liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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?
Why lie?
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 from the man who keeps lying with ever post.
Won’t read. But still lies.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Certifiably insane. She doped, you loser - get over it.
More insults. Read the rules.Then go far away .
Are you right or Wada? Answer ?
You or WADA?
How is right?
Answer?
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
More insults. Read the rules.Then go far away .
Are you right or Wada? Answer ?
You or WADA?
How is right?
Answer?
What escapes you is that if WADA had afforded grounds for Houlihan's innocence on the grounds she argued - and she was innocent - then CAS would have acquitted her. It didn't. Yet it applied the WADA rules. A frontal lobotomy is a sad thing.
Armstronglivs wrote:
What escapes you is that if WADA had afforded grounds for Houlihan's innocence on the grounds she argued - and she was innocent - then CAS would have acquitted her. It didn't. Yet it applied the WADA rules.
Let’s see what escapes you.
It was within the WADA rules to declare the result as an ATF.
At least a minority of the CAS Panel agreed that the WADA Lab did not follow procedure.
If nothing else, it highlights some ambiguity in the WADA process, and how much discretion rests with the ADAs and ADOs when the evidence is lacking.
No one said that the WADA rules were the ideal benchmark of justice and fairness to all athletes.
In fact, the chief of USADA says it is not, and publicly lobbies for reform.
The WADA Code was crafted and amended to make prosecution easier, and sanctions longer.
krisgian wrote:
I just donated a second time! I can't wait till payday.
No you didn't. Last donation is 5 days ago.
It's amazing to me that the same people are still going round in circles in here.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What escapes you is that if WADA had afforded grounds for Houlihan's innocence on the grounds she argued - and she was innocent - then CAS would have acquitted her. It didn't. Yet it applied the WADA rules.
Let’s see what escapes you.
It was within the WADA rules to declare the result as an ATF.
At least a minority of the CAS Panel agreed that the WADA Lab did not follow procedure.
If nothing else, it highlights some ambiguity in the WADA process, and how much discretion rests with the ADAs and ADOs when the evidence is lacking.
No one said that the WADA rules were the ideal benchmark of justice and fairness to all athletes.
In fact, the chief of USADA says it is not, and publicly lobbies for reform.
The WADA Code was crafted and amended to make prosecution easier, and sanctions longer.
The administrators thought detection and prosecution would be a cheap and quick affair.This was stated in the first Wada code and has not gone yet.
They still hide behind this even though they know that the justice system sits outside anything ever seen in the West since 1945.
Given we have Nandrolone in mind I repeat that not so long ago they refused to do IRMS saying it is not necessary, now is is set out in the Tec Doc.
They are finding banned metabolites from all sorts of non banned substances.
Steroid enhancers with variable legality across the globe abound.
They all know this!
A truth they dare not say.
Someone very very rich will bring it all down…. because they all know.
Here is all I need to know:
Which is more likely?
An athlete with a banned substance in their system took it voluntarily.
An athlete with a banned substance in their system somehow accidentally ingested it.
I don't care about the code or technical documents or. Reading apart the minutia of the decision. I care about the more likely answer being the more likely answer. She should be, and is banned. It should be for life but I guess we have to accept the weak 4 years.
rheuehehe wrote:
Here is all I need to know:
Which is more likely?
An athlete with a banned substance in their system took it voluntarily.
An athlete with a banned substance in their system somehow accidentally ingested it.
I don't care about the code or technical documents or. Reading apart the minutia of the decision. I care about the more likely answer being the more likely answer. She should be, and is banned. It should be for life but I guess we have to accept the weak 4 years.
You condemn yourself by your own declared ignorance.
Simple brains make complicated mistakes.
liar soorer wrote:
rheuehehe wrote:
Here is all I need to know:
Which is more likely?
An athlete with a banned substance in their system took it voluntarily.
An athlete with a banned substance in their system somehow accidentally ingested it.
I don't care about the code or technical documents or. Reading apart the minutia of the decision. I care about the more likely answer being the more likely answer. She should be, and is banned. It should be for life but I guess we have to accept the weak 4 years.
You condemn yourself by your own declared ignorance.
Simple brains make complicated mistakes.
I add that your non reading self claims to know a lot more about this than WADA and USADA.
I can taste the salt tears of the doping deniers all the way from here.
It brings me almost as much joy as knowing and athlete with a banned substance found in their system will miss 2 Olympics.
It is so great. I hope you read this Shelby and know your missing the games brings me great joy. You should not have had a banned substance in your system no matter how it got there.
kow992928288ii wrote:
I can taste the salt tears of the doping deniers all the way from here.
It brings me almost as much joy as knowing and athlete with a banned substance found in their system will miss 2 Olympics.
It is so great. I hope you read this Shelby and know your missing the games brings me great joy. You should not have had a banned substance in your system no matter how it got there.
She absolutely is reading it and answering lots of the posts.
Cheater go away.
Birkoboy wrote:
kow992928288ii wrote:
I can taste the salt tears of the doping deniers all the way from here.
It brings me almost as much joy as knowing and athlete with a banned substance found in their system will miss 2 Olympics.
It is so great. I hope you read this Shelby and know your missing the games brings me great joy. You should not have had a banned substance in your system no matter how it got there.
She absolutely is reading it and answering lots of the posts.
Cheater go away.
You mean a lying cheater is posting here w Ii thout revealing it is her? Typical and points towards a pattern that shows she is a liar
kow992928288ii wrote:
Birkoboy wrote:
She absolutely is reading it and answering lots of the posts.
Cheater go away.
You mean a lying cheater is posting here w Ii thout revealing it is her? Typical and points towards a pattern that shows she is a liar
More demonstrations of the lack of brainpower from those who have never read the rules and think they know more than both WADA ; USADA and many other NADO’s
kow992928288ii wrote:
I can taste the salt tears of the doping deniers all the way from here.
It brings me almost as much joy as knowing and athlete with a banned substance found in their system will miss 2 Olympics.
It is so great. I hope you read this Shelby and know your missing the games brings me great joy. You should not have had a banned substance in your system no matter how it got there.
What is a doping denier ?
liar soorer wrote:
kow992928288ii wrote:
You mean a lying cheater is posting here w Ii thout revealing it is her? Typical and points towards a pattern that shows she is a liar
More demonstrations of the lack of brainpower from those who have never read the rules and think they know more than both WADA ; USADA and many other NADO’s
Go away cheat.
Cheater Doper,cheater doper,cheater doper, cheater doper,cheater doper.
Birkoboy wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
More demonstrations of the lack of brainpower from those who have never read the rules and think they know more than both WADA ; USADA and many other NADO’s
Go away cheat.
Cheater Doper,cheater doper,cheater doper, cheater doper,cheater doper.
Still think you know more than the authorities and the rules they enforce and without reading the rules.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.