We are now 29 pages down the road and none of you self-professed "Bozos" are any closer to compiling a list of possible saboteurs who could have doped up Houlihan. No progress at all. Just innuendo and bathroom talk.
Hot burrito slop, running down the side of a wok. Melted Velveeta cheese, hog mauls, hog bauls, swill and spill, sauce all over your shorts and socks.
So you're saying it wasn't a digestive process that resulted in nandrolone from a burrito she claims to have eaten finding its way into her bladder? I thought that was the entire basis of her defence.
You need to pause occasionally and recognize when you are not improving your case. You made an incorrect assertion and now you are engaging in obfuscation to avoid the admission of your error. You are generally correct that only a fool or someone getting paid would defend Shelby. I might add that maybe you and Rekrunner could get a hotel room. You seem quite fond of each other.
My point - except to the pedants here - is that the nandrolone was found in Houlihan's body. Is that being disputed? Does it matter where exactly it was found? Is the positive test being disputed? If not, then this discussion is completely irrelevant. She claimed to have eaten a burrito. I imagine she digested it but if you and others insist the drug wasn't in her "digestive system" it's a puzzle how it made its way to her bladder.
We are now 29 pages down the road and none of you self-professed "Bozos" are any closer to compiling a list of possible saboteurs who could have doped up Houlihan. No progress at all. Just innuendo and bathroom talk.
Hot burrito slop, running down the side of a wok. Melted Velveeta cheese, hog mauls, hog bauls, swill and spill, sauce all over your shorts and socks.
Are you any closer? Isn't compiling a list of saboteurs also just innuendo and bathroom talk?
So you're saying it wasn't a digestive process that resulted in nandrolone from a burrito she claims to have eaten finding its way into her bladder? I thought that was the entire basis of her defence.
What I'm saying is that you changed the goalposts.
The goalposts are a positive test that showed the drug was in her system. Is that being disputed?
An extinct rhinoceros is not a unicorn. But given your confusion about that it explains your inability to distinguish between fact and myth in Shelby's case.
The best known, E. sibiricum, sometimes called the Siberian unicorn, ...
And you think a term used in a populist and non-scientific sense proves that a unicorn is simply a genus of rhinoceros? I can see how you similarly convert myth into fact in doping cases. Tell me more about Sasquatch.
There's no list of possible saboteurs because the usual suspects in these threads are still stuck on redefining the decision so that she isn't seen as an intentional doper.
We are now 29 pages down the road and none of you self-professed "Bozos" are any closer to compiling a list of possible saboteurs who could have doped up Houlihan. No progress at all. Just innuendo and bathroom talk.
Hot burrito slop, running down the side of a wok. Melted Velveeta cheese, hog mauls, hog bauls, swill and spill, sauce all over your shorts and socks.
Are you any closer? Isn't compiling a list of saboteurs also just innuendo and bathroom talk?
You need to pause occasionally and recognize when you are not improving your case. You made an incorrect assertion and now you are engaging in obfuscation to avoid the admission of your error. You are generally correct that only a fool or someone getting paid would defend Shelby. I might add that maybe you and Rekrunner could get a hotel room. You seem quite fond of each other.
My point - except to the pedants here - is that the nandrolone was found in Houlihan's body. Is that being disputed? Does it matter where exactly it was found? Is the positive test being disputed? If not, then this discussion is completely irrelevant. She claimed to have eaten a burrito. I imagine she digested it but if you and others insist the drug wasn't in her "digestive system" it's a puzzle how it made its way to her bladder.
You persistently argued that it was found in her digestive system.
You defended your position with vigour that it was found there.
This is different from saying that it was in her digestive system.
For this to be pointed out does not mean; and you have been told this many times; that it was not at some point in her digestive system.
Your lack of education in this area should disqualify from ever thinking you are a fit person to post.
I add that you persisted in saying that Asprin had no side effects because your drug use had shown non.
You are unfit to be taken remotely serious on anything to do with science.
Further; you have said that it matters not that non cheaters are convicted.
You are morally as well as scientifically bankrupt. Go away.
There's no list of possible saboteurs because the usual suspects in these threads are still stuck on redefining the decision so that she isn't seen as an intentional doper.
You are stuck behind inventing decisions that CAS never made as such are explicitly excluded by the rules ; rules which you have never ever referred to.
The best known, E. sibiricum, sometimes called the Siberian unicorn, ...
And you think a term used in a populist and non-scientific sense proves that a unicorn is simply a genus of rhinoceros? I can see how you similarly convert myth into fact in doping cases. Tell me more about Sasquatch.
Once again you want to steer the topic away from your real-world failure to offer a sound rebuttal, and into your rich world of fantasies.
My point - except to the pedants here - is that the nandrolone was found in Houlihan's body. Is that being disputed? Does it matter where exactly it was found? Is the positive test being disputed? If not, then this discussion is completely irrelevant. She claimed to have eaten a burrito. I imagine she digested it but if you and others insist the drug wasn't in her "digestive system" it's a puzzle how it made its way to her bladder.
You persistently argued that it was found in her digestive system.
You defended your position with vigour that it was found there.
This is different from saying that it was in her digestive system.
For this to be pointed out does not mean; and you have been told this many times; that it was not at some point in her digestive system.
Your lack of education in this area should disqualify from ever thinking you are a fit person to post.
I add that you persisted in saying that Asprin had no side effects because your drug use had shown non.
You are unfit to be taken remotely serious on anything to do with science.
Further; you have said that it matters not that non cheaters are convicted.
You are morally as well as scientifically bankrupt. Go away.
Hi, liar soorer sock-puppet. Speaking there of an unfitness to post.
And you think a term used in a populist and non-scientific sense proves that a unicorn is simply a genus of rhinoceros? I can see how you similarly convert myth into fact in doping cases. Tell me more about Sasquatch.
Once again you want to steer the topic away from your real-world failure to offer a sound rebuttal, and into your rich world of fantasies.
Speaking there of fantasies, the unicorn is really just an extinct Siberian rhinoceros in your view - despite the fact that it is a term that is used to refer to a creature of mythology? You have completely missed the point of referring to "unicorns", which is your attributing existence without evidence. But I see you still do it.
The goalposts are a positive test that showed the drug was in her system. Is that being disputed?
That's your goalpost today. If you can ignore what you said in the past, so can I.
It has always been the goalpost. The drug was found in Houlihan's body. Do you have another site? Oh, yes - I recall you say it was "found" in a laboratory. I wonder how it got there from a burrito she said she ate?
And you think a term used in a populist and non-scientific sense proves that a unicorn is simply a genus of rhinoceros? I can see how you similarly convert myth into fact in doping cases. Tell me more about Sasquatch.
Once again you want to steer the topic away from your real-world failure to offer a sound rebuttal, and into your rich world of fantasies.
After unicorns, I am now waiting for you to offer similar such "evidence" for fairies at the bottom of the garden.
There's no list of possible saboteurs because the usual suspects in these threads are still stuck on redefining the decision so that she isn't seen as an intentional doper.
You are stuck behind inventing decisions that CAS never made as such are explicitly excluded by the rules ; rules which you have never ever referred to.
You are stuck behind inventing decisions that CAS never made as such are explicitly excluded by the rules ; rules which you have never ever referred to.
"B-b-but the rules!"...
But you relied upon the rules to say she is guilty now you mock the very same rules.