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

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You fail to understand what a burden of proof is. When an athlete tests positive the burden falls on them to show cause other than doping. There is no onus on anti-doping to prove doping other than a confirmed positive test. The failed test is an objective fact. WADA doesn't have to argue or prove intent; it is a given unless the athlete can show otherwise. Nor does WADA have to prove how the banned substance found its way into the athlete's body - it is sufficient that it is found there. Another objective fact. The reason is quite simple - except to you - which is that if on the facts presented there is no innocent explanation accepted for the violation the athlete meant to dope.That is no subjective determination; WADA does not argue intent, it is the result of the elimination of arguments that seek to excuse the violation. "Intent" is the last man standing. The facts show that. Except to you.

Will you ever bother to read the rules?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Amidst that waffle, you still do not know what the word "intentional" means, which is that the doping was committed through the deliberate actions of the athlete - and no one and nothing else. It is the only logical inference to be derived once an innocent cause such as accidental contamination is not accepted. The nandrolone doesn't find its way into the athlete's body by accident but by her hand. I don't expect you to grasp that.

Nor do you understand what a "presumption" means. Once the athlete has tested positive - and it is confirmed - the onus falls on the athlete to show cause other than their doping. If they fail to do that - as Houlihan did - then the presumption becomes a finding of "intentional" doping - because no other explanation - possible or not - has been accepted as credible. In simple English, you are unable to distinguish between what is merely possible and what is likely. The possibility of accidental contamination raised by Houlihan (and any other irrelevant possiblity in your mind) was deemed too improbable, so leaving the only likely and therefore most probable explanation, which is that she doped. She failed to discharge the onus that fell upon her to show that she didn't dope; therefore she doped - which is by definition an intentional act, both to WADA and those who understand English. That rules you out.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Amidst that waffle, you still do not know what the word "intentional" means, which is that the doping was committed through the deliberate actions of the athlete - and no one and nothing else. It is the only logical inference to be derived once an innocent cause such as accidental contamination is not accepted. The nandrolone doesn't find its way into the athlete's body by accident but by her hand. I don't expect you to grasp that.

Nor do you understand what a "presumption" means. Once the athlete has tested positive - and it is confirmed - the onus falls on the athlete to show cause other than their doping. If they fail to do that - as Houlihan did - then the presumption becomes a finding of "intentional" doping - because no other explanation - possible or not - has been accepted as credible. In simple English, you are unable to distinguish between what is merely possible and what is likely. The possibility of accidental contamination raised by Houlihan (and any other irrelevant possiblity in your mind) was deemed too improbable, so leaving the only likely and therefore most probable explanation, which is that she doped. She failed to discharge the onus that fell upon her to show that she didn't dope; therefore she doped - which is by definition an intentional act, both to WADA and those who understand English. That rules you out.

Of course I understand all these terms “intentional”, “doped”, and “presumption”, both in plain English, and in the context of WADA’s code. WADA’s definition of “doped” is not, by definition, “an intentional act”. In fact, WADA explicitly says 2.1 and 2.2 can be established without demonstrating intent. You just keep making yourself look ignorant each time you contradict the Code.

Whether you call it “athlete engaged in conduct” or “deliberate actions of the athlete”, the precise conduct or action is not identified in the detailed CAS report — this is left to everyone’s imagination.

Similarly, statements like “accepted as credible” and “the only likely and therefore most probable explanation” are solely products of your imagination, not found in the CAS report.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You fail to understand what a burden of proof is. When an athlete tests positive the burden falls on them to show cause other than doping. There is no onus on anti-doping to prove doping other than a confirmed positive test. The failed test is an objective fact. WADA doesn't have to argue or prove intent; it is a given unless the athlete can show otherwise. Nor does WADA have to prove how the banned substance found its way into the athlete's body - it is sufficient that it is found there. Another objective fact. The reason is quite simple - except to you - which is that if on the facts presented there is no innocent explanation accepted for the violation the athlete meant to dope.That is no subjective determination; WADA does not argue intent, it is the result of the elimination of arguments that seek to excuse the violation. "Intent" is the last man standing. The facts show that. Except to you.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You fail to understand what a burden of proof is. When an athlete tests positive the burden falls on them to show cause other than doping. There is no onus on anti-doping to prove doping other than a confirmed positive test. The failed test is an objective fact. WADA doesn't have to argue or prove intent; it is a given unless the athlete can show otherwise. Nor does WADA have to prove how the banned substance found its way into the athlete's body - it is sufficient that it is found there. Another objective fact. The reason is quite simple - except to you - which is that if on the facts presented there is no innocent explanation accepted for the violation the athlete meant to dope.That is no subjective determination; WADA does not argue intent, it is the result of the elimination of arguments that seek to excuse the violation. "Intent" is the last man standing. The facts show that. Except to you.

You can’t keep hiding your own failures by accusing me of them. You display more ignorance when you don’t even know who the actors are. WADA is not part of the dispute between Houlihan and the WA/AIU, as adjudicated by the CAS. Therefore WADA doesn’t have to argue or prove anything — they just write the rules.

We were not disputing the failed test, or the finding of doping, but “intention”. The rule violations 2.1 and 2.2 do not depend on “intention”, so the “objective facts” of presence in the urine, and the failed test is simply not relevant to “intention”.

WADA tells us explicitly, with respect to rebutting “intention”, the burden of proof is “balance of probability”, hence “less than 50%”.

The CAS said ingestion by intact-boar offal was “possible”, which means more than 0%.

You said “ruled out” which means 0%. This puts you on the wrong side of WADA and the CAS.

“Intentional” is not an objective fact.

Even the charge of “doping” was subject to interpretation of the relevant TD. The CAS was split 2-1 whether the failed test should be considered an ATF (no doping) or an AAF (doping).

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You fail to understand what a burden of proof is. When an athlete tests positive the burden falls on them to show cause other than doping. There is no onus on anti-doping to prove doping other than a confirmed positive test. The failed test is an objective fact. WADA doesn't have to argue or prove intent; it is a given unless the athlete can show otherwise. Nor does WADA have to prove how the banned substance found its way into the athlete's body - it is sufficient that it is found there. Another objective fact. The reason is quite simple - except to you - which is that if on the facts presented there is no innocent explanation accepted for the violation the athlete meant to dope.That is no subjective determination; WADA does not argue intent, it is the result of the elimination of arguments that seek to excuse the violation. "Intent" is the last man standing. The facts show that. Except to you.

Will you ever bother to read the rules?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Amidst that waffle, you still do not know what the word "intentional" means, which is that the doping was committed through the deliberate actions of the athlete - and no one and nothing else. It is the only logical inference to be derived once an innocent cause such as accidental contamination is not accepted. The nandrolone doesn't find its way into the athlete's body by accident but by her hand. I don't expect you to grasp that.

Nor do you understand what a "presumption" means. Once the athlete has tested positive - and it is confirmed - the onus falls on the athlete to show cause other than their doping. If they fail to do that - as Houlihan did - then the presumption becomes a finding of "intentional" doping - because no other explanation - possible or not - has been accepted as credible. In simple English, you are unable to distinguish between what is merely possible and what is likely. The possibility of accidental contamination raised by Houlihan (and any other irrelevant possiblity in your mind) was deemed too improbable, so leaving the only likely and therefore most probable explanation, which is that she doped. She failed to discharge the onus that fell upon her to show that she didn't dope; therefore she doped - which is by definition an intentional act, both to WADA and those who understand English. That rules you out.

Of course I understand all these terms “intentional”, “doped”, and “presumption”, both in plain English, and in the context of WADA’s code. WADA’s definition of “doped” is not, by definition, “an intentional act”. In fact, WADA explicitly says 2.1 and 2.2 can be established without demonstrating intent. You just keep making yourself look ignorant each time you contradict the Code.

Whether you call it “athlete engaged in conduct” or “deliberate actions of the athlete”, the precise conduct or action is not identified in the detailed CAS report — this is left to everyone’s imagination.

Similarly, statements like “accepted as credible” and “the only likely and therefore most probable explanation” are solely products of your imagination, not found in the CAS report.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You fail to understand what a burden of proof is. When an athlete tests positive the burden falls on them to show cause other than doping. There is no onus on anti-doping to prove doping other than a confirmed positive test. The failed test is an objective fact. WADA doesn't have to argue or prove intent; it is a given unless the athlete can show otherwise. Nor does WADA have to prove how the banned substance found its way into the athlete's body - it is sufficient that it is found there. Another objective fact. The reason is quite simple - except to you - which is that if on the facts presented there is no innocent explanation accepted for the violation the athlete meant to dope.That is no subjective determination; WADA does not argue intent, it is the result of the elimination of arguments that seek to excuse the violation. "Intent" is the last man standing. The facts show that. Except to you.

You can’t keep hiding your own failures by accusing me of them. You display more ignorance when you don’t even know who the actors are. WADA is not part of the dispute between Houlihan and the WA/AIU, as adjudicated by the CAS. Therefore WADA doesn’t have to argue or prove anything — they just write the rules.

We were not disputing the failed test, or the finding of doping, but “intention”. The rule violations 2.1 and 2.2 do not depend on “intention”, so the “objective facts” of presence in the urine, and the failed test is simply not relevant to “intention”.

WADA tells us explicitly, with respect to rebutting “intention”, the burden of proof is “balance of probability”, hence “less than 50%”.

The CAS said ingestion by intact-boar offal was “possible”, which means more than 0%.

You said “ruled out” which means 0%. This puts you on the wrong side of WADA and the CAS.

“Intentional” is not an objective fact.

Even the charge of “doping” was subject to interpretation of the relevant TD. The CAS was split 2-1 whether the failed test should be considered an ATF (no doping) or an AAF (doping).

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You can’t keep hiding your own failures by accusing me of them. You display more ignorance when you don’t even know who the actors are. WADA is not part of the dispute between Houlihan and the WA/AIU, as adjudicated by the CAS. Therefore WADA doesn’t have to argue or prove anything — they just write the rules.

We were not disputing the failed test, or the finding of doping, but “intention”. The rule violations 2.1 and 2.2 do not depend on “intention”, so the “objective facts” of presence in the urine, and the failed test is simply not relevant to “intention”.

WADA tells us explicitly, with respect to rebutting “intention”, the burden of proof is “balance of probability”, hence “less than 50%”.

The CAS said ingestion by intact-boar offal was “possible”, which means more than 0%.

You said “ruled out” which means 0%. This puts you on the wrong side of WADA and the CAS.

“Intentional” is not an objective fact.

Even the charge of “doping” was subject to interpretation of the relevant TD. The CAS was split 2-1 whether the failed test should be considered an ATF (no doping) or an AAF (doping).

It is hard to debate with stupidity of your level. "Ruled out" does not mean "0%" probability; it means it has not been accepted as a valid explanation, because of its lack of probability, as was explained in the CAS decision. Percentages have nothing to do with it; they aren't part of the criteria of the decision - they are your fabrication. When the athlete fails to convince the panel the athlete's explanation is thereby rejected as implausible; thus it is ruled out in favour of the finding of an intentional violation of the rules - which is what the panel determined. You are a mental incompetent.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Of course I understand all these terms “intentional”, “doped”, and “presumption”, both in plain English, and in the context of WADA’s code. WADA’s definition of “doped” is not, by definition, “an intentional act”. In fact, WADA explicitly says 2.1 and 2.2 can be established without demonstrating intent. You just keep making yourself look ignorant each time you contradict the Code.

Whether you call it “athlete engaged in conduct” or “deliberate actions of the athlete”, the precise conduct or action is not identified in the detailed CAS report — this is left to everyone’s imagination.

Similarly, statements like “accepted as credible” and “the only likely and therefore most probable explanation” are solely products of your imagination, not found in the CAS report.

WADA'S not having to establish intent is not the same as its presumption of intent. WADA does not have to argue or prove intent because intent is presumed unless the athlete can show otherwise. The rules simply shift the burden of proof to the athlete - and it is a negative burden of proof, since the athlete has to show the absence of intent. Neither you nor your dumb*ss 'Mini-Me' liarsoorer understand any of this. It is rather similar to your denial as proof of the absence of intelligence.