Gidey just ran the single greatest female running performance ever... Give her the black page! Letesenbet MF Gidey 1:02:52

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

What a mixed up convoluted set of lies and lack of reading of the rules.

You may assume intent but the laws and rules specify don’t.

The rules don't need to specify intent. It is the only alternative when an innocent explanation is ruled out. There is no other way to explain how the drug is in the athlete's body. Hence intent is then presumed. This was clear from the Houlihan ruling.

More evidence of a refusal to read vans then lies to cover up.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

You imply intent the rules as just presented don’t but you lie and won’t read them .

So how does the drug find it way into an athlete's body when an innocent explanation is ruled out? Intent by the athlete is the only alternative, genius. Hence it is presumed. Proof is not required.

If the rules have been read by this liar then this tosh would not appear.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So how does the drug find it way into an athlete's body when an innocent explanation is ruled out? Intent by the athlete is the only alternative, genius. Hence it is presumed. Proof is not required.

If the rules have been read by this liar then this tosh would not appear.

You do like to parade your ignorance.

The panel found that neither the polygraph test nor the hair analysis sample Houlihan’s team conducted in her defense were “sufficient for the Athlete to rebut the presumption that the ADRV (anti-doping rule violation) was intentional".

And directly from the source.

https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/news-detail/article/shelby-houlihan-found-guilty-of-an-anti-doping-rule-violation.html

... "she was found to have committed an "intentional ADRV"...

So the presumption of intent has become an actual finding by the panel. I'll expect an apology in the mail.

Armstronglivs wrote:

And directly from the source.

https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/news-detail/article/shelby-houlihan-found-guilty-of-an-anti-doping-rule-violation.html

... "she was found to have committed an "intentional ADRV"...

So the presumption of intent has become an actual finding by the panel. I'll expect an apology in the mail.

Read 10.2.3

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

If the rules have been read by this liar then this tosh would not appear.

You do like to parade your ignorance.

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a37457448/report-on-shelby-houlihan-doping-case/

The panel found that neither the polygraph test nor the hair analysis sample Houlihan’s team conducted in her defense were “sufficient for the Athlete to rebut the presumption that the ADRV (anti-doping rule violation) was intentional".

Read 10.2.3

We weren’t talking about what I think. You seem to object to something I didn’t say, which WADA, the CAS, and the AIU didn’t say either. Why do you object when I speak in terms of “rule violations”?

At my pole are the rich and subtle and nuanced descriptions and findings and consequences from WADA, the CAS, and the AIU. At your pole is Santa’s workshop.

The innocent explanation of ingestion through soy-fed intact boar parts has not been ruled out. The CAS consistently maintained that Houlihan’s explanation was possible. There also exist more innocent alternatives, such as unknowing ingestion of contaminated supplements.

You can’t have a dialogue with someone who admits lying and cheating in his posts and refuses to read both around the subject or the actual rules.

Both you and I are aware of the subtleties and contradictions in the rules and processes.I would have expected RoJo to have become aware of them as well but they seem lacking intellectual curiosity; sadly so.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Medals won is not the same as smashing world records.

That's why I said "not quite", not "you are wrong".

"Nothing shows" is too strong for my taste, when global gold medals (more successful/faster athletes) are dirtier than silver medals by a factor of 55/47 = 1.17.

But it's apples and oranges, and just muddies the water.

Recall we are in a thread about Gidey speculating the possibility of this performance being doped, by virtue of smashing the world record by a lot. Olympic and World Championships are often slow, tactical races, rather than a maximum physical test.

We simply don't have any data that could produce a histogram of doping prevalence along the spectrum of performance that shows us faster times are doped more than middle of the pack performances or slower performances.

I also remember:

- these percentages are not measures of "dirty", but measures of "suspicion" in blood values relative to general population thresholds, partly corrected for altitude, and partly collected under pre-standard conditions known to produce false positives

- without standard deviation measurements, it's not clear whether 1.17x is significant, or whether random variation is noisy and 50 +/- 5 should be considered statistically in the noise.

- blood suspicion isn't linked in time to the medal win, so the medals won percentages are inflated. It is not clear that prevalence among medal winners is higher than global average prevalence

- blood collection wasn't uniform across all athletes. Medal winners would be over-represented with more samples in the database, and a higher chance of being suspicious due to a false positive

- we saw that longer distances are less suspicious with only 1 in 9 medals won being suspicious in the marathon. The semi-marathon is closer to the marathon (11%) than it is the 1500m (54%).

- the blood collection forming the global average is from athletes in all athletics events, while the medal counts are from selected distance events, including two race walking events

Notwithstanding your suspicious medals won count analysis, we really have nothing that says that 64 minute runners contain a higher percentage of dopers than 67 minute runners or 70 minute runners. Rather than begging the question, we could hypothesize that prevalence is flat as a function of performance, or that the peak prevalence is among middle of the pack runners with a bigger motivation and desire to break through to the next level, but with only limited marginal success.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And directly from the source.

https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/news-detail/article/shelby-houlihan-found-guilty-of-an-anti-doping-rule-violation.html

... "she was found to have committed an "intentional ADRV"...

So the presumption of intent has become an actual finding by the panel. I'll expect an apology in the mail.

Read 10.2.3

No - you read what I have quoted above. And then tell me how it doesn't say what it does.

So where have I "admitted lying and cheating"? If you can't find it - and you won't - I guess you're the liar.

There also exists the possibility she has travelled to the dark side of the moon. Or that she is the Man from U.N.C.L.E. But as she is no more able to establish that than she is able to show the "unknowing ingestion of contaminated substances" we are left with the panel's findings, based on the facts before it, of an intentional violation. And the panel does use the term "intentional". Your "innocent explanation" - and any other - has thereby been ruled out. You are incapable of following a simple train of reasoning. But that's your denial disease, I guess.

Read 10.2.3

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You do like to parade your ignorance.

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a37457448/report-on-shelby-houlihan-doping-case/

The panel found that neither the polygraph test nor the hair analysis sample Houlihan’s team conducted in her defense were “sufficient for the Athlete to rebut the presumption that the ADRV (anti-doping rule violation) was intentional".

Read 10.2.3

Is the word "intentional" not within your vocabulary? It seems to be the only explanation for your inability to recognize the use of the word by the panel in the CAS decision. That - or situational insanity.

So "doping" isn't doping, and "intentional" isn't intentional - that is, acting with intent? I doubt that WADA seeks to redefine those terms in ways that contradict common English usage. Why should it?

Because English is not your native tongue you haven't understood that for intent to be presumed that doesn't require that it be "established" i.e. proven. But when doping is established the onus is on the athlete to rebut intent. A failure to show a credible "innocent explanation" will result in a finding of intent - which is exactly what the panel in the CAS Houlihan decision determined. As I said above, athletes are unlikely to fall on a syringe loaded with performance enhancing drugs (which were somehow injected into their bloodstream). Or to have mixed doping tablets with their vitamins. If they test positive for a banned drug we can presume (as WADA does) they meant to dope - unless they can show otherwise.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Read 10.2.3

Is the word "intentional" not within your vocabulary? It seems to be the only explanation for your inability to recognize the use of the word by the panel in the CAS decision. That - or situational insanity.

Read 10.2.3

Read the rules that have been provided.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The innocent explanation of ingestion through soy-fed intact boar parts has not been ruled out. The CAS consistently maintained that Houlihan’s explanation was possible. There also exist more innocent alternatives, such as unknowing ingestion of contaminated supplements.

There also exists the possibility she has travelled to the dark side of the moon. Or that she is the Man from U.N.C.L.E. But as she is no more able to establish that than she is able to show the "unknowing ingestion of contaminated substances" we are left with the panel's findings, based on the facts before it, of an intentional violation. And the panel does use the term "intentional". Your "innocent explanation" - and any other - has thereby been ruled out. You are incapable of following a simple train of reasoning. But that's your denial disease, I guess.

The key difference here is that, as much as you want to deny it, it was the CAS who said Houlihan's explanation remains possible, and therefore the CAS did not rule it out. I can easily follow your simple reasoning, but it is flawed.

You are introducing all these verbs and adjectives not found in the CAS report.

As I've already shown above in a post to "casual", WADA redefined both "doping" and "intentional", departing from the common English usage. WADA does many things in the Code to make it easier to prosecute athletes for a broad set of conduct while taking away common defenses.

It's true that for the sole purpose of 10.2.3, WADA's "special" definition of intent does not require that the intentional conduct be established, proven, or identified. But that is not our purpose here. We are not deciding whether 4 years is an appropriate ban, or whether it should be shorter, or longer, or set aside. And you mean to apply the common English definition, while the CAS is bound to the narrow context and limited scope defined by the WADA code.

The CAS did not find her innocent explanation not "credible". The only time the CAS used the term "credible" was when calling Houlihan a "credible witness".

All parties were in agreement that the nandrolone was not injected.