casual obsever wrote:
Nope. You are just trying to switch goalposts. Too obvious.
I have the image of you trying to have an intellectual exchange with a dog barking at you.
casual obsever wrote:
Nope. You are just trying to switch goalposts. Too obvious.
I have the image of you trying to have an intellectual exchange with a dog barking at you.
casual obsever wrote:
Nope. You are just trying to switch goalposts. Too obvious.
A refusal to say when you discussed the comment within the rules about 10.2.3 .
I can only conclude you have not so discussed and that I am right and that you have misled.
Armstronglivs wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Nope. You are just trying to switch goalposts. Too obvious.
I have the image of you trying to have an intellectual exchange with a dog barking at you.
Says the man who hears barking whilst running away to corner after corner refusing to answer the simplest of questions.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
“Realistic” and “on purprose(sic)” and “absurd” look like your own interpreted opinions.
Obviously, like your "unnecessary and gratuitous".
rekrunner wrote:
I’m realizing what? “Intentional” as used by the CAS can only be the one defined by WADA in Article 10.2.3 and can only apply to Article 10.2.
Hmmm, I thought you realized that CAS mentioned "intentional" in the end not because of 10.2.3, since you called it "unnecessary and gratuitous".
rekrunner wrote:
You should add Paragraph 140 to your notes: “… the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional.”
Indeed, I know, “… the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional.”; must, not may, or could, or etc. Also there is no 10.2.3. in 140.
You need to add Paragraph 139 to your notes.
Paragraph 139 explicitly refers to 10.2.1. Paragraph 140 is linked to Paragraph 139 by starting with "Accordingly ...". Article 10.2.1 is explicitly subject to 10.2.3.
"Deeming ... intentional", can only be understood in the context of Article 10.2, as if they said "for the limited and sole purpose of deciding the length of the sanction, we will pretend it was intentional, as we are allowed to by the Code, and not required to do more, and as the athlete did not establish otherwise, and apply the 4 year sanction". Although Article 10.2.3 describes the intended meaning of "intentional", referring to athlete conduct, this is all part of the "pretend", as there is no showing, and no burden to show, that the athlete engaged in such conduct, and whether, in the real world, this meaning was met.
Note that paragraph 139 does not say the "excuse" is "absurd" or otherwise rule on "credibility". But it does say her argument falls short of the required burden, lacking "sufficient objective evidence", and also describes Houlihan as a "credible witness". Being able to test the actual burrito would provide such objective evidence, and enable an argument to succeed on the balance of probability, in contrast to the low probability of the wrong kind of edible intact boar parts in the US and Canadian commercial pork market.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I have the image of you trying to have an intellectual exchange with a dog barking at you.
Says the man who hears barking whilst running away to corner after corner refusing to answer the simplest of questions.
No one has to account to you and there is nothing to be gained from engaging with you. You are mere noise.
love it too
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Obviously, like your "unnecessary and gratuitous".
Hmmm, I thought you realized that CAS mentioned "intentional" in the end not because of 10.2.3, since you called it "unnecessary and gratuitous".
Indeed, I know, “… the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional.”; must, not may, or could, or etc. Also there is no 10.2.3. in 140.
You need to add Paragraph 139 to your notes.
Paragraph 139 explicitly refers to 10.2.1. Paragraph 140 is linked to Paragraph 139 by starting with "Accordingly ...". Article 10.2.1 is explicitly subject to 10.2.3.
"Deeming ... intentional", can only be understood in the context of Article 10.2, as if they said "for the limited and sole purpose of deciding the length of the sanction, we will pretend it was intentional, as we are allowed to by the Code, and not required to do more, and as the athlete did not establish otherwise, and apply the 4 year sanction". Although Article 10.2.3 describes the intended meaning of "intentional", referring to athlete conduct, this is all part of the "pretend", as there is no showing, and no burden to show, that the athlete engaged in such conduct, and whether, in the real world, this meaning was met.
Note that paragraph 139 does not say the "excuse" is "absurd" or otherwise rule on "credibility". But it does say her argument falls short of the required burden, lacking "sufficient objective evidence", and also describes Houlihan as a "credible witness". Being able to test the actual burrito would provide such objective evidence, and enable an argument to succeed on the balance of probability, in contrast to the low probability of the wrong kind of edible intact boar parts in the US and Canadian commercial pork market.
The "pretending" is all yours, not CAS. They said none of what you fancifully posed. Their position might be more accurately constructed as being like catching a person with their hand in the till; the presumption is they are intending to steal unless they can show otherwise. Even though the person with their hand in the till may show no legitimate excuse you will continue to argue their innocence - without evidence, only your invented "possibilities". Your denial never ends.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What a feeble - and false - argument. Your statement that an athlete cannot rebut the presumption of intention without "the primary piece of evidence" presumes - falsely - that they are innocent and that there is evidence that will prove that. The opposite may well be true - and is more likely. The true "primary piece of evidence" is the irrefutable fact that the athlete has committed a violation of the anti-doping rules. There may be no evidence to the contrary - because there is no evidence - that is, except in the mind of a doping denier such as yourself. Houlihan tried to find a "primary piece of evidence" in a pork burrito; it didn't work. If the athlete cannot show that they acted without fault or negligence then the violation stands - and it is logically confirmed as intentional. That is how the system works - and it works better than anti-doping having to presume the athlete is innocent and trying to find evidence of intent beyond a positive test when they are unable to investigate the athlete's actions in the way that law enforcement can do with alleged criminals. The reversal of the onus of proof would defeat every attempt to successfully hold a doper to account. But of course that would suit you.
Your arguments on these issues easily dissolve into irreconcilable contradictions. You are factually and logically required to accept that CAS imposed a 4-year penalty on Houlihan as incontrovertible, and that this was the result of CAS finding there was a violation of the anti-doping rules - a decision which is also an incontrovertible fact. Yet you cavil when CAS uses the word "intentional", as though it means the opposite of what we would understand it to mean, which is that an act is the result of a choice, when at the same time you cannot differ with what CAS meant when it imposed a 4-year ban for the violation. So CAS understood well what it was saying up to the point it used the word "intentional" - and then you think that word included by CAS means the opposite of what anyone would understand it to mean - including CAS. You are ludicrous. But on doping, you always are.
Curious reply. Can you confirm you are fluent in English as a first language?
Your response to “the system is broken” is to re-explain to me “how the system works”.
If you want to argue on the merits that it is not broken, tell me the likelihood that Simon Getzmann proves his innocence, under this system, without that last painkiller to test? Recall he proved he was innocent, so that is given. How does the WADA Code protect him, if he cannot prove it came from a WADA legally prescribed WADA legal medication? Point to me all the Articles in the Code that implement all the safeguards and ensure fairness for innocent athletes like Getzmann.
In this broken system, you can violate rules without knowledge and without intent. That is explicit in the Code.
The result of a 44-page CAS report were findings of rule violations, without the prosecuting or adjudicating bodies affirmatively establishing either knowledge or intent.
You may say they didn’t have to, and my response was, and is, that’s in part why the system is broken.
We have a certain conviction on top of the uncertainties of knowledge, intent, and the source.
To pour salt on the wounds, there was no need for the CAS to deem the ADRV was “intentional”, as 10.2.1.1 only requires the athlete to show “not intentional”. The CAS only needed to say she failed, on the balance of probability, to make that showing.
Deeming it intentional seems unnecessary and gratuitous.
The Code has been crafted by lawyers to make convictions easy and cheap for ADAs and ADOs to prosecute and win, against the worst athletes, and not to ensure justice for all athletes, in cases of uncertainty. Unfortunately, this will catch more guilty and innocent athletes alike. “Yay” for catching the guilty ones, but at what price?
If Getzman was able to show his innocence, the system is not "broken" - it worked. So tell me how many other athletes do you know for a fact were innocent but unable to prove it? You can't. You would only be guessing.
The finding by CAS in the Houlihan case that the violation was intentional is not "gratuitous"; it is necessary, since once the defence of accidental contamination is rejected the violation can only be intentional. Houlihan was unable to show otherwise. CAS is not saying the violation may be attributable to an accidental cause that hasn't been identified while the violation nonetheless still stands; it is maintaining the principle that the athlete is responsible for any banned substance found in their body, and if they are unable to show they were not at fault or negligent they must be presumed to know how it got there - and it was therefore the result of an "intentional" act. CAS does not use the term casually, or as a "pretense" or in contradiction of how the term is generally understood; it is a Court and states only what is necessary and what it is permitted to say. But it doesn't suit you to understand that.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You need to add Paragraph 139 to your notes.
Paragraph 139 explicitly refers to 10.2.1. Paragraph 140 is linked to Paragraph 139 by starting with "Accordingly ...". Article 10.2.1 is explicitly subject to 10.2.3.
"Deeming ... intentional", can only be understood in the context of Article 10.2, as if they said "for the limited and sole purpose of deciding the length of the sanction, we will pretend it was intentional, as we are allowed to by the Code, and not required to do more, and as the athlete did not establish otherwise, and apply the 4 year sanction". Although Article 10.2.3 describes the intended meaning of "intentional", referring to athlete conduct, this is all part of the "pretend", as there is no showing, and no burden to show, that the athlete engaged in such conduct, and whether, in the real world, this meaning was met.
Note that paragraph 139 does not say the "excuse" is "absurd" or otherwise rule on "credibility". But it does say her argument falls short of the required burden, lacking "sufficient objective evidence", and also describes Houlihan as a "credible witness". Being able to test the actual burrito would provide such objective evidence, and enable an argument to succeed on the balance of probability, in contrast to the low probability of the wrong kind of edible intact boar parts in the US and Canadian commercial pork market.
The "pretending" is all yours, not CAS. They said none of what you fancifully posed. Their position might be more accurately constructed as being like catching a person with their hand in the till; the presumption is they are intending to steal unless they can show otherwise. Even though the person with their hand in the till may show no legitimate excuse you will continue to argue their innocence - without evidence, only your invented "possibilities". Your denial never ends.
Not more accurately presented re the thief.
This is not a strict liability offence and thus has is not comparable.
Armstronglivs wrote:
If Getzman was able to show his innocence, the system is not "broken" - it worked. So tell me how many other athletes do you know for a fact were innocent but unable to prove it? You can't. You would only be guessing.
The finding by CAS in the Houlihan case that the violation was intentional is not "gratuitous"; it is necessary, since once the defence of accidental contamination is rejected the violation can only be intentional. Houlihan was unable to show otherwise. CAS is not saying the violation may be attributable to an accidental cause that hasn't been identified while the violation nonetheless still stands; it is maintaining the principle that the athlete is responsible for any banned substance found in their body, and if they are unable to show they were not at fault or negligent they must be presumed to know how it got there - and it was therefore the result of an "intentional" act. CAS does not use the term casually, or as a "pretense" or in contradiction of how the term is generally understood; it is a Court and states only what is necessary and what it is permitted to say. But it doesn't suit you to understand that.
With Getzmann, the system is still broken, three ways. Despite proving himself innocent:
1) He suffered a suspension of more than 1 year, which can never be made whole
2) He spent more than 10,000 Euros of his father's money, which will not be paid back, for legal fees and scientific testing at a time when he became effectively unemployed, no longer earning an income
3) WADA still considers the proven innocent Getzmann guilty of two rule violations; the next no-fault violation risks an 8 years to life ban, unless good fortune and serendipity smile on him again.
Despite typing words in a box, you failed to address the scenario in front of you. How would the system work if Getzmann didn't have that last painkiller to test? Your inability to provide an adequate response with merit only reinforces that the system is broken. The answer is that it would play out exactly like Houlihan's case, with a list of improbable things that need to happen in order for his medicine to be contaminated, and the non-expert public conflating probabilities, and falling for this prosecutor's fallacy because the likelihood of contaminated medicine is much much less than 50%, therefore his is most probably guilty, despite his innocence being a given in this scenario. The system is broken.
I know for a fact that Tygart has processed 27 No fault cases since 2015, each time complaining that the WADA Code is broken. I know for a fact that many Kenyan farmers don't practice castration of their boars, and Kenyans have had 49 positives for Nandrolone between 2004 and Aug. 1, 2018. Do Kenyans have money to pay legal fees and scientific tests like Getzmann's father? There are 68 languages spoken in Kenya -- I wonder if Kenyans are charged in their native tongue, and have access to the Code in their native language, and will be tried in their native tongue. Having to navigate such a process in English or French probably puts many rural Kenyans at a big disadvantage.
Contrary to your claims otherwise, it is not required to find "intentional" under 10.2.1.1 to impose the 4-year ban. It is sufficient to find the probability of the double negative: the Athlete failed to establish, on the balance of probability, not intentional. Deeming it intentional, under Article 10.2, adds no value.
And you've regressed again to re-explaining your simple ideas about how the system works, which does not rebut that the way it works is broken. The principle of "strict liability" is in part why it is broken, as it convicts innocent athletes unable to prove their innocence. Presuming something doesn't make it real. It makes it "pretend".
liar soorer wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Nope. You are just trying to switch goalposts. Too obvious.
A refusal to say when you discussed the comment within the rules about 10.2.3 .
I can only conclude you have not so discussed and that I am right and that you have misled.
I can only conclude that you are either trolling or indeed forgot your original, incorrect claim.
rekrunner wrote:
"Deeming ... intentional", can only be understood in the context of Article 10.2, as if they said "for the limited and sole purpose of deciding the length of the sanction, we will pretend it was intentional, as we are allowed to by the Code, and not required to do more, and as the athlete did not establish otherwise, and apply the 4 year sanction". Although Article 10.2.3 describes the intended meaning of "intentional", referring to athlete conduct, this is all part of the "pretend", as there is no showing, and no burden to show, that the athlete engaged in such conduct, and whether, in the real world, this meaning was met.
LOL. No, no and no. There was no pretending, no "as if" - you are making this all up, using your words. Also, CAS and WADA are evidently part of the real world.
Banned for intentional doping with nandro. 4 year ban. Case closed. Yes I have read 2.1, 2.2, 10.2 with comments, and the CAS decision.
Oh wait. I forgot, I need to (but you of course don't and won't) use the exact wording from CAS to avoid getting trolled again. Fine, I look it up again. Here you go.
CAS:
Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
....
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.
WADA Rule 2.1 and 2.2, fresh from the current code:
2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
...
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method
And the prohibited substance was nandrolone.
Again, CAS (5 + 7):
On 15 December 2020, the Athlete provided a urine sample (sample 105190V), out-of competition,
in Oregon, USA. The analysis of the A-Sample revealed the presence of nandrolone, specifically 19-norandrosterone (“19-NA”). 19-NA is classified under Section A1.1 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) Prohibited list as an Anabolic Androgenic Steroid. It is a non-specified substance prohibited at all times.
...
On 15 January 2021, the Athlete exercised her right to the analysis of her B-Sample. On 27 January 2021, the findings of the A-Sample were confirmed.
You are welcome.
rekrunner wrote:
Being able to test the actual burrito would provide such objective evidence, and enable an argument to succeed on the balance of probability, in contrast to the low probability of the wrong kind of edible intact boar parts in the US and Canadian commercial pork market.
Now I have heard everything. The opposite is true of course: testing the actual burrito would prove that her claim is wrong.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If Getzman was able to show his innocence, the system is not "broken" - it worked. So tell me how many other athletes do you know for a fact were innocent but unable to prove it? You can't. You would only be guessing.
The finding by CAS in the Houlihan case that the violation was intentional is not "gratuitous"; it is necessary, since once the defence of accidental contamination is rejected the violation can only be intentional. Houlihan was unable to show otherwise. CAS is not saying the violation may be attributable to an accidental cause that hasn't been identified while the violation nonetheless still stands; it is maintaining the principle that the athlete is responsible for any banned substance found in their body, and if they are unable to show they were not at fault or negligent they must be presumed to know how it got there - and it was therefore the result of an "intentional" act. CAS does not use the term casually, or as a "pretense" or in contradiction of how the term is generally understood; it is a Court and states only what is necessary and what it is permitted to say. But it doesn't suit you to understand that.
With Getzmann, the system is still broken, three ways. Despite proving himself innocent:
1) He suffered a suspension of more than 1 year, which can never be made whole
2) He spent more than 10,000 Euros of his father's money, which will not be paid back, for legal fees and scientific testing at a time when he became effectively unemployed, no longer earning an income
3) WADA still considers the proven innocent Getzmann guilty of two rule violations; the next no-fault violation risks an 8 years to life ban, unless good fortune and serendipity smile on him again.
Despite typing words in a box, you failed to address the scenario in front of you. How would the system work if Getzmann didn't have that last painkiller to test? Your inability to provide an adequate response with merit only reinforces that the system is broken. The answer is that it would play out exactly like Houlihan's case, with a list of improbable things that need to happen in order for his medicine to be contaminated, and the non-expert public conflating probabilities, and falling for this prosecutor's fallacy because the likelihood of contaminated medicine is much much less than 50%, therefore his is most probably guilty, despite his innocence being a given in this scenario. The system is broken.
I know for a fact that Tygart has processed 27 No fault cases since 2015, each time complaining that the WADA Code is broken. I know for a fact that many Kenyan farmers don't practice castration of their boars, and Kenyans have had 49 positives for Nandrolone between 2004 and Aug. 1, 2018. Do Kenyans have money to pay legal fees and scientific tests like Getzmann's father? There are 68 languages spoken in Kenya -- I wonder if Kenyans are charged in their native tongue, and have access to the Code in their native language, and will be tried in their native tongue. Having to navigate such a process in English or French probably puts many rural Kenyans at a big disadvantage.
Contrary to your claims otherwise, it is not required to find "intentional" under 10.2.1.1 to impose the 4-year ban. It is sufficient to find the probability of the double negative: the Athlete failed to establish, on the balance of probability, not intentional. Deeming it intentional, under Article 10.2, adds no value.
And you've regressed again to re-explaining your simple ideas about how the system works, which does not rebut that the way it works is broken. The principle of "strict liability" is in part why it is broken, as it convicts innocent athletes unable to prove their innocence. Presuming something doesn't make it real. It makes it "pretend".
1. Getzman could have spent much of his father's money defending himself even if the onus was reversed and it was the anti-doping officials who were seeking to establish fault rather than that he was trying to exonerate himself. His problem - as it would be with any doper - is a failed test. That evidence doesn't go away simply by arguing that doping should not be a strict liability offence.
2. So you know for a fact that Tygart has processed 27 no-fault cases since 2015? How about he only claims that they are no fault? How many of those athletes have actually been proven innocent rather than merely supposed innocent in the eyes of Mr Tygart? I'm sure you can list them if they were indeed shown to be innocent.
3. If an athlete fails to show that the offence is not intentional on the balance of probability then by that measure, of the balance of probability - and by that failure to show otherwise - it is necessarily intentional. Civil courts typically come to decisions based on what is probable; this is no different. This is not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt or any other more demanding standard.
4. The system is not "broken" because it convicts athletes unable to show their innocence; that claim presumes they are in fact innocent - you don't know that. You merely think they must be. Houlihan must be one of the worst examples to try to argue that. A positive test is "a smoking gun"; it is for the athlete to show that while being caught holding the gun they aren't the one who fired it at the body on the ground. The most reasonable assumption of a confirmed finding of a banned substance in an athlete is that the athlete knows how it got there. The next most reasonable assumption is that the athlete put it there. If they didn't they need to plausibly show how else it got there.
5. You "know for a fact" that Kenyan farmers don't practise castration of their boars - so this must account for the nandrolone positives recorded there? What a long bow you have drawn. What I also know for a fact is that doping has officially been identified as endemic in Kenya and that this is more likely to account for the prevalence of nandrolone busts than athletes eating pigs testicles.
casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
A refusal to say when you discussed the comment within the rules about 10.2.3 .
I can only conclude you have not so discussed and that I am right and that you have misled.
I can only conclude that you are either trolling or indeed forgot your original, incorrect claim.
Answer the question or join others in the corner.
casual obsever wrote:
LOL. No, no and no. There was no pretending, no "as if" - you are making this all up, using your words. Also, CAS and WADA are evidently part of the real world.
Banned for intentional doping with nandro. 4 year ban. Case closed. Yes I have read 2.1, 2.2, 10.2 with comments, and the CAS decision.
Oh wait. I forgot, I need to (but you of course don't and won't) use the exact wording from CAS to avoid getting trolled again. Fine, I look it up again. Here you go.
If you want the exact word, the CAS “presumes” intent. In this case, “pretend” is an accurate synonym.
WADA created an artificial world where an athlete can be banned for violating rules without personal “knowledge” or “intent”.
In that artificial world, for the sole purpose of 10.2, the unasked question of “intent” is disregarded and “presumed” intentional unless established “not intentional”.
Presuming something or deeming something doesn’t make it real.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
LOL. No, no and no. There was no pretending, no "as if" - you are making this all up, using your words. Also, CAS and WADA are evidently part of the real world.
Banned for intentional doping with nandro. 4 year ban. Case closed. Yes I have read 2.1, 2.2, 10.2 with comments, and the CAS decision.
Oh wait. I forgot, I need to (but you of course don't and won't) use the exact wording from CAS to avoid getting trolled again. Fine, I look it up again. Here you go.
If you want the exact word, the CAS “presumes” intent. In this case, “pretend” is an accurate synonym.
WADA created an artificial world where an athlete can be banned for violating rules without personal “knowledge” or “intent”.
In that artificial world, for the sole purpose of 10.2, the unasked question of “intent” is disregarded and “presumed” intentional unless established “not intentional”.
Presuming something or deeming something doesn’t make it real.
Fully agree. Not replicated in any other version of jurisprudence in the West since 1945.
rekrunner wrote:
If you want the exact word, the CAS “presumes” intent. In this case, “pretend” is an accurate synonym.
Not at all. Presume means more than assume and a lot more than pretend.
Wait - I looked it up for you ("presumed synonym"):
presume [prəˈz(y)o͞om]
VERB
presumed (past tense) · presumed (past participle)
1. suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.
2. be audacious enough to do something.
2. does not apply here.
1 fits nicely imho. Sounds very similar to "the standard of proof shall be by balance of probability", see article 92 of the CAS decision.
In other news: there's still no rekrunner as a Shelby donor...
liar soorer wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
I can only conclude that you are either trolling or indeed forgot your original, incorrect claim.
Answer the question or join others in the corner.
Originally you did not ask a question, but made a false claim. Thereafter, you went into obfuscation and deflection mode, along with more false claims. Let's see how long you keep going.
Armstronglivs wrote:
1. Getzman could have spent much of his father's money defending himself even if the onus was reversed and it was the anti-doping officials who were seeking to establish fault rather than that he was trying to exonerate himself. His problem - as it would be with any doper - is a failed test. That evidence doesn't go away simply by arguing that doping should not be a strict liability offence.
2. So you know for a fact that Tygart has processed 27 no-fault cases since 2015? How about he only claims that they are no fault? How many of those athletes have actually been proven innocent rather than merely supposed innocent in the eyes of Mr Tygart? I'm sure you can list them if they were indeed shown to be innocent.
3. If an athlete fails to show that the offence is not intentional on the balance of probability then by that measure, of the balance of probability - and by that failure to show otherwise - it is necessarily intentional. Civil courts typically come to decisions based on what is probable; this is no different. This is not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt or any other more demanding standard.
4. The system is not "broken" because it convicts athletes unable to show their innocence; that claim presumes they are in fact innocent - you don't know that. You merely think they must be. Houlihan must be one of the worst examples to try to argue that. A positive test is "a smoking gun"; it is for the athlete to show that while being caught holding the gun they aren't the one who fired it at the body on the ground. The most reasonable assumption of a confirmed finding of a banned substance in an athlete is that the athlete knows how it got there. The next most reasonable assumption is that the athlete put it there. If they didn't they need to plausibly show how else it got there.
5. You "know for a fact" that Kenyan farmers don't practise castration of their boars - so this must account for the nandrolone positives recorded there? What a long bow you have drawn. What I also know for a fact is that doping has officially been identified as endemic in Kenya and that this is more likely to account for the prevalence of nandrolone busts than athletes eating pigs testicles.
1) Are you arguing that it’s not just “strict liability” that breaks the system? Good point. Getzmann proved himself innocent, and he was still punished 3 ways. The problem WADA is trying to solve doesn’t include punishing athletes who take WADA legal medicine with reasonable diligence, or athletes who order takeout from domestic vendors or restaurants.
2) USADA is a “court”, as much as the CAS. All 27 were proven innocent within the WADA Code, and for years, Tygart has been claiming the system is broken because athletes can be railroaded to 4-year sanctions and treated as cheats.
3) 10.2.1.1. only evaluates whether “not intentional” is established. The opposite is “not intentional” is “not established”. This is not necessarily “intentional”. Equating the two is artificial, and risks condemning innocent athletes. The standard here isn’t civil, or criminal, but basic English and logic.
4) The system is broken unless it protects clean athletes like Getzmann, even if he had consumed his last painkiller. I did not presume his innocence, but he proved it. That doesn’t change if he takes all of his medicine. Others won’t be so lucky because the system is broken.
5) Unless all 49 cases are genuine intentional exogenous doping, the system is broken. What you claim to know as fact is your imagination. What you claim as more likely is also your imagination.
casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Answer the question or join others in the corner.
Originally you did not ask a question, but made a false claim. Thereafter, you went into obfuscation and deflection mode, along with more false claims. Let's see how long you keep going.
So are you now going to answer the question as such is rather clear ? ( even “if” it was not so at the start)