I understand what the presumptions say when there are no facts. What makes it "defective" is its failure to factually establish who are the "dopers".
Long time USADA CEO Travis Tygart describes it best when he says the WADA Code creates "cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats".
So the mods gave come down firmly in supporting the rekrunner distortions and misrepresentations of the CAS findings against Houlihan. It couldn't be a more blatant demonstration of doping apologism by this site.
Bs. It is speculation unsupported by the facts accepted by the Court.
The "court" is bound to observe and enforce a defective process that substitutes presumptions when facts are too hard.
The Court applies a process that is accepted by the sport, which includes its governance and its competitors. If it were not so it would be changed. It is a factual and evidence-based process that gives athletes the right to defend themselves. It is only "defective" to such as you who would prefer dopers like Houlihan evade sanction. Fortunately, views like yours play no part in the antidoping process.
I understand what the presumptions say when there are no facts. What makes it "defective" is its failure to factually establish who are the "dopers".
Long time USADA CEO Travis Tygart describes it best when he says the WADA Code creates "cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats".
Travis Tygart does not represent antidoping in the sport but is expressing his own views. Any process that depends on establishing guilt, by whatever standard - beyond reasonable doubt (which only applies in the criminal law), balance of probabilities (the civil test) or strict liability - is capable of getting it wrong on some occasions. That is the price to be paid for mostly getting it right. But you would prefer a process that would make it virtually impossible for antidoping to be enforced by a requiring a standard of proof it couldn't meet. Your loyalties are obvious.
Who says she hasn't been telling the truth all along, but simply couldn't prove it?
Which competitors have spoken against Houlihan?
The CAS finding of guilt, based on a positive test for which she could not present a defence that met the test of the balance of probabilities, leads to the conclusion she was not "telling the truth all along". You show you neither understand what the law shows and what the known facts - and not mere speculation or unproven assertion - suggest. You have only your immovable bias in favour of even convicted dopers.
This post was edited 48 seconds after it was posted.
The "court" is bound to observe and enforce a defective process that substitutes presumptions when facts are too hard.
The Court applies a process that is accepted by the sport, which includes its governance and its competitors. If it were not so it would be changed. It is a factual and evidence-based process that gives athletes the right to defend themselves. It is only "defective" to such as you who would prefer dopers like Houlihan evade sanction. Fortunately, views like yours play no part in the antidoping process.
Whether it is "accepted" is immaterial, and doesn't mean it is not defective. Athletes are forced to click "I Agree" with no possibility of negotiation.
USADA's longtime chief Travis Tygart is lobbying for change. Critics of anti-doping has been arguing against "strict liability" justice for as long as WADA has existed. I would prefer a system that establishes intentional doping with facts and evidence, without first presuming it, and then just punishes the dopers without railroading innocent athletes to 4-year bans. Punish the dopers without collateral damage.
Travis Tygart does not represent antidoping in the sport but is expressing his own views. Any process that depends on establishing guilt, by whatever standard - beyond reasonable doubt (which only applies in the criminal law), balance of probabilities (the civil test) or strict liability - is capable of getting it wrong on some occasions. That is the price to be paid for mostly getting it right. But you would prefer a process that would make it virtually impossible for antidoping to be enforced by a requiring a standard of proof it couldn't meet. Your loyalties are obvious.
Tygart does not represent antidoping? This was his official statement after 27 (and counting) "cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats". None of these cases were appealed by WADA -- silence is acceptance.
Who said the current process "mostly (gets) it right"? No one is proposing any "process that would make it virtually impossible for antidoping to be enforced". The process before 2015 was still enforced and still punished the "unintentional doper". The thing that has changed in 2015 is now some "unintentional dopers" are being treated like "intentional cheats", based on a presumption and a shift of burden, rather than fact or evidence.
My loyalties are aligned with innocent athletes who have done nothing wrong. We need evidence, and not presumption, to determine who the innocent athletes are.
Who says she hasn't been telling the truth all along, but simply couldn't prove it?
Which competitors have spoken against Houlihan?
The CAS finding of guilt, based on a positive test for which she could not present a defence that met the test of the balance of probabilities, leads to the conclusion she was not "telling the truth all along". You show you neither understand what the law shows and what the known facts - and not mere speculation or unproven assertion - suggest. You have only your immovable bias in favour of even convicted dopers.
You are conflating CAS "findings" with "the truth". While some fraction of the facts are known, the CAS decisions are subject to a process that substitutes presumptions for unknown facts. The finding of "(not not) intentional" is based solely on presumption -- i.e. "mere speculation and unproven assertion". The finding of "guilt" is based on one interpretation of an ambiguous WADA Lab "TD" guideline.
My loyalties are aligned with innocent athletes who have done nothing wrong. We need evidence, and not presumption, to determine who the innocent athletes are.(quote)
Innocent athletes don't typically test positive and fail to produce convincing evidence of accidental contamination.
The CAS finding of guilt, based on a positive test for which she could not present a defence that met the test of the balance of probabilities, leads to the conclusion she was not "telling the truth all along". You show you neither understand what the law shows and what the known facts - and not mere speculation or unproven assertion - suggest. You have only your immovable bias in favour of even convicted dopers.
You are conflating CAS "findings" with "the truth". While some fraction of the facts are known, the CAS decisions are subject to a process that substitutes presumptions for unknown facts. The finding of "(not not) intentional" is based solely on presumption -- i.e. "mere speculation and unproven assertion". The finding of "guilt" is based on one interpretation of an ambiguous WADA Lab "TD" guideline.
You argue as though guilt is established by nothing more than a mere supposition by the Court. You completely disregard what a positive test requires, which is the confirmed presence of banned drug in the athlete's body. It can only get there by one of two routes. Either the athlete took the drug or there was accidental contamination (discounting sabotage if it isn't alleged). Only the athlete can produce evidence of the latter. If that evidence by the athlete is convincing - based on the legal test of the balance of probabilities - they are acquitted. If it isn't then they have failed to rebut the only alternative explanation, that they chose to dope, which is a deliberate act and thus "intentional". The presumption therefore becomes a logical inference based on the proven facts. You are out of your depth.
Travis Tygart does not represent antidoping in the sport but is expressing his own views. Any process that depends on establishing guilt, by whatever standard - beyond reasonable doubt (which only applies in the criminal law), balance of probabilities (the civil test) or strict liability - is capable of getting it wrong on some occasions. That is the price to be paid for mostly getting it right. But you would prefer a process that would make it virtually impossible for antidoping to be enforced by a requiring a standard of proof it couldn't meet. Your loyalties are obvious.
Tygart does not represent antidoping? This was his official statement after 27 (and counting) "cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats". None of these cases were appealed by WADA -- silence is acceptance.
Who said the current process "mostly (gets) it right"? No one is proposing any "process that would make it virtually impossible for antidoping to be enforced". The process before 2015 was still enforced and still punished the "unintentional doper". The thing that has changed in 2015 is now some "unintentional dopers" are being treated like "intentional cheats", based on a presumption and a shift of burden, rather than fact or evidence.
My loyalties are aligned with innocent athletes who have done nothing wrong. We need evidence, and not presumption, to determine who the innocent athletes are.
Tygart's views have not been accepted by the bodies that govern the sport. Nor have athletes combined in widespread protest to demand the changes he argues for. He also represents a body that has been reported as covering up for American athletes who have doped.
The Court applies a process that is accepted by the sport, which includes its governance and its competitors. If it were not so it would be changed. It is a factual and evidence-based process that gives athletes the right to defend themselves. It is only "defective" to such as you who would prefer dopers like Houlihan evade sanction. Fortunately, views like yours play no part in the antidoping process.
Whether it is "accepted" is immaterial, and doesn't mean it is not defective. Athletes are forced to click "I Agree" with no possibility of negotiation.
USADA's longtime chief Travis Tygart is lobbying for change. Critics of anti-doping has been arguing against "strict liability" justice for as long as WADA has existed. I would prefer a system that establishes intentional doping with facts and evidence, without first presuming it, and then just punishes the dopers without railroading innocent athletes to 4-year bans. Punish the dopers without collateral damage.
Intentional doping is established by a positive test in which an athlete fails to present convincing evidence of accidental contamination or some other cause. The presumption can be rebutted by evidence that meets the balance of probabilities. Only the athlete can provide that evidence. To require the prosecution to find evidence of innocence or "lack of intent" is contradictory to its role. Nor should it have to produce actual evidence of intent, when, in the absence of convincing evidence of accidental contamination, the athlete's doping can only be intentional.
Same old tired and baseless accusations from the same few with tendencies for believing conspiracy and self-delusion.
Since you choose to believe improbable explanations for an athlete's innocence over the evidence of guilt the self delusion is all yours.
I was referring to the false and tired and baseless accusations that I am deleting posts, or that I have anything to do with moderation either directly or indirectly.
I do not choose to "believe", but rather choose not to "believe" things lacking evidence.
My loyalties are aligned with innocent athletes who have done nothing wrong. We need evidence, and not presumption, to determine who the innocent athletes are.(quote)
Innocent athletes don't typically test positive and fail to produce convincing evidence of accidental contamination.
It's hard to say what is "typical" without collecting any data. But even you yourself said that "Any process ... is capable of getting it wrong on some occasions."
According to Sports Integrity Initiaitve, "At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional."
He didn't say how many were able to produce "convincing evidence". In any case, "atypical" doesn't mean that the process got it right.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.