Now, can we have the reference and the full quote please?
And even in the limited quote you suggest it says could..
And back to your insults again.
Why do you continuously expect others to do your research for you? please read the CAS decision and listen to the podcast before spouting further nonsense.
I’m not proposing anything of the sort. I’m mere highlighting the possibility (albeit infinitesimally minute) that she may have fallen victim to the system.
Or been sabotaged.
Wouldn't a "victim to the system" be sabotaged? Why can't you list WADA as a possible saboteur?
look I don’t pretend to have all the answers. all I know is that just because she was found with a significant amount of a performance enhancing steroid in her system and is serving a 4 year doping ban after exhausting all her appeals doesn’t necessarily mean she’s a cheat.
A lot of this may be Houlihan's buyer's remorse. Houlihan's lawyers convinced her to go down this clownish burrito road, to no avail. Now it appears that she should have provided CAS with a reasonable list of possible saboteurs (say, 3-4 people with motive and opportunity to dope her), and she may have at least had the penalty reduced, if not been vindicated entirely.
But you only get "one bite at the apple" in law. You can't get a "re-do." You need to grab the bull by the horns and run with it, when it comes to CAS jurisprudence.
Wouldn't a "victim to the system" be sabotaged? Why can't you list WADA as a possible saboteur?
look I don’t pretend to have all the answers. all I know is that just because she was found with a significant amount of a performance enhancing steroid in her system and is serving a 4 year doping ban after exhausting all her appeals doesn’t necessarily mean she’s a cheat.
A lot of this may be Houlihan's buyer's remorse. Houlihan's lawyers convinced her to go down this clownish burrito road, to no avail. Now it appears that she should have provided CAS with a reasonable list of possible saboteurs (say, 3-4 people with motive and opportunity to dope her), and she may have at least had the penalty reduced, if not been vindicated entirely.
But you only get "one bite at the apple" in law. You can't get a "re-do." You need to grab the bull by the horns and run with it, when it comes to CAS jurisprudence.
As a lawyer you should know that she risks defaming any one of those 3 or 4 if she accuses them of doping sabotage. They would also probably say "prove it" and call her a liar.
look I don’t pretend to have all the answers. all I know is that just because she was found with a significant amount of a performance enhancing steroid in her system and is serving a 4 year doping ban after exhausting all her appeals doesn’t necessarily mean she’s a cheat.
You mean the same CAS that found her guilty of an "intentional" violation?
No CAS that I am aware of found her guilty of intent. Again; you post with being clueless as to the rules and you again contaminate with false quotes .
When she failed to rebut the the presumption of intent (as CAS said) that means a finding of intent. Similarly, you have failed to rebut the presumption that you are a moran.
Wouldn't a "victim to the system" be sabotaged? Why can't you list WADA as a possible saboteur?
look I don’t pretend to have all the answers. all I know is that just because she was found with a significant amount of a performance enhancing steroid in her system and is serving a 4 year doping ban after exhausting all her appeals doesn’t necessarily mean she’s a cheat.
my mind is open to all possibilities.
Your mind is as open as can be, an airy head if I’ve ever encountered one.
A lot of this may be Houlihan's buyer's remorse. Houlihan's lawyers convinced her to go down this clownish burrito road, to no avail. Now it appears that she should have provided CAS with a reasonable list of possible saboteurs (say, 3-4 people with motive and opportunity to dope her), and she may have at least had the penalty reduced, if not been vindicated entirely.
But you only get "one bite at the apple" in law. You can't get a "re-do." You need to grab the bull by the horns and run with it, when it comes to CAS jurisprudence.
As a lawyer you should know that she risks defaming any one of those 3 or 4 if she accuses them of doping sabotage. They would also probably say "prove it" and call her a liar.
You think she got intimidated by potential defamation suits, and so she had to flip to the burrito story? Maybe. I think she got bum advice from her lawyers. All she had to do was drop some names and she probably would have got a 2 year sentence or maybe even acquitted.
As a lawyer you should know that she risks defaming any one of those 3 or 4 if she accuses them of doping sabotage. They would also probably say "prove it" and call her a liar.
You think she got intimidated by potential defamation suits, and so she had to flip to the burrito story? Maybe. I think she got bum advice from her lawyers. All she had to do was drop some names and she probably would have got a 2 year sentence or maybe even acquitted.
I don't think so. Each of those named would have had to be questioned to check out the allegations. They would have denied it and there would be no evidence against them. (Really - how could she come up with any kind of evidence of that sort unless one of them had been caught "sabotaging" her? And why would they do it? They are all on the same team.) Her lawyers didn't go with it because it wouldn't work and she would be labelled a liar as well as possibly sued for defamation. This is pretty desperate stuff by the doper.
Now, can we have the reference and the full quote please?
And even in the limited quote you suggest it says could..
And back to your insults again.
Why do you continuously expect others to do your research for you? please read the CAS decision and listen to the podcast before spouting further nonsense.
Does not work like that.
Person x says that y was said and person x has to prove it.
No CAS that I am aware of found her guilty of intent. Again; you post with being clueless as to the rules and you again contaminate with false quotes .
When she failed to rebut the the presumption of intent (as CAS said) that means a finding of intent. Similarly, you have failed to rebut the presumption that you are a moran.
As you don’t know what the burdens are your contribution is meaningless.
Why do you continuously expect others to do your research for you? please read the CAS decision and listen to the podcast before spouting further nonsense.
Does not work like that.
Person x says that y was said and person x has to prove it.
You think she got intimidated by potential defamation suits, and so she had to flip to the burrito story? Maybe. I think she got bum advice from her lawyers. All she had to do was drop some names and she probably would have got a 2 year sentence or maybe even acquitted.
Really - how could she come up with any kind of evidence of that sort unless one of them had been caught "sabotaging" her? And why would they do it? They are all on the same team.
I don't think you know much about track. Being on the same team is almost meaningless. It's a solo sport whether you are on a team or not. Houlihan is a competitor of every female distance runner on that team, and they would all have motivation and opportunity to sabotage her with dope.
But I agree it is difficult to prove someone doped you up. The saboteur won't admit to it, and they have covered their tracks.
It's possible Houlihan can run an ineffective assistance of counsel type appeal, if they allow that in CAS/WAD. The lawyers should have run with sabotage instead of this burrito balloon.
REMASTERED IN HD!Read the story behind Ill Communication here: https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/ill-communication-beastie-boys-album/Listen to more fro...