The previous poster was essentially arguing that the term "evidence" is that which is deemed admissable in judicial proceedings - in which he is legally correct - but I was using it in the broader sense that as evidence it lends significant factual support (or not) to what was being argued, which was her claim of accidental contamination ; it didn't, and in that he agreed with me.
You do not understand what "the balance of probabilities" means. It is not establishing a percentage allocation to an argument but that the weight of the argument when all the evidence is taken into account leads to a conclusion that the argument is accepted or rejected. It is deemed probable or not. It is not numerically assessed, as you wrongly suggest.
Further, that the Panel dismissed each and every one of her individually argued grounds shows that in totality she was nowhere near approaching the balance of probabilities. The Panel essentially said "no" to everything she put forward towards her defence. That is a defence that simply has no legs to stand on.
The Panel also endorsed the position submitted by the Claimants, and conspicuously did not correct or qualify the following submission:
“The explanation pre-supposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero."
Your attempt to swing the scales towards Houlihan depend on acquiring favorable evidence which simply did not and does not exist. Personally, I wish she had been able to present the burrito in question to the Court; it is likely that the absence of nandrolone (as estimated by the experts at the hearing) would have exposed her for the doper and the liar she most likely is.
Still ignoring what the rules say.
At least Shelby is observing the rules and serving her doping ban
I did read it. It seemed to me to fail to address one important point.
This question was decided by majority, so like me, apparently at least one of the CAS panelists had some doubts.
It seems to me that your regard for your own opinion is way too high considering it has no importance or influence over reality.
Did you know that each party appoints one CAS panelist, and the third is a neutral party? It would have been pretty pathetic if her own panelist voted against her. 2-1 is thus the norm.
It seems to me that your regard for your own opinion is way too high considering it has no importance or influence over reality.
Did you know that each party appoints one CAS panelist, and the third is a neutral party? It would have been pretty pathetic if her own panelist voted against her. 2-1 is thus the norm.
I think this is from the CAS panel which is funded by the same body that funds Wada …. the IOC.
Did you know that each party appoints one CAS panelist, and the third is a neutral party? It would have been pretty pathetic if her own panelist voted against her. 2-1 is thus the norm.
I think this is from the CAS panel which is funded by the same body that funds Wada …. the IOC.
This has been criticised by European Courts.
either you’ve not read or listened to anything related to this case or you’re a halfwit. although I suppose both could be true
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.