goontage wrote:
sanootage wrote:
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.
Abrahamson has a test he'd like you to take. The moron test.
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.”
You never got beyond the start. Anything to avoid the CAS conclusions.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
To be precise, it was not just an opinion. CAS writes under "Factual Background":
That does make her a liar, but of course that is her smallest problem now.
Unless the experts lied — there is a precedent.
But never the ones you rely on.
Clutching at straws is all you've got. Abrahamson summed you up in a sentence.
How is it that you and I disagree on every substantive topic? Covid, Houlihan, Biden, and Trump probably Afghanistan as well. I could not exist in the same room as you for fear of matter/antimatter annihilation. Maybe we both dislike Sha'carri? That's one thing we got?
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.
Most of those women are probably doping. If DC and testing catches us enough soon, everyone will find out the hard way.
Armstronglivs 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.”
You never got beyond the start. Anything to avoid the CAS conclusions.
The point remains open as to what “arguments by CAS of how it got there” you referred to.
Lacking real knowledge, it is typical for you to improvise in all of these discussions, making things up as you go, but when asked to specifically substantiate one basic point that you made, which should be straightforward to find in a 44-page document, you abandon yourself and scatter like a cockroach because I turned the light in your direction.
Armstronglivs wrote:
But never the ones you rely on.
Clutching at straws is all you've got. Abrahamson summed you up in a sentence.
Abrahamson didn’t add any value to the discussion, and misattributed AIU submissions to the CAS.
I’m generally not impressed with how reporters and sports writers cover the facts surrounding doping cases.
Ihatejoe wrote:
How is it that you and I disagree on every substantive topic? Covid, Houlihan, Biden, and Trump probably Afghanistan as well. I could not exist in the same room as you for fear of matter/antimatter annihilation. Maybe we both dislike Sha'carri? That's one thing we got?
I don't want to be too blunt about it but there's clearly a difference in intelligence involved - which isn't in your favour.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You never got beyond the start. Anything to avoid the CAS conclusions.
The point remains open as to what “arguments by CAS of how it got there” you referred to.
Lacking real knowledge, it is typical for you to improvise in all of these discussions, making things up as you go, but when asked to specifically substantiate one basic point that you made, which should be straightforward to find in a 44-page document, you abandon yourself and scatter like a cockroach because I turned the light in your direction.
You can't turn the light on anything. You exist in darkness.
Come on, tell us one more time in 42 pages that CAS didn't determine Houlihan doped and didn't reject her feeble story about a burrito, and that there are any number of possibilities for how she ended up with nandrolone in her system that didn't involve doping - except that CAS didn't find that.
You denial is a disorder.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But never the ones you rely on.
Clutching at straws is all you've got. Abrahamson summed you up in a sentence.
Abrahamson didn’t add any value to the discussion, and misattributed AIU submissions to the CAS.
I’m generally not impressed with how reporters and sports writers cover the facts surrounding doping cases.
No, you wouldn't be - because they don't take the position the athlete wasn't doping when they've been caught.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh
ffs
[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:
I don't want to be too blunt about it but there's clearly a difference in intelligence involved - which isn't in your favour.[/quo]
You might beat me on a IQ test, but you don't love America as much as I do and you spelled favor wrong.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Come on, tell us …
After you tell us what did you mean by “the arguments by CAS of how it got there”?
Thanks in advance.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Come on, tell us …
After you tell us what did you mean by “the arguments by CAS of how it got there”?
Thanks in advance.
I want to hear his answer as well but I expect only childish bile but perhaps …..
Ihatejoe wrote:
[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:
I don't want to be too blunt about it but there's clearly a difference in intelligence involved - which isn't in your favour.[/quo]
You might beat me on a IQ test, but you don't love America as much as I do and you spelled favor wrong.
Yours is the American spelling. I am not American. There are many Americans who love their country just as much as you do and would hold diametrically opposed views to yours. Your view of America exists largely inside your head. Sadly - like most Trumpers and Republicans.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Come on, tell us …
After you tell us what did you mean by “the arguments by CAS of how it got there”?
Thanks in advance.
So you haven't read their decision? Let me inform you - they convicted Houlihan of a doping offence after she failed a drug test (confirmed by both samples) and rejected her explanation of the pork burrito as specious and beyond the realms of probability. So which part of that are you disputing - for 42 pages?
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
After you tell us what did you mean by “the arguments by CAS of how it got there”?
Thanks in advance.
So you haven't read their decision? Let me inform you - they convicted Houlihan of a doping offence after she failed a drug test (confirmed by both samples) and rejected her explanation of the pork burrito as specious and beyond the realms of probability. So which part of that are you disputing - for 42 pages?
Asking you what you mean isn’t a dispute. Surely if anyone can make sense of what you say, it should be you, right?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So you haven't read their decision? Let me inform you - they convicted Houlihan of a doping offence after she failed a drug test (confirmed by both samples) and rejected her explanation of the pork burrito as specious and beyond the realms of probability. So which part of that are you disputing - for 42 pages?
Asking you what you mean isn’t a dispute. Surely if anyone can make sense of what you say, it should be you, right?
Sadly - no, with a comprehension impairment like yours. The decision was as I have just summarized - but for you that decision simply remains stuck in your throat. You do everything you can to depict it as something other than what it is. It isn't.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Asking you what you mean isn’t a dispute. Surely if anyone can make sense of what you say, it should be you, right?
Sadly - no, with a comprehension impairment like yours. The decision was as I have just summarized - but for you that decision simply remains stuck in your throat. You do everything you can to depict it as something other than what it is. It isn't.
Thanks guys - no need for any of the rest of us to worry about going to hell now - can't be any worse than this interminable drivel.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Sadly - no, with a comprehension impairment like yours. The decision was as I have just summarized - but for you that decision simply remains stuck in your throat. You do everything you can to depict it as something other than what it is. It isn't.
Do you understand the question? Can you find “the arguments by CAS of how it got there” in that decision? I can comprehend numbers: a paragraph number or a page number would answer the question.
I’ll just have to accept your honest and frank concession that sadly, even you cannot make sense of what you say.