How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

rekrunner wrote:

And it's not Tygart's own game. Despite Tygart's objections, he still followed WADA's rules, suspending athletes, and announcing their sanctions publicly, and then criticized the rules.

This USADA scheme threatened the integrity of sporting competition, which the Code seeks to protect. By operating it, USADA was in clear breach of the rules. Contrary to the claims made by USADA, WADA did not sign off on this practice of permitting drug cheats to compete for years on the promise that they would try to obtain incriminating evidence
against others.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

When the law is invoked, as it was in this case (and, yes - it was a "case") then the civil law applies (because it doesn't involve the criminal code). It wasn't a private and informal negotiation between antidoping and Houlihan but a public legal matter - an appeal from a WA decision - requiring a court hearing to examine the facts and evidence under the provisions of the WADA Code and the legal rights of the accused athlete. The damage to your cerebral cortex is greater than anyone might have thought.

No law was invoked. (At least not before she appealed to the Swiss Court an procedural grounds that didn't examine the merits.)

It's curious why you would give me a criminal definition of presumption, for what you now call a civil case. Your criminal definition (besides being wrong) doesn't even apply.

This arbitration before the CAS was a first instance case to arbitrate the WA charges, not an appeal of a WA decision.

And again, the CAS heard no evidence of intent. According to the rules, the CAS presumed intent, and then deemed it, without hearing any evidence of intent, and without any party establishing intent to any legal standard.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The entire process before CAS - which is a court, but you haven't noticed - the Court of Arbitration in Sport - means that it is subject to civil and public law. The antidoping authorities are bound to follow the law in applying their rules, such as the principles of natural justice.

The point I was making about legal presumptions was not to say the criminal law applies - I simply gave an example of how they might apply - but that presumptions in law have a factual basis - they are not your stupid f****** "what ifs". Christ, you are thick.

The case wasn't an arbitration, it was an appeal against the WA decision to ban her. It upheld that decision.

You waffle endlessly here about pork burritos but all that shows is you are pig ignorant.

Do you lack a shame gene? How can you demonstrably know so little about the facts of the case, or the law, or the English language, and yet still be so bold and arrogant?

The CAS is a court, but not a civil court or a criminal court. It is a court of arbitration that interprets rules (not laws) to resolve disputes: "A Court of Arbitration is a court, sometimes outside of the official judicial system of a country, that resolves certain kinds of civil disputes".

It is subject to civil (and criminal and international) law only in the sense that it cannot violate any laws. It has no inherent authority, but is essentially permitted under contract law.

No one has accused the CAS (or Houlihan) of violating any civil laws, and the CAS cannot enforce any civil laws. It can only resolve some civil disputes, when both parties agree that civil disputes can be resolved in arbitration, and doing so doesn't break any laws.

You are completely wrong to say "presumptions in law have a factual basis". For example, you gave a purported criminal law definition (citing no authority), but in criminal law, the presumption of innocence is not based on any fact.

Here is a real legal definition from law.com: "a rule of law which permits a court to assume a fact is true until such time as there is a preponderance (greater weight) of evidence which disproves or outweighs (rebuts) the presumption"

Another from "Black's Law Dictionary": "In law, a presumption is an "inference of a particular fact"."

Similarly, in arbitration settings enforcing the WADA Code, the (implied) presumption of intent is not based on any fact, but something that was codified in 2015.

This arbitration was not an appeal, but a first instance hearing on the merits. There was no WA decision to ban her, and therefore nothing to appeal: "the Parties agreed that this matter may be heard in a single hearing, directly at CAS under CAS appellate procedures, with no requirement for a prior hearing at the WA level".

For someone who claims to have passed the bar, you seem to be out of your depth even in your claimed field of expertise.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You seem to lack an intelligence gene. Civil law is all that which falls outside the criminal code. It is nevertheless law. Hearings in a court of arbitration are legal hearings; they are subject to principles of law, in the way that contract law works, or administrative law, constitutional law or the law of torts (personal grievances).

Courts of arbitration may not fall with the general jurisdiction of a country, in the way that the criminal courts do, but they are still courts of law but courts of special jurisdiction, like tribunals generally are. They have a narrowly-defined jurisdiction. But they are bound to follow the law and their decisions are legally binding on the parties before then. That is CAS. If it didn't have that legal power it could not have been able to enforce the WA decision and convict her and ban her from the sport. Its findings could have been disregarded. Indeed, there would have been no reason for Houlihan to take the proceedings before CAS.

A presumption is indeed an inference of fact but in law it is typically based on further facts, such as that if you knowingly aim a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger and they are killed you intended that outcome. The parallel in antidoping rules is that if you are found with a loaded gun in your possession - sorry, a banned drug in your system - you put it there, because someone had to and prima facie no one else is demonstrated to have caused it. If they did the onus falls on you to prove it. Hence there is a logical factual basis to the inference.

If WA had not found Houlihan to have doped and incurred a violation for which there was a 4 year penalty there would have been nothing for her to have challenged before CAS.

You waste everyone's time.

rekrunner wrote:

Llyod Flandis wrote:

But eating the burrito isn't how it got there. So Foolihan didn't have to consider if the burrito was risky. I’m sure she accessed her risk before putting the nandrolone into her body and liked her odds.

Unless it is. No one identifed the source, and no one disproved the burrito, and no one established any alternative to any standard. But it is possible that she unintentionally ingested it from contaminated supplements -- that's what Tygart thought.

The burrito is the only option considered that has any supporting evidence, and the expert witnesses explained how it was possible -- that intact boars do make it onto the market, and that they were eating soy -- and even moreso during the pandemic.

Everyone was fooled by an indirect argument with several unchallenged assumptions that intact boars, and the consequent nandrolone positives, would be rare across America.

I think everyone wants to be fooled into thinking it's more likely that any sophisticated athlete would willfully ingest small amounts of easily detectable nandrolone, via a method scientifically shown to be ineffective.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You seem to lack an intelligence gene. Civil law is all that which falls outside the criminal code. It is nevertheless law. Hearings in a court of arbitration are legal hearings; they are subject to principles of law, in the way that contract law works, or administrative law, constitutional law or the law of torts (personal grievances).

Courts of arbitration may not fall with the general jurisdiction of a country, in the way that the criminal courts do, but they are still courts of law but courts of special jurisdiction, like tribunals generally are. They have a narrowly-defined jurisdiction. But they are bound to follow the law and their decisions are legally binding on the parties before then. That is CAS. If it didn't have that legal power it could not have been able to enforce the WA decision and convict her and ban her from the sport. Its findings could have been disregarded. Indeed, there would have been no reason for Houlihan to take the proceedings before CAS.

A presumption is indeed an inference of fact but in law it is typically based on further facts, such as that if you knowingly aim a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger and they are killed you intended that outcome. The parallel in antidoping rules is that if you are found with a loaded gun in your possession - sorry, a banned drug in your system - you put it there, because someone had to and prima facie no one else is demonstrated to have caused it. If they did the onus falls on you to prove it. Hence there is a logical factual basis to the inference.

If WA had not found Houlihan to have doped and incurred a violation for which there was a 4 year penalty there would have been nothing for her to have challenged before CAS.

You waste everyone's time.

You seem to lack the comprehension gene also. Or maybe you lack the will to read what you respond to.

Now you are either repeating what I said, or arguing points that were not in dispute. I did not doubt the legality or enforceability of arbitrations. The point remains that Houlihan was not in a civil court accused of violating civil laws.

I see you walked back your "presumptions in law have a factual basis" to "an inference of a fact is typically based on further facts".

Whether it is typical or not, the fact remains that the presumption of intent is not based on any fact.

Despite me quoting it before, you seem to be ignorant of how WADA defined intent. It is not sufficient to say "she put it there". That is not the conclusion. In all cases, whether the source is the burrito, contaminated supplements, or a synthetic nandrolone product, or something else, there was never any question that "she put it there". Intentionally purchasing and eating a burrito doesn't mean intentionally commiting a rule violation. A required element is that she knew she was committing a violation, or knew that it was risky, when "she put it in there". No athlete would know that eating edible pork parts in the US would be a violation, or would consider it risky.

Here it is again: "the term "intentional" is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk."