"I love the pain of a hard long run": Shelby Houlihan is moving up to the Half/Full Marathon in her return.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Not at all. Presume means more than assume and a lot more than pretend.

Wait - I looked it up for you ("presumed synonym"):

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...

“suppose” fits (a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis)

But what is missing is “the basis”, as none of the probabilities considered by the CAS had to do with “intention”

Some more definitions from Merriam-Webster:

- to suppose to be true without proof

- to take for granted : IMPLY

- to form an opinion from little or no evidence

- to take as true or as a fact without actual proof

You purposely slid past this bit:-

"suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability."

That is the opposite of "without proof". It is what most Civil courts decide after assessing all the evidence. As CAS did.

You can't even use a word basic to English without getting it wrong.

"Pretending" to something is acting as though something is real when you know it isn't. CAS did not do that. There was no pretense. If there had been CAS would have known for a fact that Houlihan lacked intent. It decided on the basis of the evidence she did have intent. You can't even use a word like "pretend" accurately.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

"Pretending" to something is acting as though something is real when you know it isn't. CAS did not do that. There was no pretense. If there had been CAS would have known for a fact that Houlihan lacked intent. It decided on the basis of the evidence she did have intent. You can't even use a word like "pretend" accurately.

How would you know anything when you are proud to admit you don’t read the rules or the subject matter.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Pretending" to something is acting as though something is real when you know it isn't. CAS did not do that. There was no pretense. If there had been CAS would have known for a fact that Houlihan lacked intent. It decided on the basis of the evidence she did have intent. You can't even use a word like "pretend" accurately.

How would you know anything when you are proud to admit you don’t read the rules or the subject matter.

Iiar soorer, your lying never stops. I have never admitted to anything that you claim I have said. I will reiterate that now - I do not admit to what you say I have. But you will keep lying - as your name says.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

How would you know anything when you are proud to admit you don’t read the rules or the subject matter.

Iiar soorer, your lying never stops. I have never admitted to anything that you claim I have said. I will reiterate that now - I do not admit to what you say I have. But you will keep lying - as your name says.

Further; you persistently demonstrate that you don’t read the rules and refuse every invitation to discuss them.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

“suppose” fits (a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis)

But what is missing is “the basis”, as none of the probabilities considered by the CAS had to do with “intention”

Some more definitions from Merriam-Webster:

- to suppose to be true without proof

- to take for granted : IMPLY

- to form an opinion from little or no evidence

- to take as true or as a fact without actual proof

You purposely slid past this bit:-

"suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability."

That is the opposite of "without proof". It is what most Civil courts decide after assessing all the evidence. As CAS did.

You can't even use a word basic to English without getting it wrong.

Are you blind? I hockey stopped and slapshot that puck out of the rink.

The CAS provided no basis or proof of “intent”. Merriam-Webster is a basic English dictionary.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Pretending" to something is acting as though something is real when you know it isn't. CAS did not do that. There was no pretense. If there had been CAS would have known for a fact that Houlihan lacked intent. It decided on the basis of the evidence she did have intent. You can't even use a word like "pretend" accurately.

This presumes you are giving an accurate definition, rather than just fabricating it now to suit yourself.

The CAS is acting as though something is real when they don’t know it is, without any basis in evidence, for the limited purpose of 10.2.

Armstronglivs was asked many times to explain what he understood by the term “ cheat”.

He ignored and ignored.

Eventually he responded with vile excrement based insults.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs was asked many times to explain what he understood by the term “ cheat”.

He ignored and ignored.

Eventually he responded with vile excrement based insults.

I think you should protest to the UN.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Pretending" to something is acting as though something is real when you know it isn't. CAS did not do that. There was no pretense. If there had been CAS would have known for a fact that Houlihan lacked intent. It decided on the basis of the evidence she did have intent. You can't even use a word like "pretend" accurately.

This presumes you are giving an accurate definition, rather than just fabricating it now to suit yourself.

The CAS is acting as though something is real when they don’t know it is, without any basis in evidence, for the limited purpose of 10.2.

The evidence is the confirmed presence of a banned substance in an athlete's body, for which they have no legitimate excuse - the part you continue to overlook.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You purposely slid past this bit:-

"suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability."

That is the opposite of "without proof". It is what most Civil courts decide after assessing all the evidence. As CAS did.

You can't even use a word basic to English without getting it wrong.

Are you blind? I hockey stopped and slapshot that puck out of the rink.

The CAS provided no basis or proof of “intent”. Merriam-Webster is a basic English dictionary.

The lying and fabrication never stops. CAS did not use the term "suppose" in order to arrive at a finding of an intentional ADRV - it is your invention. The Panel did not say that it "supposed" the violation was intentional. It found it was intentional as a fact.

The part that the chronic denier in you cannot get your head around is that if the violation is not shown to be accidental and therefore not the fault of the athlete then it is perforce the athlete's fault. No other conclusion is possible. The violation is accordingly the result of the athlete's actions, which must be intentional. If the Panel does not accept the athlete's excuse on the balance of probabilities then that means the athlete is at fault on the balance of probabilities, which are determined by a) the confirmed presence of a banned substance in the athlete's body, and b) the athlete is responsible for how it got there. In the absence of a legitimate excuse it got there through the actions of the athlete, which are thereby deemed intentional. No other possibility has been accepted because it hadn't been plausibly demonstrated.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Iiar soorer, your lying never stops. I have never admitted to anything that you claim I have said. I will reiterate that now - I do not admit to what you say I have. But you will keep lying - as your name says.

Further; you persistently demonstrate that you don’t read the rules and refuse every invitation to discuss them.

I am not obligated to accept an invitation - especially yours. But I have read them.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The evidence is the confirmed presence of a banned substance in an athlete's body, for which they have no legitimate excuse - the part you continue to overlook.

According to Article 2.1, “presence” is not evidence of “intent”.

The CAS did not say her “excuse” was not “legitimate”.

Every time you post, the lying and fabrication continues.

“suppose” was brought to us by “casual obsever”, not me and not the CAS. I simply agreed with it.

If you think that that is “lying and fabrication”, maybe you can discuss with with him, but you are the odd man out here.

“intentional” is not a fact, but a presumption that was not (found to be) rebutted. You are creating a false dichotomy.

There is no absence of a “legitimate excuse”. The CAS did not rule on legitimacy.

The alleged “actions of the athlete” are not even presumed, but indirectly implied.

Throughout the report, the CAS consistently accepted the possibility of the burrito, and didn’t rule on the plausibility.

But I will concede that Houlihan intentionally ordered and ate a burrito.

I appreciate you are trying to rely what you understand on your own terms, influenced by 5 decades of confirmation bias, but this is not what the CAS report, in the context the WADA code says.

You need to sharpen the tools in the shed.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The evidence is the confirmed presence of a banned substance in an athlete's body, for which they have no legitimate excuse - the part you continue to overlook.

According to Article 2.1, “presence” is not evidence of “intent”.

The CAS did not say her “excuse” was not “legitimate”.

1. A violation presumes intent, unless shown otherwise. The banned substance has to find its way into the athlete's body and in the absence of an innocent explanation it is through the actions of the athlete, which are accordingly deemed intentional.

2. Her excuse was seen as "implausible" and so rejected. You can look that up in a dictionary too if you like, but the popular expression for that is that it is "bullsh*t".

So when you say "CAS did not say her 'excuse' was not 'legitimate'", what were they saying - that it was in fact legitimate? Your mealy-mouthed semantics are only a thinly disguised refusal to accept she is a doper. Her ban and violation to you is merely a technical application of arcane and rather pointless rules in a system you claim is "broken". Happily, your doping-denial opinions count for nothing. A Court verdict tells us exactly what Houlihan is and the price she has to pay.

You didn't agree with casual obsever, you sought to use the word "suppose" by separating it from that description he provided that linked it with "the balance of probabilities". It is that latter measure that Houlihan failed - and so do you.

CAS stated as a fact that Houlihan committed an ADRV. You would have to dispute that is a fact - an impossibility, even for you - if you also dispute that it "found she committed an intentional ADRV". Yet you continue to do just that. While CAS is stating as a fact she committed an ADRV, it was somehow (but only to you) not stating as a fact that it found (not presumed, "supposed" or "pretended" but found) the ADRV was intentional. If the Court didn't mean what it said, that the ADRV was intentional, then none of its decision means anything; Houlihan didn't commit a violation and hasn't incurred a ban. That would be news to her.

It was a fact that cas ruled against her but the ruling was an opinion.

Go get a starter course in philosophy. Oh that would mean some reading … so sorry.

And when you have not done that think about a course in jurisprudence.

You are just not educated enough to deal with these complications of intellectual thought.

All this is exemplified when a defendant is found guilty or innocent and not guilty or innocent.

Subtle; but then so much is in the history and study of philosophy and associated concepts.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Further; you persistently demonstrate that you don’t read the rules and refuse every invitation to discuss them.

I am not obligated to accept an invitation - especially yours. But I have read them.

But you never quote or refer to then other that the highly selective element within 10.2.3 ie not comment 59 etc etc .

I found his definition failed because the CAS provided no “basis of probability”.

I found Merriam-Webster definitions fitting better.

I know what the CAS says, and what the WADA Code says.

For some reason you don’t, and want to re-write and embellish the CAS report.