This thread would be so much more useful and tolerable if the mods banned 3 users and the IP of one anonymous poster.
-
00
-
#1: Top-rated Training Shoe: Brooks Ghost 15 for $99Get a top 1%-rated shoe right now for $99 (30% off) -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I doubt that I can anywhere see such a torrent of meaningless verbal diarrhea as you continually deliver on these pages. If an act is intentional it cannot be accidental - although the latter is not necessary to say because it is logically implicit. You are an absolute f*cking moron.
You don’t proof-read your own posts?
I thought you said nothing exists if it is not in the report.
“accidental” does not appear in the report.
Where in the report can we find which act, specifically, that Houlihan committed that the CAS considered “intentional”?
While we could treat them as synonyms, it’s complicated by the fact that WADA expands the definition of “intent” to include other conduct besides the implied act of willful ingestion of a banned substance.
As you could see for yourself in the report, the CAS clearly indicates that “intent” is a presumption, and you will not find which act specifically met WADA’s expanded definition of “intent”.
But why introduce all this unnecessary ambiguity — if it really is all the same to you, you should have no objection to choose the set of words that CAS uses mindful of the context that the CAS is bound to. Why do you choose to re-express it with different words which mean different things not necessarily intended by the CAS or by WADA?
I didn't say "nothing exists if it isn't in the report". But the meaning of the decision is clear, and doesn't require speculation as to what it meant. Fast food - a burrito - would be accidental doping - if it contained the level of nandrolone she tested positive for. CAS did not accept that excuse and so she was deemed to have doped intentionally, resulting in a ban. Because you can't find the word "accidental" in the decision you can't understand what it was saying, and so are still flailing around with your usual semantic smokescreens after 50 pages.
If the cause of her returning a positive doping test had been the result of eating a pork burrito what else could that be but "accidental" doping? If that explanation is ruled out and no alternatives are offered then what else can the presence of nandrolone in her body be but the result of an "intentional"act? Only an absolute f*cking moron - as you are - will not see that.
00 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Because that which isn't accidental is intentional
But “accidental” isn’t in the CAS report — it doesn’t exist.
It doesn't exist because it wasn't accidental.
But as you also show, despite the thousands of words in the English language, none of them can be used to explain the meaning of those used in a court decision. I don't think there is a more illiterate poster on these boards.
00 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
the meaning of the decision is clear, and doesn't require speculation ..
Indeed. The CAS report and the WADA code are both quite clear.
00 -
sanootage wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are correct - I have essentially said the same, as have others - but it will not deter the deniers here for another 50 pages.
Read comment to rule 10.2.3
This devises of the use of the word intent from the judgement from the use in the penalty.
You confuse the two.
Hence “deemed”.
Read the comment to the rule!
00 -
All the whining about specific verbiage doesn't really change the fact that doper Shelby has been banned for 4 years.
Drug cheats out!
00 -
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
All the whining about specific verbiage doesn't really change the fact that doper Shelby has been banned for 4 years.
Drug cheats out!
No proof that a doper or cheat.Such was never tested by the hearing.
00 -
sanootage wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Read comment to rule 10.2.3
This devises of the use of the word intent from the judgement from the use in the penalty.
You confuse the two.
Hence “deemed”.
Read comment on 10.2.3
Read it yet?
00 -
sanootage wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Read comment to rule 10.2.3
This devises of the use of the word intent from the judgement from the use in the penalty.
You confuse the two.
Hence “deemed”.
Read the comment to the rule!
You're a moron and astonishingly a few clowns short of a circus.
As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
Was the athlete who failed the doping test containing Nandrolone absolved of that adverse finding? No. Therefore, that athlete is required to be deemed an intentional doper --- a cheat. That athlete had but one play, the supposed burrito. That was laughed all the way to Av. de Beaumont 2, 1012 Lausanne, Switzerland, where a few good people with common sense told the athlete to piss off with that lame excuse.
In the absence of any other defence, the athlete, who was charged with an AAF, had that ruling upheld. As such, having been found guilty of the charge of doping, the athlete can, has been and will be considered a cheat who knowingly engaged in conduct which she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation. There is no other alternative to this story.
00 -
That's fine, buddy, mom will bring your Hot Pocket down later.
In the real world, doper Shelburrito Houlihan has been banned 4 years for being a drug cheat. That ban was upheld.
Drug cheats out!
00 -
Gilligan McFadden wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Read the comment to the rule!
You're a moron and astonishingly a few clowns short of a circus.
As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
Was the athlete who failed the doping test containing Nandrolone absolved of that adverse finding? No. Therefore, that athlete is required to be deemed an intentional doper --- a cheat. That athlete had but one play, the supposed burrito. That was laughed all the way to Av. de Beaumont 2, 1012 Lausanne, Switzerland, where a few good people with common sense told the athlete to piss off with that lame excuse.
In the absence of any other defence, the athlete, who was charged with an AAF, had that ruling upheld. As such, having been found guilty of the charge of doping, the athlete can, has been and will be considered a cheat who knowingly engaged in conduct which she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation. There is no other alternative to this story.
Read the comment on the rule.
Have you?
00 -
Gilligan McFadden wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Read the comment to the rule!
You're a moron and astonishingly a few clowns short of a circus.
As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
Was the athlete who failed the doping test containing Nandrolone absolved of that adverse finding? No. Therefore, that athlete is required to be deemed an intentional doper --- a cheat. That athlete had but one play, the supposed burrito. That was laughed all the way to Av. de Beaumont 2, 1012 Lausanne, Switzerland, where a few good people with common sense told the athlete to piss off with that lame excuse.
In the absence of any other defence, the athlete, who was charged with an AAF, had that ruling upheld. As such, having been found guilty of the charge of doping, the athlete can, has been and will be considered a cheat who knowingly engaged in conduct which she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation. There is no other alternative to this story.
Read comment on 10 3.2
00 -
If had been charged with Stromba and presented the food defence and this had been thrown out she would not have had it said that her offence was intended.
Now! Make sense of the rules on cheating or deemed cheating.
00 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Then we should reject your explanation too.
I don't have an "explanation"; I simply go with the decision, which is that CAS confirmed a doping violation while rejecting Houlihan's attempted excuse of accidental contamination. It appears your IQ is insufficient to grasp this outcome. Your alternative explanations are meanwhile the pure product of your imagination. That's what a psychosis can do.
I agree but that is not the same as cheating.
Read the comment on the rules.
Ditto
Ditto
00 -
Gilligan McFadden wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Read the comment to the rule!
You're a moron and astonishingly a few clowns short of a circus.
As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
Was the athlete who failed the doping test containing Nandrolone absolved of that adverse finding? No. Therefore, that athlete is required to be deemed an intentional doper --- a cheat. That athlete had but one play, the supposed burrito. That was laughed all the way to Av. de Beaumont 2, 1012 Lausanne, Switzerland, where a few good people with common sense told the athlete to piss off with that lame excuse.
In the absence of any other defence, the athlete, who was charged with an AAF, had that ruling upheld. As such, having been found guilty of the charge of doping, the athlete can, has been and will be considered a cheat who knowingly engaged in conduct which she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation. There is no other alternative to this story.
Read the comment and you will find that you are wrong
00 -
What part of this escapes you?
"The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Shelby Houlihan is upheld. Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules. Shelby Houlihan is subject to a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting on 14 January 2021."
There is NO alternative ending to the athlete's saga.
00 -
Gilligan McFadden wrote:
What part of this escapes you?
"The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Shelby Houlihan is upheld. Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules. Shelby Houlihan is subject to a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting on 14 January 2021."
There is NO alternative ending to the athlete's saga.
I agree with you.Never ever disagreed with what you say above.
Why on Earth do you think I would disagree?
00 -
sanootage wrote:
Gilligan McFadden wrote:
You're a moron and astonishingly a few clowns short of a circus.
As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
Was the athlete who failed the doping test containing Nandrolone absolved of that adverse finding? No. Therefore, that athlete is required to be deemed an intentional doper --- a cheat. That athlete had but one play, the supposed burrito. That was laughed all the way to Av. de Beaumont 2, 1012 Lausanne, Switzerland, where a few good people with common sense told the athlete to piss off with that lame excuse.
In the absence of any other defence, the athlete, who was charged with an AAF, had that ruling upheld. As such, having been found guilty of the charge of doping, the athlete can, has been and will be considered a cheat who knowingly engaged in conduct which she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation. There is no other alternative to this story.
Read the comment on the rule.
Have you?
Have you?
00 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
the meaning of the decision is clear, and doesn't require speculation ..
Indeed. The CAS report and the WADA code are both quite clear.
But not to you. You are still trying to find reasons for Houlihan's doping that are part of neither.
00 -
As we see with 50 pages on this thread, clear-cut decisions by a Court in a doping case draw doping apologists who can never accept what the decision means, as they try to find reasons to suggest the athlete concerned is anything but a doper, cheater or a liar - because she is all 3 once her doping excuse was rejected by the Court. But Letsrun is a home for pathological denial. Abrahamson had a pithier expression for them.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun