Interesting how two worlds were on a collision course last December 15th.
vdjames wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The CAS finding that she tested positive for nandrolone and had no plausible excuse for it, resulting in a 4 year ban. Hard for you to swallow, I know. But as a denier you will continue to look for excuses against all the evidence. She doped - and then lied about it. So you support a liar as well as a doper. Course you do. You are a stranger to truth. 42 pages shows that.
When did she lie?
.
When she claimed something that CAS found had no basis in reality. Or are you suggesting she is insane?
Charlatan wrote:
Love Kevin Beck, used to race him, but his ending is pathetic. What does Women's Running need saving from? Women's Running is doing perfectly fine at the moment between Mu, Hassan, Kipyegon, Gidey, Jepchirchir. We good.
You forgot Mboma, Nyonsaba, and Masilingi.
Armstronglivs wrote:
vdjames wrote:
When did she lie?
.
When she claimed something that CAS found had no basis in reality. Or are you suggesting she is insane?
She gave an opinion of the only possibility she could think of..This was deemed a wrong .How does that make her a liar.?
Come on how?
I think a valid test is;
If i were to go to a nike lecture given by shelby, and i stood up at the end and said;
'you are a lying drug cheat', would she take me to court for it?
the answer is no. so she is a lying drug cheat.
pupil3142 wrote:
I think a valid test is;
If i were to go to a nike lecture given by shelby, and i stood up at the end and said;
'you are a lying drug cheat', would she take me to court for it?
the answer is no. so she is a lying drug cheat.
She could think you are a penniless fool.
Armstronglivs wrote:
[quote]rekrunner wrote:
The CAS finding that she tested positive for nandrolone and had no plausible excuse for it, resulting in a 4 year ban. Hard for you to swallow, I know. But as a denier you will continue to look for excuses against all the evidence. She doped - and then lied about it. So you support a liar as well as a doper. Course you do. You are a stranger to truth. 42 pages shows that.
That is all old news we knew way back in June. I’ve long accepted the positive finding.
You said I was “Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.”
I want to accept these arguments. Where can I find these arguments that I am allegedly denying and you would like me to follow and/or swallow?
Thanks in advance for providing exact specificity and avoiding making it about me.
High hopes wrote:
43 pages and still no answers to the two key questions for Houlihan supporters:
1. How did boar offal get into her burrito when it is stated in the CAS report that the food truck buys it's meat from a plant that does not process boar? Did it sneak in on its own?
2. How did Houlihan end up with 2-3 times more nandrolone in her system than could possibly have come from the burrito she ate? An uninjured expert witness t studied that Houlihan would have to have eaten at least two boar offal burritos to have the level of nandrolone found in her test. Apparently, she didn't even finish one. So, how did she get so much nandrolone in her system if she didn't dope?
Instead of looking for loopholes and technicalities to get her off the hook, let's focus on the facts.
1) Maybe the have another supplier for organs than for commercial pork?
2) 2-3x is only applicable to meat. When you consider organs, that multiplier shrinks to 1/3, or even as little as 1/26, according to one study by the same expert witness.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
[quote]rekrunner wrote:
The CAS finding that she tested positive for nandrolone and had no plausible excuse for it, resulting in a 4 year ban. Hard for you to swallow, I know. But as a denier you will continue to look for excuses against all the evidence. She doped - and then lied about it. So you support a liar as well as a doper. Course you do. You are a stranger to truth. 42 pages shows that.
That is all old news we knew way back in June. I’ve long accepted the positive finding.
You said I was “Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.”
I want to accept these arguments. Where can I find these arguments that I am allegedly denying and you would like me to follow and/or swallow?
Thanks in advance for providing exact specificity and avoiding making it about me.
From the Alan Abrahamson article:
This entire saga, truthfully, has been pathetic.
This burrito defense has, from the get-go, stretched the bounds of credulity, and anyone who bought it — even for a second — needs to undergo a real-world moron test.
Do you also believe pigs can fly? (‘Pigs’ used advisedly here.) Do you think Abraham Lincoln is a vampire slayer? Are you super-confident you can beat up a grizzly bear?
Almost every single facet of Houlihan’s defense was — is — absurd.
To be clear: not blaming Houlihan’s lawyers for aggressively scheming up any and every avenue possible. That’s what they’re there for.
But the three-judge panel went to great length — again, 44 pages — to refute, carefully, virtually everything about it.
Once again — you said that CAS argued “how it got there”.
Judging from your lack of ability to be specific about what CAS actually argued, I can only conclude that you are largely ignorant of what CAS actually argued.
vdjames wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
When she claimed something that CAS found had no basis in reality. Or are you suggesting she is insane?
She gave an opinion of the only possibility she could think of..This was deemed a wrong .How does that make her a liar.?
Come on how?
You're right - it is the only possibility she could think of, as an alternative to doping - which is the most feasible explanation. CAS said the burrito was bs - in detail and politely. That means she made a story up. We call that lying.
rekrunner wrote:
Once again — you said that CAS argued “how it got there”.
Judging from your lack of ability to be specific about what CAS actually argued, I can only conclude that you are largely ignorant of what CAS actually argued.
You've got it round the wrong way. Perhaps you can find the reasoning in the CAS decision that says she didn't dope and that the Court accepted her burrito story as credible - or indeed that there was any number of other "innocent" possibilities for her positive test, as you try to argue. Somehow, I don't think you can. But you will still try to cast doubt on the decision for another 42 pages. You are a psych basket case.
This is Abrahamson's view of those like you.
"This entire saga, truthfully, has been pathetic."
"This burrito defense has, from the get-go, stretched the bounds of credulity, and anyone who bought it — even for a second — needs to undergo a real-world moron test."
I suggest you need to undergo the test. Actually - no need; we know the results already.
Armstronglivs wrote:
vdjames wrote:
She gave an opinion of the only possibility she could think of..This was deemed a wrong .How does that make her a liar.?
Come on how?
You're right - it is the only possibility she could think of, as an alternative to doping - which is the most feasible explanation. CAS said the burrito was bs - in detail and politely. That means she made a story up. We call that lying.
She never made the story up as being fact; and you know this.
She said at the outset that it is the best assumption she could provide.
Thus it could not be a lie.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Once again — you said that CAS argued “how it got there”.
Judging from your lack of ability to be specific about what CAS actually argued, I can only conclude that you are largely ignorant of what CAS actually argued.
You've got it round the wrong way. Perhaps you can find the reasoning in the CAS decision that says she didn't dope and that the Court accepted her burrito story as credible - or indeed that there was any number of other "innocent" possibilities for her positive test, as you try to argue. Somehow, I don't think you can. But you will still try to cast doubt on the decision for another 42 pages. You are a psych basket case.
Sorry — you are mistaken.
We started by me saying “Just to get you up to speed, no one is denying the presence of nandrolone.”
and you responding “Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.”
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You've got it round the wrong way. Perhaps you can find the reasoning in the CAS decision that says she didn't dope and that the Court accepted her burrito story as credible - or indeed that there was any number of other "innocent" possibilities for her positive test, as you try to argue. Somehow, I don't think you can. But you will still try to cast doubt on the decision for another 42 pages. You are a psych basket case.
Sorry — you are mistaken.
We started by me saying “Just to get you up to speed, no one is denying the presence of nandrolone.”
and you responding “Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.”
Don’t try making sense; he is a troll and such is manifest throughout the msg board.
sanootage wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Sorry — you are mistaken.
We started by me saying “Just to get you up to speed, no one is denying the presence of nandrolone.”
and you responding “Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.”
Don’t try making sense; he is a troll and such is manifest throughout the msg board.
Armstrong, the fake lawyer and obsessed windbag, can't even argue around two trolls who are making it up on the fly and tossing him softballs softballs.
This thread is hilarious.
vdjames wrote:She gave an opinion of the only possibility she could think of..This was deemed a wrong .How does that make her a liar.?
Come on how?
To be precise, it was not just an opinion. CAS writes under "Factual Background":
In brief, the Athlete maintained that the 19-NA entered her body by eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal and that the burrito was the only possible source of the 19-NA in the Sample.
That does make her a liar, but of course that is her smallest problem now.
casual obsever wrote:
vdjames wrote:She gave an opinion of the only possibility she could think of..This was deemed a wrong .How does that make her a liar.?
Come on how?
To be precise, it was not just an opinion. CAS writes under "Factual Background":
In brief, the Athlete maintained that the 19-NA entered her body by eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal and that the burrito was the only possible source of the 19-NA in the Sample.
That does make her a liar, but of course that is her smallest problem now.
Unless the experts lied — there is a precedent.
sanootage wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're right - it is the only possibility she could think of, as an alternative to doping - which is the most feasible explanation. CAS said the burrito was bs - in detail and politely. That means she made a story up. We call that lying.
She never made the story up as being fact; and you know this.
She said at the outset that it is the best assumption she could provide.
Thus it could not be a lie.
The "best assumption she could come up with" - is that the dog ate my homework excuse? So she asked CAS to believe something that wasn't fact? Your struggle with the concept of telling the truth is apparent. I can see why you don't know what a lie is. It's a struggle with the truth. Maybe you prefer the softer term - she told a load of bs.