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?
I would settle for what they mean in Merriam-Webster.
For any questions on the fictitious "convicted of homicide" scenario, you should consult the lawyer.
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?
I would settle for what they mean in Merriam-Webster.
For any questions on the fictitious "convicted of homicide" scenario, you should consult the lawyer.
That will keep you busy. Merriam-Webster has 42 synonyms for homicide, including murder of course.
LOL. On the contrary, they confirmed it. To be precise, CAS summarized the AIU submission in point 40 of their Arbitral Award:
For all these reasons, the Athlete has committed an intentional ADRV and must be sanctioned with the period of ineligibility of four years.
So much for there is no evidence, lol.
CAS itself summarized its own ruling in the original media release:
Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.
Contrary to what the drug cheat apologists continue to pretend, it's AIU + CAS (+ many fans + some journalists) who said that she doped intentionally. But they know that...
LOL. On the contrary, they confirmed it. To be precise, CAS summarized the AIU submission in point 40 of their Arbitral Award:
For all these reasons, the Athlete has committed an intentional ADRV and must be sanctioned with the period of ineligibility of four years.
So much for there is no evidence, lol.
CAS itself summarized its own ruling in the original media release:
Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.
Contrary to what the drug cheat apologists continue to pretend, it's AIU + CAS (+ many fans + some journalists) who said that she doped intentionally. But they know that...
Why do you leave whole pertinent chunks out of the decision.. and misquote the decision.What are you affraid of? Why do you not make it clear that the intentional element is only in the context of rule 10 and deemed as such for that limited purpose.
This has been explained dozens of times but totally ignored as it upsets your pre conceptions.
This looks like you just pulled random words out of a hat.
I suppose the CAS can tell the difference and they did not accept the language of the AIU as fact either.
Where did they reject it?
In their report, the CAS did not accept the language in the AIU's submissions, but provided their own in their findings and conclusions "... the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional."
You also commit the most alarming misleading tactic of pretending that CAS came to the conclusions when all it is is the prosecutions case. You might well have quoted SH’s submission and pretended it was CAS
LOL. On the contrary, they confirmed it. To be precise, CAS summarized the AIU submission in point 40 of their Arbitral Award:
For all these reasons, the Athlete has committed an intentional ADRV and must be sanctioned with the period of ineligibility of four years.
So much for there is no evidence, lol.
CAS itself summarized its own ruling in the original media release:
Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.
Contrary to what the drug cheat apologists continue to pretend, it's AIU + CAS (+ many fans + some journalists) who said that she doped intentionally. But they know that...
The CAS confirmed that the AIU submitted their own conclusion in their arguments.
The submission of one party in a dispute is not evidence of intent of the other party.
As you quoted, the "finding of intent" is not a consequence of any specific or concrete evidence provided by the AIU, or any party, but a deemed consequence, codified in WADA, of Houlihan failing to establish the source, on the balance of probability, i.e. failing to rebut the presumption of intent.
Indeed, a designer cocktail is the most likely explanation. That would also explain the selective polygraph questions (Tucker: "By the time you read how CAS assesses Houlihan’s polygraph evidence (hint: it’s not complimentary at all)...,"
In their report, the CAS did not accept the language in the AIU's submissions, but provided their own in their findings and conclusions "... the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional."
If the submissions were not expressly disputed by the CAS findings they stand. Choosing different words does not show the language used in the submissions is not accepted. Indeed, what is not expressly rejected is implicitly endorsed, unless it is incompatible with the decision. The AIU language used was not incompatible.
Yes, and again, CAS itself explicitly wrote back in June 2021:
...she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV...
CAS, not AIU. Also I don't understand the AIU bashing here. They caught the doper, and are the claimant; to call them prosecution in an attempt to dismiss their findings is just plain wrong.
Plus, even the prosecution does not get paid to get innocent people convicted, whereas the defense does get paid to get guilty people go free. So it's not at all two equal sides in a dispute.
Yes, and again, CAS itself explicitly wrote back in June 2021:
...she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV...
CAS, not AIU. Also I don't understand the AIU bashing here. They caught the doper, and are the claimant; to call them prosecution in an attempt to dismiss their findings is just plain wrong.
Plus, even the prosecution does not get paid to get innocent people convicted, whereas the defense does get paid to get guilty people go free. So it's not at all two equal sides in a dispute.
Where did CAS say that? ie which para ?
No AIU bashing ,why do you say that?
But what they said is not their findings but their submission.
Indeed, a designer cocktail is the most likely explanation. That would also explain the selective polygraph questions (Tucker: "By the time you read how CAS assesses Houlihan’s polygraph evidence (hint: it’s not complimentary at all)...,"
