A banned substance in an athlete's bloodstream, for which they cannot provide an acceptable defence, is not a "presumption". The substance couldn't have got there by itself. That can only leave the athlete as the cause. That is what the standard of the balance of probabilities determined. Your arguments fail that test.
The detected substance wasn't found in the athlete's bloodstream, but in urine.
You misunderstand the standard applied. Houlihan was banned for 4-years according to the standard of codified presumption.
My argument, which you fail to rebut, is that you cannot conclude "intentional doping" on the known evidence alone, but that it requires additional and significant presumptions to spackle in the significant gaps in the evidence.
So that it was found in the athlete's urine and not her bloodstream means it wasn't in her body? You are a pedantic idiot.
What confirms your inability to think rationally is that her inability to show any external agent for her doping requires that she was therefore the cause. Since her defence of accidental contamination was not accepted that only leaves intentional doping. A banned drug in her urine that was determined not to be the result of accidental contamination could only have been there because she took the drug in some form. You are unable to follow legal argument, logic and the facts.
Shelby should be banned for life, made an example of. Because of people like her (the dumb ones who get caught) we have the Ruth Cheotngetichs of the world who feel the need to obliterate world records using undetectable rocket fuel.
The ban for what Houlihan did, is 4 years, and it cannot arbitrarily extended to being permanent.
Fortunately, there’s only one Ruth Chepngetich.
No, there isn't. She is just another Kenyan from a nation of rampant sports dopers. Another from that toxic community will duly emerge to smash her records or those of others.
"It's not that I don't support the outcome -- that is the wrong goalpost -- I don't support a process that determines outcomes based on presumptions ...."
It should have sounded like that was beside the point that the outcome was based on presumptions, which may or may not be valid. If there was better, specific, and concrete evidence, I might support the outcome, or I might not.
I recall saying "that is the wrong goalpost" and saying "I don't support a process that determines outcomes based on presumptions".
It's easy for the most esteemed panel to find "intentional doping" when they first presume it without any specific and concrete evidence, but that doesn't mean the presumption is valid.
It is, when the athlete cannot successfully rebut it when given the opportunity.
So that it was found in the athlete's urine and not her bloodstream means it wasn't in her body? You are a pedantic idiot.
What confirms your inability to think rationally is that her inability to show any external agent for her doping requires that she was therefore the cause. Since her defence of accidental contamination was not accepted that only leaves intentional doping. A banned drug in her urine that was determined not to be the result of accidental contamination could only have been there because she took the drug in some form. You are unable to follow legal argument, logic and the facts.
I'm not the idiot who said "bloodstream".
The way you explain is vastly different than how the CAS explained it. They said they presumed intent. They also noted that it is difficult for innocent athletes to meet their burden: "Such proof [how the substance entered the body] is difficult to provide."
Her inability to show something just confirms an inability to show something, and is not evidence of "intentional doping".
The ban for what Houlihan did, is 4 years, and it cannot arbitrarily extended to being permanent.
Fortunately, there’s only one Ruth Chepngetich.
No, there isn't. She is just another Kenyan from a nation of rampant sports dopers. Another from that toxic community will duly emerge to smash her records or those of others.
And you are just another racist misogynist. Thank you, Ruth for making these guys seethe 😄
No, there isn't. She is just another Kenyan from a nation of rampant sports dopers. Another from that toxic community will duly emerge to smash her records or those of others.
And you are just another racist misogynist. Thank you, Ruth for making these guys seethe 😄
Another blind supporter who refuses to see the doping corruption that has become the norm in Kenyan running.
So that it was found in the athlete's urine and not her bloodstream means it wasn't in her body? You are a pedantic idiot.
What confirms your inability to think rationally is that her inability to show any external agent for her doping requires that she was therefore the cause. Since her defence of accidental contamination was not accepted that only leaves intentional doping. A banned drug in her urine that was determined not to be the result of accidental contamination could only have been there because she took the drug in some form. You are unable to follow legal argument, logic and the facts.
I'm not the idiot who said "bloodstream".
The way you explain is vastly different than how the CAS explained it. They said they presumed intent. They also noted that it is difficult for innocent athletes to meet their burden: "Such proof [how the substance entered the body] is difficult to provide."
Her inability to show something just confirms an inability to show something, and is not evidence of "intentional doping".
It isn't an "inability to show something" (show what? That the moon is made of green cheese? CAS never referred to "something".) That completely misrepresents what the court specifically determined. The inability was to show external and accidental cause for the presence of a banned substance, which meant that on the test of the balance of probabilities - which you cannot understand - she was the cause. That is how a civil court arrives at its verdict and findings. The idiocy is yours, that you think it makes a material difference whether the banned substance was located in the blood stream or the bladder. Either feature is within the athlete's body, which is why it will produce a positive test and is therefore a doping violation, and why a purported defence of external contamination that fails means the athlete was responsible.
It isn't an "inability to show something" (show what? That the moon is made of green cheese? CAS never referred to "something".) That completely misrepresents what the court specifically determined. The inability was to show external and accidental cause for the presence of a banned substance, which meant that on the test of the balance of probabilities - which you cannot understand - she was the cause. That is how a civil court arrives at its verdict and findings. The idiocy is yours, that you think it makes a material difference whether the banned substance was located in the blood stream or the bladder. Either feature is within the athlete's body, which is why it will produce a positive test and is therefore a doping violation, and why a purported defence of external contamination that fails means the athlete was responsible.
In this case, inability to establish the source, according to the CAS.
The standard used to find "intent" was "presumption".
There was no evidence of "intent" to support the finding.
By using inferior standards, any civil court verdicts and findings, especially those based on presumptions without any evidence, simply may not be the truth.
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.