the language from the AIU is more severe, accusatory and explicit (as told to us by the CAS) that "the Athlete has committed an intentional ADRV".
In a refreshing change, here you are finally accepting the fact that she committed an intentional ADRV, i.e. doped on purpose with nandrolone (ignoring your little semantic deceits).
Oh, I didn't say I accepted that language as fact.
What a bunch of semantic BS -- and I say that as a lawyer. This is like saying someone who was convicted of homicide is not a murderer because "murder" isn't a term used in the jurisdiction.
I can't help it if the words mean what they mean.
"Murder" and "homicide" have definitions too, and while murders are homicides, not all homicides are murder.
That is what he doesn't accept. She is "possibly" innocent (but not probably innocent, according to CAS) and had the "bad luck" to be unable to produce the contaminated burrito (which experts rated as being of "near-zero" likelihood as the cause of her positive test) and her offence wasn't really "intentional" because CAS didn't have to prove it - she simply failed to rebut the presumption. As most dopers fail to do - "glowing", as they do, with a banned drug. Like she was.
Not once have you referred to any element of that WADA code.Thus all your thoughts should be dismissed as if issued by a schoolchild.Just as all have laughed at you saying that the bladder is part of the digestive system.
You can now expect more semantic bs on the distinction between "homicide" and "murder". Shelby isn't a "doper" because CAS doesn't use the term, while it meanwhile convicts her of a doping offence - and an intentional offence at that.
Cas did not not use the term because the rules explicitly excluded it.
Which rule says the term is not to be used? You prefer "chemical enhancement"?
In a refreshing change, here you are finally accepting the fact that she committed an intentional ADRV, i.e. doped on purpose with nandrolone (ignoring your little semantic deceits).
Oh, I didn't say I accepted that language as fact.
But we know you can't tell the difference between "language" and fact. Hence, your semantic bs.
What a bunch of semantic BS -- and I say that as a lawyer. This is like saying someone who was convicted of homicide is not a murderer because "murder" isn't a term used in the jurisdiction.
I can't help it if the words mean what they mean.
"Murder" and "homicide" have definitions too, and while murders are homicides, not all homicides are murder.
Just like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, words mean what you mean them to mean. Perhaps you could tell us where to find the term, a "homicider" - since "murderer" won't do?
"Murder" and "homicide" have definitions too, and while murders are homicides, not all homicides are murder.
Just like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, words mean what you mean them to mean. Perhaps you could tell us where to find the term, a "homicider" - since "murderer" won't do?
The noun based on a person who commits homicide or indeed manslaughter does not exist.
Don’t go to the next size because it suits you.
For avoidance of doubt the wada code provides definitions.
Not once have you referred to any element of that WADA code.Thus all your thoughts should be dismissed as if issued by a schoolchild.Just as all have laughed at you saying that the bladder is part of the digestive system.