Armstronglivs wrote:
So what is a finding of an "intentional" ADRV, which is what the panel came to? The word "intentional" will not be used by them unless it means what it says - a violation with intent. No "reading of the rules" by deniers like you will change the English language - or the facts that CAS determined.
It was WADA who changed the English language in the Code. The word “intentional” has a “special definition” in the Code, solely for the purpose of 10.2.3. It is meant to identify athletes engaging in specified conduct. As a consequence of “strict liability”, neither the AIU nor the CAS identified any such conduct, leaving those with simple imaginations to speculate sitting on syringes. The only fact of athlete conduct before the CAS was that she bought a burrito from a truck the night before. Buying and eating a greasy burrito, of her own free will, can be seen as intentional conduct, but it is not clear that such conduct meets WADA’s redefinition that the athlete knew that eating a burrito constitutes an ADRV, or that the athlete knew that eating a burrito was a significant risk, and that she manifestly disregarded that risk. The limited purpose of deciding whether she qualifies for a reduce or vacated sentence doesn’t require it.
That is what is meant by the WADA Code, and therefore the meaning of “intentional” as used by the CAS. “Intentional” is not a fact that the CAS determined, but a presumption that Houlihan could not rebut to a legal standard with evidence and argument to convince a panel. The primary evidence was long gone.
It’s unsurprising that you don’t know what “intentional” means, as used by the CAS, as you surely have not read the relevant passages in the detailed CAS report, nor the relevant parts of the Code, nor the many posts that have pointed out these relevant parts in plain English, or if you had read them, would not understand what was plainly written, as a consequence of 40+ years of confirmation bias clouding a clear understanding, preferring instead to rely on your simple interpretations based on inapplicable common English understanding of terms that have been redefined for a limited purpose, and preferring to adopt a false arrogance and childishly ridicule those who write in plain English that which you do not wish to read, and cannot argue against on the merits.