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.
Are you suggesting that CAS Panelists are generally not neutral?
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.
Are you suggesting that CAS Panelists are generally not neutral?
That is deeply concerning.
This concerned the European Courts.
And the whole idea of being forced by the rules into only one form of arbitration has also so been severely questioned.
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.
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.
Are you suggesting that CAS Panelists are generally not neutral?
That is deeply concerning.
The idea is to pick the one who you feel would be most sympathetic to your cause. It’s not a question of neutrality.
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.
Prof. Ayotte proposed this possibility -- without evidence. Therefore, pure fantasy.
A 4-year ban for an intentional violation says your wrong. Care to tell me who put it inside her if she didn't?
Do you know what "intention" means? The relevant question isn't who, but whether any such athlete conduct meets the meaning codified by WADA.
The questions you are avoiding are whether such athlete conduct exists, and what evidence was considered by the CAS to support the 4-year ban for violations deemed intentional.
If the 4-year ban says I'm wrong about "without evidence", then it should be easy to identify the evidence that was used to support Prof. Ayotte's possibility/fantasy.
Otherwise -- as you argued that possibliities with no evidence are pure fantasy -- without such evidence, she was banned for 4-years based on fantasy, because the WADA Code allows it.
A 4-year ban for an intentional violation says your wrong. Care to tell me who put it inside her if she didn't?
Do you know what "intention" means? The relevant question isn't who, but whether any such athlete conduct meets the meaning codified by WADA.
The questions you are avoiding are whether such athlete conduct exists, and what evidence was considered by the CAS to support the 4-year ban for violations deemed intentional.
If the 4-year ban says I'm wrong about "without evidence", then it should be easy to identify the evidence that was used to support Prof. Ayotte's possibility/fantasy.
Otherwise -- as you argued that possibliities with no evidence are pure fantasy -- without such evidence, she was banned for 4-years based on fantasy, because the WADA Code allows it.
So she didn't know she was doping - because no one else doped her. How does that happen?
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.
Thanks for the illustration of your contorted thinking. It's like looking into a kaleidescope. You arrive at a conclusion of "no evidence" only by employing a "broader sense" interpretation, and elsewhere, you provided the CAS ruling itself as the "evidence" that was considered by the CAS before the CAS arrived at the ruling. Is that the same "broader sense" meaning, or another one?
The poster "Investigations" you said agreed with you wrote "Yes, I am using it in a different sense. I am using it in the correct sense. You are using it incorrectly and having resort to what looks like conjured up legal standards such as "significant factual veracity" (what I think you are trying to say is relevant and sufficiently corroborated, but even that does not change what evidence means)."
Are you also using the term "agreed" in a broader sense? I agree with "Investigations".
In the correct sense, "Balance of probabilities" means relative to 50%, not 0%, regardless of whether the probability is numerically assessed.
The panel did not "dismiss" any of the argued grounds. The question is whether such national probabilies, can be applied to this specific case, when given the positive test result. To disprove the improbability, Houlihan would have needed something specific to her case that would alter these probabilities above the required "balance of probability" threshold. Going into an arbitration without specific evidence that could establish "more likely than not" was always a longshot.
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.