Non of the above matches either from the CAS decision or the Wada code.
Why is it that you continue to post without any consideration of the WADA code?
How on earth can you have the audacity to say that a rule breach require intent.This is a gross school child error that alone makes your contributions utterly worthless.
And I am beIng kind with saying worthless.
The rule breach presumed intent. As CAS said, she failed to rebut that presumption, so it found intent.
A rule breach did not does does require intent.
The rules explicitly say this.It is the basis of strict liability.
So your response to my question of what is the actual evidence that argues against her intentionally doping is simply to rehearse arguments which were dismissed by the Panel as being of "near zero" probability. You have no case. She has no case.
The response to your request for evidence was evidence from the AIU experts and from public sources.
"near zero" only came from the AIU. The CAS ruled on the balance of probability (i.e. less than 50%).
The CAS did not dismiss the evidence from the AIU experts Profs. McGlone and Ayotte.
Without WADA Code reform, these "no-fault" cases will always be a coin toss.
Intent was presumed from a banned drug being found in her system. The positive test and the failure to rebut the presumption through presenting an accepted defence of accidental contamination constitute evidence of intent. She was therefore deemed the author of her own breach of the rules, which necessarily requires intent.
This. I was hoping for a discussion from people who know more about BTC of the possible saboteurs, rather than another thread rehashing the CAS decision. We've been over that ad barfeum.
The purpose of this thread is to speculate about who could have slipped her a mickey ("it could have been someone around me"). We need to analyze things like motive, opportunity, access, knowledge and propensity for deviousness, in coming up with a list of possible saboteurs.
I think it was a rhetorical question and one to illustrate the problems with trying to prove a negative. So it is still back to the CAS decision and the Wada Code it is based on….. sorry.
It was not a rhetorical question. "Investigations" got the first part of my post. The 2nd part was obviously mocking those who continue to rehash the same crap.
I think it was a rhetorical question and one to illustrate the problems with trying to prove a negative. So it is still back to the CAS decision and the Wada Code it is based on….. sorry.
It was not a rhetorical question. "Investigations" got the first part of my post. The 2nd part was obviously mocking those who continue to rehash the same crap.
Sorry, thought you meant my question was rhetorical. Now I see you meant Shelby. I read it wrong the first time.
I think it was a rhetorical question and one to illustrate the problems with trying to prove a negative. So it is still back to the CAS decision and the Wada Code it is based on….. sorry.
It was not a rhetorical question. "Investigations" got the first part of my post. The 2nd part was obviously mocking those who continue to rehash the same crap.
It was not a rhetorical question. "Investigations" got the first part of my post. The 2nd part was obviously mocking those who continue to rehash the same crap.
The rule breach presumed intent. As CAS said, she failed to rebut that presumption, so it found intent.
A rule breach did not does does require intent.
The rules explicitly say this.It is the basis of strict liability.
Armstronglies has demonstrated once more that he should not be posting as he does not have the most basic simple knowledge of the subject.And this is after he has been told hundreds of times to read the Wada code and been given direct references and quotes from it.
No. You just have an evolving meaning of the word "evidence" and keep conflating it with the merits of Houlihan's claim.
Evidence is an item proffered by a litigant which makes the existence of a fact or claim more or less probable. The act of buying a burrito by Houlihan makes her claim that she was unintentionally doped more probable. In fact, if she can't allege that she bought (or at least ingested) a burrito within a certain time frame around her failed test, it is dispositive of her claim. Buying and eating the burrito IS evidence in the proceeding. In fact, it is relevant evidence and admissible (irrelevant evidence is not admissible).
Whether her claim that she failed a drug test because she bought and ingested a burrito with illegal drugs in it had any merit, which it clearly did not, is another issue. Buying and eating a burrito, however, is evidence.
I am not changing or conflating the term, as you suggest. I have maintained that the mere claim she consumed a burrito isn't evidence of anything, except that she ate a burrito. It is merely a fact; it is only evidence if it materially supports an argument being made.
.
NO, you are wrong again. You seem unable to grasp the distinction between evidence, and the value or weight of the evidence or the merits of the claim. You continue to conflate the two. Facts or "merely a fact" is evidence. It is either relevant and admissible or irrelevant and inadmissible. It is still evidence.
It was dismissed. I therefore don't see how you can say that consuming a burrito made her claim "more probable", as the Panel determined there was virtually no probability in her argument (it was deemed "near zero").
Quite easily. If she had NO evidence that she had ever even been near a burrito in her life, then it would be less probable that she got doped through a burrito as she claimed. If she had some evidence that she had ingested a burrito - e.g., someone saw her buy and eat a burrito - that makes her claim of doping through a burrito more likely than if she had no such evidence.
Again, you are concerned with the weight or value of the evidence and the merits of the claim ("It was dismissed. I therefore don't see how you can say that consuming a burrito made her claim "more probable", as the Panel determined there was virtually no probability in her argument (it was deemed "near zero")). Those are different concepts. She presented evidence that she had bought and purchased a burrito. They CAS didn't dispute that, but found her claim that she was doped through the burrito to be meritless.
Similarly, she could have argued that someone might have spiked her drink. It is a claim - like the so called contaminated burrito - but in the absence of facts that support that claim it doesn't amount to evidence of what is claimed.
Yes, she could have argued that. And in support of that claim, she likely would have provided evidence that she actually drank something. If she has a receipt for a drink or a witness who says they say her take a drink, that is evidence.
However, I think you are using the term in a different sense from me. You appear to be saying any fact that is presented or can be presented constitutes "evidence" in a technical sense, whereas I am saying it is only evidence if it adds significant factual veracity to the argument being made.
Yes, I am using it in a different sense. I am using it in the correct sense. You are using it incorrectly and having resort to what looks like conjured up legal standards such as "significant factual veracity" (what I think you are trying to say is relevant and sufficiently corroborated, but even that does not change what evidence means).
Consuming a burrito doesn't of itself suggest food contamination.
No, it doesn't and I never said it did. I said it is evidence in support of claim, which it is. Testimony that someone bought a burrito is evidence. A receipt for a burrito is evidence. A menu with a burrito on it is evidence.
There has to be something more - much more - than that. And that is what the Panel concluded. It may have agreed with your point by accepting her consuming a burrito as admissable evidence but it concluded that it didn't amount to evidence of what she claimed, which is what I am saying. "Close to zero" probability is air, not evidence.
Yes, there would have to be something more - a lot more - to prove contamination and doping through a burrito. And, if I recall, Houlihan did present more evidence than merely that she ate a burrito. That evidence, however, was not enough to convince CAS she got doped through a burrito (not by a long shot). It was all, however, evidence.
The rule breach presumed intent. As CAS said, she failed to rebut that presumption, so it found intent.
A rule breach did not does does require intent.
The rules explicitly say this.It is the basis of strict liability.
Do you not understand the difference between the words "presume" and "require"? Of course not. That which is presumed can also be adduced - as it was in this case with a finding of intent.
So your response to my question of what is the actual evidence that argues against her intentionally doping is simply to rehearse arguments which were dismissed by the Panel as being of "near zero" probability. You have no case. She has no case.
The response to your request for evidence was evidence from the AIU experts and from public sources.
"near zero" only came from the AIU. The CAS ruled on the balance of probability (i.e. less than 50%).
The CAS did not dismiss the evidence from the AIU experts Profs. McGlone and Ayotte.
Without WADA Code reform, these "no-fault" cases will always be a coin toss.
A positive test is not a "coin toss". Nor was hers a "no fault" case. She couldn't show that.
Intent was presumed from a banned drug being found in her system. The positive test and the failure to rebut the presumption through presenting an accepted defence of accidental contamination constitute evidence of intent. She was therefore deemed the author of her own breach of the rules, which necessarily requires intent.
I think we would probably agree on the weight attributable to the burrito evidence, which was assessed as presenting a defence of "near zero" likelihood. I look on evidence as something which tends to be at least fractionally persuasive towards what is claimed. The burrito doesn't appear to meet even that standard. Your argument is technically correct but as "evidence" the alleged burrito amounted to little more than air.
I think we would probably agree on the weight attributable to the burrito evidence, which was assessed as presenting a defence of "near zero" likelihood. I look on evidence as something which tends to be at least fractionally persuasive towards what is claimed. The burrito doesn't appear to meet even that standard. Your argument is technically correct but as "evidence" the alleged burrito amounted to little more than air.
Still posting on a subject you have demonstrated your utter lack of intellectual grasp of.
The rules explicitly say this.It is the basis of strict liability.
Do you not understand the difference between the words "presume" and "require"? Of course not. That which is presumed can also be adduced - as it was in this case with a finding of intent.
Yet again you demonstrate that you don’t even have a remote clue about the rules.
The rules explicitly say this.It is the basis of strict liability.
Armstronglies has demonstrated once more that he should not be posting as he does not have the most basic simple knowledge of the subject.And this is after he has been told hundreds of times to read the Wada code and been given direct references and quotes from it.
Shelby is not being crucified here. Please stop making her out to be a martyr. This is simply rewarding her for her poor character and lies. Shelby cheated because she wanted to be the best. She is far from alone in this regard. It is now so difficult for her to tell the truth but she has slipped up a couple times for those paying attention. You are doing nothing but engaging in obfuscation. You are an enabler. Why waste your time? You might as well be tilting at windmills. Almost nobody is persuaded by your nonsense.
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.