The plain fact is that the CAS did not rule on credibility, except to expressly point out that Houlihan was credible, and her character witnesses were compelling.

Her failure was not credibility, but evidentiary.

Your failure is both credibility, and evidentiary.

You don't understand what credible means. A case is credible when it is supported by evidence. Houlihan's wasn't, which is why the Court ruled it highly improbable. The Panel accepted the argument made by the AIU that Houlihan's excuse required "a series of cascading improbabilities". They were effectively describing the existence of unicorns.

liar soorer wrote:

soorer wrote:

Not what Wada says ; do read.

Read it yet and ready to aplogise

"Aplogise" yourself. WADA rules say she doped. There are no unicorns - or accidental doping through eating wild boars testicle burritos.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Read it yet and ready to aplogise

"Aplogise" yourself. WADA rules say she doped. There are no unicorns - or accidental doping through eating wild boars testicle burritos.

You refuse to read the rules.

Wada rules never said she doped.

Tec Doc dismisses your last sentence.Yoo have been told many times but you keep lying.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But this is just you, expressing your uninformed opinion of what you find credible.

You are a strong believer and worshipper of dope and doping.

The plain fact is that the CAS did not rule on credibility, except to expressly point out that Houlihan was credible, and her character witnesses were compelling.

Her failure was not credibility, but evidentiary.

Your failure is both credibility, and evidentiary.

You don't understand what credible means. A case is credible when it is supported by evidence. Houlihan's wasn't, which is why the Court ruled it highly improbable. The Panel accepted the argument made by the AIU that Houlihan's excuse required "a series of cascading improbabilities". They were effectively describing the existence of unicorns.

They never accepted you final two sentences .Why do you lie?

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Read it yet and ready to aplogise

Any of you reading the Wada Tec Doc and then apologising ?

Well ?

You are insane.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are insane.

More insults when asked if you had read the documents on matters you opinionated on.

One assumes not as you keep coming up with stuff that Wada expressly disagrees with.

About time you went away.

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.[/quote]

Yes, it was likely round the other way - "a statistician with a mathematical bent". As if it really matters. A number cruncher - a mere bean counter. Either way, someone who forms "fantastic conclusions that have no basis in fact or reality".

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are insane.

More insults when asked if you had read the documents on matters you opinionated on.

One assumes not as you keep coming up with stuff that Wada expressly disagrees with.

About time you went away.

Certifiably insane. She doped, you loser - get over it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You don't understand what credible means.

Luckily the CAS panel does, and they expressly found Houlihan credible.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

More insults when asked if you had read the documents on matters you opinionated on.

One assumes not as you keep coming up with stuff that Wada expressly disagrees with.

About time you went away.

Certifiably insane. She doped, you loser - get over it.

More insults. Read the rules.Then go far away .

Are you right or Wada? Answer ?