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.
There is no argument. The CAS explicitly told us that their finding of "guilt" was determined based on a presumption, and that their finding of "intent" was determined based on a presumption. The "proven facts" were ambiguous, when not nonexistent.
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.
If WADA disagreed with Tygart, they had 27 opportunities to appeal. Silence is acceptance, and deafening.
It's not sure how many athletes, if any, supported the WADA Code 2015 changes shifting a heavy burden to the athletes. But since then, in 2022 WADA received a report on "Governance Reform" which includes a recommendation to "support and promote the voices of athletes on anti-doping matters" by increasing athlete repesentation in the Executive Committee, the Board, and other WADA bodies. In 2021, WADA decided to focus research on the topic of "unintentional doping" and in 2024, WADA created a Task Force on Unintentional Doping.
You think WADA is changing all that because no one is demanding change?
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.
You are describing a process that will railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans based solely on presumption, in cases where it is not possible for innocent athletes to collect the evidence (i.e. "specific and concrete elements") sufficient to arbitrarily rebut an otherwise baseless presumption.
Before 2015, anti-doping bodies could ban athletes for "unintentional doping", unless they could establish (with evidence) "aggravating circumstances". Now they can ban athletes for 4-years, presuming intent without any such evidence.
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.
You are describing a process that will railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans based solely on presumption, in cases where it is not possible for innocent athletes to collect the evidence (i.e. "specific and concrete elements") sufficient to arbitrarily rebut an otherwise baseless presumption.
Before 2015, anti-doping bodies could ban athletes for "unintentional doping", unless they could establish (with evidence) "aggravating circumstances". Now they can ban athletes for 4-years, presuming intent without any such evidence.
A failed test is concrete evidence and not a presumption. Houlihan had time to collect evidence, but all she had at CAS was a receipt for a burrito she had purchased the day before the testing. She was responsible for nandrolone being found in her body and intent had nothing to do with it.
A failed test is concrete evidence and not a presumption. Houlihan had time to collect evidence, but all she had at CAS was a receipt for a burrito she had purchased the day before the testing. She was responsible for nandrolone being found in her body and intent had nothing to do with it.
It sure is.
It is the process that describes how to interpret the failed test result, which includes a presumption that the WADA Lab reported the result properly without deviating from WADA Guidelines. The CAS Panel was of two minds on this point.
Whether or not Houlihan had time to collect evidence doesn't mean it was possible to collect sufficient evidence, one month after the fact. For example, she wasn't able to test some missing supplements, or the remaining burrito, which could have tipped the balance in her favor. This does not change by giving her more time.
Making athletes entirely responsible, even for non-negligent, no-fault, unintentional and unknowing use/presence, is also part of the process.
Intent only plays a role when deciding the length of the ban, with a presumption of intent making a 4-year ban the default.
A failed test is concrete evidence and not a presumption. Houlihan had time to collect evidence, but all she had at CAS was a receipt for a burrito she had purchased the day before the testing. She was responsible for nandrolone being found in her body and intent had nothing to do with it.
It sure is.
It is the process that describes how to interpret the failed test result, which includes a presumption that the WADA Lab reported the result properly without deviating from WADA Guidelines. The CAS Panel was of two minds on this point.
Whether or not Houlihan had time to collect evidence doesn't mean it was possible to collect sufficient evidence, one month after the fact. For example, she wasn't able to test some missing supplements, or the remaining burrito, which could have tipped the balance in her favor. This does not change by giving her more time.
Making athletes entirely responsible, even for non-negligent, no-fault, unintentional and unknowing use/presence, is also part of the process.
Intent only plays a role when deciding the length of the ban, with a presumption of intent making a 4-year ban the default.
She couldn't show that the presence of a banned drug in her body was due to accidental contamination, which was her defence. Sabotage was never argued. So that leaves her as the only likely agent for how the drug was in her body. It therefore had to be an intentional act. No alternative was accepted by the Court, as assessed according to the legal test of the balance of probabilities.
She couldn't show that the presence of a banned drug in her body was due to accidental contamination, which was her defence. Sabotage was never argued. So that leaves her as the only likely agent for how the drug was in her body. It therefore had to be an intentional act. No alternative was accepted by the Court, as assessed according to the legal test of the balance of probabilities.
Unfortunately, the CAS decision, which is subservient to a streamlined process that permits unproven presumptions, does not, and cannot, bring us any closer to the actual truth of what really happened. The AIU did not establish, and the CAS did not decide, the most likely source. The AIU did not establish intent, and the CAS merely upheld the unestablished presumption. These important questions remain open and unanswered to any standard.
She couldn't show that the presence of a banned drug in her body was due to accidental contamination, which was her defence. Sabotage was never argued. So that leaves her as the only likely agent for how the drug was in her body. It therefore had to be an intentional act. No alternative was accepted by the Court, as assessed according to the legal test of the balance of probabilities.
Unfortunately, the CAS decision, which is subservient to a streamlined process that permits unproven presumptions, does not, and cannot, bring us any closer to the actual truth of what really happened. The AIU did not establish, and the CAS did not decide, the most likely source. The AIU did not establish intent, and the CAS merely upheld the unestablished presumption. These important questions remain open and unanswered to any standard.
The athlete is responsible for what is found in their body. If they can't show it was a cause other than their own actions then they put it there.
Unfortunately, the CAS decision, which is subservient to a streamlined process that permits unproven presumptions, does not, and cannot, bring us any closer to the actual truth of what really happened. The AIU did not establish, and the CAS did not decide, the most likely source. The AIU did not establish intent, and the CAS merely upheld the unestablished presumption. These important questions remain open and unanswered to any standard.
The athlete is responsible for what is found in their body. If they can't show it was a cause other than their own actions then they put it there.
You keep describing the consequences of a process designed to achieve finality, but completely unfit for determining the truth.
The athlete is responsible for what is found in their body. If they can't show it was a cause other than their own actions then they put it there.
You keep describing the consequences of a process designed to achieve finality, but completely unfit for determining the truth.
The truth is a positive test. If the athlete cannot show convincing reason for legitimate cause for that positive test the truth remains that the athlete committed an antidoping violation. Since the violation wasn't proved to be accidental on the basis of the balance of probabilities it had to be intentional. No one and nothing else was shown to be responsible for the presence of a banned substance in her body so it had to be her. She is a convicted doper because of a positive test and that her defence failed. Cases are not decided by what is possible but what the evidence shows is most likely. That's the truth, not your speculation in which you seek to exonerate her despite a positive test and her failed defence.
The truth is a positive test. If the athlete cannot show convincing reason for legitimate cause for that positive test the truth remains that the athlete committed an antidoping violation. Since the violation wasn't proved to be accidental on the basis of the balance of probabilities it had to be intentional. No one and nothing else was shown to be responsible for the presence of a banned substance in her body so it had to be her. She is a convicted doper because of a positive test and that her defence failed. Cases are not decided by what is possible but what the evidence shows is most likely. That's the truth, not your speculation in which you seek to exonerate her despite a positive test and her failed defence.
You are still speaking within an artificially restricted framework that is unfit for establishing real world truths to any accepted standard. Your insubstantial arguments carry no real weight outside of that artificial framework. It is this artificial framework that creates a false illusion of finality and certainty by presuming away all the unproven ambiguities.
In the real world, a "positive test" may or may not be an anti-doping rule violation, which itself may or may not be doping, as the term is used outside of the artificial framework and altered definitions created under the WADA Code.
That "the athlete cannot show" something only means that the athlete could not show something. It doesn't mean that that something is still not true. The burden to show something is "most likely", based on "specific and concrete elements" may not always be possible, so both innocent and guilty athletes can fail to show that something.
As the WADA Code explicitly considers no fault, non-negligent, unintentional, and unknowing use/presence as anti-doping rule violations, these four questions remain open and unanswered still today. These questions were never asked nor answered. There was no evidence before the CAS of personal fault, personal negligence, personal knowledge, or personal intent to dope with exogenous nandrolone. The arguments of the AIU, with their experts, including all of their evidence, did not meet any standard, beyond "presumption", let alone "balance of probability".
The truth is a positive test. If the athlete cannot show convincing reason for legitimate cause for that positive test the truth remains that the athlete committed an antidoping violation. Since the violation wasn't proved to be accidental on the basis of the balance of probabilities it had to be intentional. No one and nothing else was shown to be responsible for the presence of a banned substance in her body so it had to be her. She is a convicted doper because of a positive test and that her defence failed. Cases are not decided by what is possible but what the evidence shows is most likely. That's the truth, not your speculation in which you seek to exonerate her despite a positive test and her failed defence.
You are still speaking within an artificially restricted framework that is unfit for establishing real world truths to any accepted standard. Your insubstantial arguments carry no real weight outside of that artificial framework. It is this artificial framework that creates a false illusion of finality and certainty by presuming away all the unproven ambiguities.
In the real world, a "positive test" may or may not be an anti-doping rule violation, which itself may or may not be doping, as the term is used outside of the artificial framework and altered definitions created under the WADA Code.
That "the athlete cannot show" something only means that the athlete could not show something. It doesn't mean that that something is still not true. The burden to show something is "most likely", based on "specific and concrete elements" may not always be possible, so both innocent and guilty athletes can fail to show that something.
As the WADA Code explicitly considers no fault, non-negligent, unintentional, and unknowing use/presence as anti-doping rule violations, these four questions remain open and unanswered still today. These questions were never asked nor answered. There was no evidence before the CAS of personal fault, personal negligence, personal knowledge, or personal intent to dope with exogenous nandrolone. The arguments of the AIU, with their experts, including all of their evidence, did not meet any standard, beyond "presumption", let alone "balance of probability".
The kernel of your objection is that once they test positive the onus is on the athlete to produce a defence. You would prefer that the onus falls on antidoping to prove how the athlete would have doped. All you are effectively doing is trying to raise the bar for antidoping, in which case it would be virtually impossible to obtain a conviction, because only the athlete would have the facts on how they doped. The current process is both more effective and more logical, because a positive test results in a violation and suggests guilt rather than innocence unless the athlete can demonstrate otherwise.
the evidence is the positive blood tests. This is Moranville. There's no nandro flying around in the air ( or floating around in fuuking burritos)
It was "urine tests", and science has studied nandrolone from ingesting boar meat/organs for decades.
ok, fixed it: the evidence is the positive urine tests (plural). There's no nandro flying around in the air ( or floating around in beef burritos that identify as pork burritos, of which she would have had to eat 4 of when she only had a little bit of one because it was gross.)
It was "urine tests", and science has studied nandrolone from ingesting boar meat/organs for decades.
ok, fixed it: the evidence is the positive urine tests (plural). There's no nandro flying around in the air ( or floating around in beef burritos that identify as pork burritos, of which she would have had to eat 4 of when she only had a little bit of one because it was gross.)
Indeed. Plus, it was synthetic nandro, plus the pork was most likely not from an uncastrated pig in the first place.
And it wasn't in her supplements or cake either...
All this trolling about "presumptions" is so pointless here, but trolls will be 🧌.
The truth is a positive test. If the athlete cannot show convincing reason for legitimate cause for that positive test the truth remains that the athlete committed an antidoping violation. Since the violation wasn't proved to be accidental on the basis of the balance of probabilities it had to be intentional. No one and nothing else was shown to be responsible for the presence of a banned substance in her body so it had to be her. She is a convicted doper because of a positive test and that her defence failed. Cases are not decided by what is possible but what the evidence shows is most likely. That's the truth, not your speculation in which you seek to exonerate her despite a positive test and her failed defence.
You are still speaking within an artificially restricted framework that is unfit for establishing real world truths to any accepted standard. Your insubstantial arguments carry no real weight outside of that artificial framework. It is this artificial framework that creates a false illusion of finality and certainty by presuming away all the unproven ambiguities.
In the real world, a "positive test" may or may not be an anti-doping rule violation, which itself may or may not be doping, as the term is used outside of the artificial framework and altered definitions created under the WADA Code.
That "the athlete cannot show" something only means that the athlete could not show something. It doesn't mean that that something is still not true. The burden to show something is "most likely", based on "specific and concrete elements" may not always be possible, so both innocent and guilty athletes can fail to show that something.
As the WADA Code explicitly considers no fault, non-negligent, unintentional, and unknowing use/presence as anti-doping rule violations, these four questions remain open and unanswered still today. These questions were never asked nor answered. There was no evidence before the CAS of personal fault, personal negligence, personal knowledge, or personal intent to dope with exogenous nandrolone. The arguments of the AIU, with their experts, including all of their evidence, did not meet any standard, beyond "presumption", let alone "balance of probability".
In other words, PED testing should be discontinued since no one cheats.
A failed test is concrete evidence and not a presumption. Houlihan had time to collect evidence, but all she had at CAS was a receipt for a burrito she had purchased the day before the testing. She was responsible for nandrolone being found in her body and intent had nothing to do with it.
It sure is.
It is the process that describes how to interpret the failed test result, which includes a presumption that the WADA Lab reported the result properly without deviating from WADA Guidelines. The CAS Panel was of two minds on this point.
Whether or not Houlihan had time to collect evidence doesn't mean it was possible to collect sufficient evidence, one month after the fact. For example, she wasn't able to test some missing supplements, or the remaining burrito, which could have tipped the balance in her favor. This does not change by giving her more time.
Making athletes entirely responsible, even for non-negligent, no-fault, unintentional and unknowing use/presence, is also part of the process.
Intent only plays a role when deciding the length of the ban, with a presumption of intent making a 4-year ban the default.
Did Houlihan even prove the existence of missing supplements? Wouldn’t any supplement be fully vetted before she used it? If she had provided a tainted supplement, would CAS have accepted it as being unaltered by BTC?
The kernel of your objection is that once they test positive the onus is on the athlete to produce a defence. You would prefer that the onus falls on antidoping to prove how the athlete would have doped. All you are effectively doing is trying to raise the bar for antidoping, in which case it would be virtually impossible to obtain a conviction, because only the athlete would have the facts on how they doped. The current process is both more effective and more logical, because a positive test results in a violation and suggests guilt rather than innocence unless the athlete can demonstrate otherwise.
The "kernel of my objection" is drawing conclusions lacking evidence. It's as simple as that.
WADA had a higher bar in place before 2015, without placing that onus on the athletes, and it was virtually possible to convict the same number of athletes.
It was "urine tests", and science has studied nandrolone from ingesting boar meat/organs for decades.
ok, fixed it: the evidence is the positive urine tests (plural). There's no nandro flying around in the air ( or floating around in beef burritos that identify as pork burritos, of which she would have had to eat 4 of when she only had a little bit of one because it was gross.)
Why does anyone believe she would have had to eat 4? Organs rich in nandrolone have produced levels up to 20-25x that found in Houlihans samples, in Prof. Ayotte's research alone.
Prof. McGlone told us that fat is rich in nandrolone -- highly relevant for a greasy burrito. In fact, Profs. Ayotte and McGlone told us that nandrolone levels are higher in the liver, testes, kidney, heart, salivary glands, and fat.
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.