liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Read 10.2.3
And you lie , decision never said that.
But then you are an admitted liar.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Read 10.2.3
And you lie , decision never said that.
But then you are an admitted liar.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
And you lie , decision never said that.
But then you are an admitted liar.
And one who said they refuse to read the rules.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
But then you are an admitted liar.
And one who said they refuse to read the rules.
So why don’t you go away?
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
And one who said they refuse to read the rules.
So why don’t you go away?
But you get told this on every thread you post on.
casual obsever wrote:
FYI 1 - CAS wrote "possible but improbable", not just "possible". They also wrote that is was "possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels".
FYI 2 - CAS wrote in Lawson's case that they would let him get away even with "scientifically less than 50%" chance that the tren was in the beef:
even if the likelihood were to be considered scientifically less than 50%, it would be more than unfair and harsh to treat that as negating the Athlete's efforts to do all that he could to obtain the best possible evidence.
...
FYI 3 - ATF does not mean "no doping", rather maybe doping, maybe not.
FYI 1 -- Yes they did. Yet it would be incorrect and premature to say that the possibility was ruled out, leaving only one possible and more likely option left.
FYI 2 -- The same could be said for Houlihan. This demonstrates how subjective these decisions can be, depending on the panel, and confirms Tygart's arguments that such no-fault cases place an unfair burden on athletes when it is no longer possible to obtain the best evidence, weeks or months after the fact, depending on the good will and cooperation from parties (e.g. restaurants) not subject to WADA under no obligation to cooperate with the charged athlete.
FYI 3 -- Of course we are using WADA's definition of doping, which is simply equated to a rule violation. A sample recorded as an ATF isn't a rule violation, so we can say "no doping", as there would be no charge, and no case to answer.
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
Again, as a side point, you say WADA, again, but I presume you mean the AIU that does not have to argue or prove intent, as the WADA Code doesn't require it for Rules 2.1 and 2.2.
Again. I understand everything you say -- a child could -- it simply doesn't contradict me, and sometimes doesn't agree with the WADA code. The CAS simply did not determine "credibility", did not "rule out" the explanation, and did not determine that any other alternatives are more likely, or likely at all, even considering process of elimination. For the sole purpose of evaluating the length of the ban, not proving "not intentional" simply means making the ban 4-years, as if it were intentional. "Intent" serves no other purpose under the WADA code but to determine the length of the ban, and is completely independent of determining the rule violations that do not depend on intent.
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
I imagine it is hard for you to debate with anyone possessing extremely low levels of stupidity.
It is probably most hardest for you to debate at all, as you consistently show you are largely ignorant of the necessary facts required to speak on these topics.
If you agree that it is non-zero positive probability, then we are in agreement. This means you cannot conclude that there is only one last option left, nor that any alternative option is more likely.
"Balance of Probability" is the standard of proof here, and unambiguously means greater than or less than 50%. (Not sure where exactly 50% would lie). Or if you are not mathematically inclined, "more likely than not". The CAS decided that Houlihan did not determine the source of the nandrolone up to 50% probability. Maybe they decided 0.01%. Maybe 1%, Maybe 49.9%. It is not a question of plausibility or credibility, but a question of the evidence and arguments meeting the legal burden required. As there are no objective measurements of likelihoods and probabilities of any explanation, this balance of probability becomes a subjective determination, requiring at least a majority of the panel. As "casual" just showed us in the Lawson case, a different panel with different sympathies, would have made different determinations.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
I imagine it is hard for you to debate with anyone possessing extremely low levels of stupidity.
It is probably most hardest for you to debate at all, as you consistently show you are largely ignorant of the necessary facts required to speak on these topics.
If you agree that it is non-zero positive probability, then we are in agreement. This means you cannot conclude that there is only one last option left, nor that any alternative option is more likely.
"Balance of Probability" is the standard of proof here, and unambiguously means greater than or less than 50%. (Not sure where exactly 50% would lie). Or if you are not mathematically inclined, "more likely than not". The CAS decided that Houlihan did not determine the source of the nandrolone up to 50% probability. Maybe they decided 0.01%. Maybe 1%, Maybe 49.9%. It is not a question of plausibility or credibility, but a question of the evidence and arguments meeting the legal burden required. As there are no objective measurements of likelihoods and probabilities of any explanation, this balance of probability becomes a subjective determination, requiring at least a majority of the panel. As "casual" just showed us in the Lawson case, a different panel with different sympathies, would have made different determinations.
He does not have the facts because he refuses to read and then to get out is a corner he then lies.
I would add that any “ no fault “ outcome is greatly and unfairly limited by the rules saying such should be limited to the most extreme cases.
Where else would such be a allowed defence but the rules then say, in effect, can’t use it.
rekrunner wrote:
FYI 3 -- Of course we are using WADA's definition of doping, which is simply equated to a rule violation. A sample recorded as an ATF isn't a rule violation, so we can say "no doping", as there would be no charge, and no case to answer.
Again, no, a charge may then come or not depending on the follow-up investigation.
Wada says (comparing the 2015 with the 2021 code):
6. Expansion of Laboratory Reports for Atypical Findings Beyond Endogenous Substances (Article 2.1.4 and 2015 Code Article 7.4)
When a laboratory reports a sample as an Atypical Finding (ATF) that sends a message to the ADO that the Sample may or may not contain a prohibited substance. It is then the ADO’s responsibility to conduct an investigation to determine whether the sample should be treated as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) or not. Under the original 2015 Code, a laboratory could only report test results involving endogenous substances as ATF. The 2021 Code permits WADA to develop a list of other prohibited substances which may be reported as ATF and thereby trigger investigations.
In this case, Houlihan would still have to come up with an explanation, but supposedly the onus would be on AIU to show that her burrito explanation is not probable.
liar soorer wrote:I would add that any “ no fault “ outcome is greatly and unfairly limited by the rules saying such should be limited to the most extreme cases.
Also, no. See for example Wilson and Lawson; neither of them provided any evidence that their beef was contaminated, yet their story was judged to be true "more likely than not".
What do the (2021) rules say? They don't even mention "extreme", let alone "most extreme". For example:
10.5 If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated
CAS wrote in the Lawson case:
The Panel agrees that the so-called "corridor" must be sufficiently narrow to prevent intentionally doped athletes with a means of evading due sanctions, yet still wide enough to allow unintentionally doped athletes an opportunity to exculpate themselves by means of relevant and convincing evidence.
That's far from "most extreme".
And they cite Rigozzi/Haas:
"The 2015 Code does not explicitly require an Athlete to show the origin of the substance to establish that the violation was not intentional. While the origin of the substance can be expected to represent an important, or even critical, element of the factual basis of the consideration of an Athlete's level of Fault, in the context of Article 10. 2. 3, panels are offered flexibility to examine all the objective and subjective circumstances of the case and decide if a finding that the violation was not intentional. "
casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:I would add that any “ no fault “ outcome is greatly and unfairly limited by the rules saying such should be limited to the most extreme cases.
Also, no. See for example Wilson and Lawson; neither of them provided any evidence that their beef was contaminated, yet their story was judged to be true "more likely than not".
What do the (2021) rules say? They don't even mention "extreme", let alone "most extreme". For example:
10.5 If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated
CAS wrote in the Lawson case:
The Panel agrees that the so-called "corridor" must be sufficiently narrow to prevent intentionally doped athletes with a means of evading due sanctions, yet still wide enough to allow unintentionally doped athletes an opportunity to exculpate themselves by means of relevant and convincing evidence.
That's far from "most extreme".
And they cite Rigozzi/Haas:
"The 2015 Code does not explicitly require an Athlete to show the origin of the substance to establish that the violation was not intentional. While the origin of the substance can be expected to represent an important, or even critical, element of the factual basis of the consideration of an Athlete's level of Fault, in the context of Article 10. 2. 3, panels are offered flexibility to examine all the objective and subjective circumstances of the case and decide if a finding that the violation was not intentional. "
We differ on whether “ extreme” is the most applicable word but I am content that I have made my point.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
FYI 3 -- Of course we are using WADA's definition of doping, which is simply equated to a rule violation. A sample recorded as an ATF isn't a rule violation, so we can say "no doping", as there would be no charge, and no case to answer.
Again, no, a charge may then come or not depending on the follow-up investigation.
Wada says (comparing the 2015 with the 2021 code):
6. Expansion of Laboratory Reports for Atypical Findings Beyond Endogenous Substances (Article 2.1.4 and 2015 Code Article 7.4)
When a laboratory reports a sample as an Atypical Finding (ATF) that sends a message to the ADO that the Sample may or may not contain a prohibited substance. It is then the ADO’s responsibility to conduct an investigation to determine whether the sample should be treated as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) or not. Under the original 2015 Code, a laboratory could only report test results involving endogenous substances as ATF. The 2021 Code permits WADA to develop a list of other prohibited substances which may be reported as ATF and thereby trigger investigations.
In this case, Houlihan would still have to come up with an explanation, but supposedly the onus would be on AIU to show that her burrito explanation is not probable.
I see the points you make but in the context of “ what a contorted mess”.
Seen historically over 20 yrs the movement Wada has had to take is quite remarkable. This will only continue as real law gets matched against Micky mouse sports rules.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
FYI 3 -- Of course we are using WADA's definition of doping, which is simply equated to a rule violation. A sample recorded as an ATF isn't a rule violation, so we can say "no doping", as there would be no charge, and no case to answer.
Again, no, a charge may then come or not depending on the follow-up investigation.
Wada says (comparing the 2015 with the 2021 code):
6. Expansion of Laboratory Reports for Atypical Findings Beyond Endogenous Substances (Article 2.1.4 and 2015 Code Article 7.4)
When a laboratory reports a sample as an Atypical Finding (ATF) that sends a message to the ADO that the Sample may or may not contain a prohibited substance. It is then the ADO’s responsibility to conduct an investigation to determine whether the sample should be treated as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) or not. Under the original 2015 Code, a laboratory could only report test results involving endogenous substances as ATF. The 2021 Code permits WADA to develop a list of other prohibited substances which may be reported as ATF and thereby trigger investigations.
In this case, Houlihan would still have to come up with an explanation, but supposedly the onus would be on AIU to show that her burrito explanation is not probable.
You say "no", but then clarify that the ATF might become "doping" if it is determined to be treated as an AAF.
It still sounds like ATF means no doping, and AAF means doping, if we disregard the hair-splitting.
The TD suggests that an ATF reporting should be reported with a recommendation "to conduct follow-up no-notice
tests on the Athlete as soon as possible and evaluate the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion."
So sure, if more no-notice testing and pharmacokinetics provides data, and a pattern, that is more conclusive, it removes much of the ambiguity that exists now.
Whether it is the WADA Lab, the ADO, or the CAS, the fate of the athlete seems highly subject to interpretation, and a function of the sympathies of the adjudicating panel, rather than a result of clarity and unambiguity in the WADA code:
- The CAS was split 2-1 regarding the proper interpretation of the TD by the WADA lab
- The 2021 TD was explicitly modified to treat invocation by the Athlete with a different path, but apparently these modifications are advisory and can be ignored despite such athlete invocation
- The CAS ruled that it was up to the WADA lab, headed by the AIU expert, to interpret how to report the result
Letting the ADO investigate doesn't seem to change the subjective nature of the process.
History suggests if the ADO was USADA, they may work hard to help the athlete navigate within the WADA Code to avoid any AAF, and order extra testing, or treat an AAF as a no-fault violation.
But if the AIU investigates, in collaboration with the head of the Montreal WADA lab, the athlete will surely find less sympathy.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Again, no, a charge may then come or not depending on the follow-up investigation.
Wada says (comparing the 2015 with the 2021 code):
In this case, Houlihan would still have to come up with an explanation, but supposedly the onus would be on AIU to show that her burrito explanation is not probable.
You say "no", but then clarify that the ATF might become "doping" if it is determined to be treated as an AAF.
It still sounds like ATF means no doping, and AAF means doping, if we disregard the hair-splitting.
The TD suggests that an ATF reporting should be reported with a recommendation "to conduct follow-up no-notice
tests on the Athlete as soon as possible and evaluate the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion."
So sure, if more no-notice testing and pharmacokinetics provides data, and a pattern, that is more conclusive, it removes much of the ambiguity that exists now.
Whether it is the WADA Lab, the ADO, or the CAS, the fate of the athlete seems highly subject to interpretation, and a function of the sympathies of the adjudicating panel, rather than a result of clarity and unambiguity in the WADA code:
- The CAS was split 2-1 regarding the proper interpretation of the TD by the WADA lab
- The 2021 TD was explicitly modified to treat invocation by the Athlete with a different path, but apparently these modifications are advisory and can be ignored despite such athlete invocation
- The CAS ruled that it was up to the WADA lab, headed by the AIU expert, to interpret how to report the result
Letting the ADO investigate doesn't seem to change the subjective nature of the process.
History suggests if the ADO was USADA, they may work hard to help the athlete navigate within the WADA Code to avoid any AAF, and order extra testing, or treat an AAF as a no-fault violation.
But if the AIU investigates, in collaboration with the head of the Montreal WADA lab, the athlete will surely find less sympathy.
How can it be right that the head of a Wada lab, Ayotte can be allowed to give expert testimony on her own work.
Appalling!
Let alone that she lied in an other recent case.
So discredited that she should have been barred.
casual obsever wrote:
What do the (2021) rules say? They don't even mention "extreme", let alone "most extreme". For example:
[quote]10.5 If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated
Maybe not "extreme", but "exceptional". Interesting that WADA explicitly excludes a) contaminated supplements; b) undisclosed administration by a physician or trainer, and c) sabotage by spouse or coach. And a no-fault finding does not overturn the rule violation, meaning it remains a first offense, so the next violation is treated as a repeated offense subject to lengthier 8-year of lifetime bans.
The comments to 10.5:
Comment to Article 10.5: This Article and Article 10.6.2 apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination of whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. They will only apply in exceptional circumstances, for example, where an Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances:
(a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes
are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement
contamination);
(b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance); and
(c) sabotage of the Athlete’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Athlete’s circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink).
However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Article 10.6 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
What do the (2021) rules say? They don't even mention "extreme", let alone "most extreme". For example:
[quote]10.5 If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated
Maybe not "extreme", but "exceptional". Interesting that WADA explicitly excludes a) contaminated supplements; b) undisclosed administration by a physician or trainer, and c) sabotage by spouse or coach. And a no-fault finding does not overturn the rule violation, meaning it remains a first offense, so the next violation is treated as a repeated offense subject to lengthier 8-year of lifetime bans.
The comments to 10.5:
Comment to Article 10.5: This Article and Article 10.6.2 apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination of whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. They will only apply in exceptional circumstances, for example, where an Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances:
(a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes
are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement
contamination);
(b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance); and
(c) sabotage of the Athlete’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Athlete’s circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink).
However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Article 10.6 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.
I realise that the rules don’t say extreme / most extreme; they are Wada rules and they are hardly likely to be so self critical. However on further reflection I am content to use those words.Preposterous that an athlete is responsible for people who prepare and have access to their food.Also for any actions of circles of associates.
Where in the non Wada world do we see that. Thus most extreme is a mild phrase.
rekrunner wrote:
You say "no", but then clarify that the ATF might become "doping" if it is determined to be treated as an AAF.
Yes, I said no to your no to my maybe, and then clarified why maybe. LOL
rekrunner wrote:
History suggests if the ADO was USADA, they may work hard to help the athlete navigate within the WADA Code to avoid any AAF, and order extra testing, or treat an AAF as a no-fault violation.
But if the AIU investigates, in collaboration with the head of the Montreal WADA lab, the athlete will surely find less sympathy.
Sadly, that's how it looks like.
Let's not forget that in this case, the ATF would have been declared after Houlihan came up with the burrito story. Then it would still come down to how believable that story is, but then with the burden of proof on the AIU.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You say "no", but then clarify that the ATF might become "doping" if it is determined to be treated as an AAF.
Yes, I said no to your no to my maybe, and then clarified why maybe. LOL
Thanks for the clarity, I guess. So to summarize:
An ATF is not a rule violation (no doping).
An AAF is a rule violation (doping).
After some investigation by an ADO, maybe an ATF (no doping) can be treated as an AAF (doping).
Similarly, the CAS can maybe decide the AAF (doping) should have been properly reported as an ATF (no doping).
Good points.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Yes, I said no to your no to my maybe, and then clarified why maybe. LOL
Thanks for the clarity, I guess. So to summarize:
An ATF is not a rule violation (no doping).
An AAF is a rule violation (doping).
After some investigation by an ADO, maybe an ATF (no doping) can be treated as an AAF (doping).
Similarly, the CAS can maybe decide the AAF (doping) should have been properly reported as an ATF (no doping).
Good points.
That these are indeed good points shows how ridiculous and contorted these rules have become.
The rules started out as slam dunk sporting rules, and indeed the Code still says this, but real life and law has caused their upgrades to sort of mitigate strict liability bans zero tolerance. Thus fault/ no fault and degrees of negligence are impossibly bolted on to the original concept.
The Code now makes reference to Human Rights and Proportionality and we can await more messes as such are applied.
Within ten years I think each case will be evaluated on its merits of “ a cheat “ or “ not a cheat”.
And yes “ cheats” will avoid bans and the costs of it all will rise; just like real law.
liar soorer wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Thanks for the clarity, I guess. So to summarize:
An ATF is not a rule violation (no doping).
An AAF is a rule violation (doping).
After some investigation by an ADO, maybe an ATF (no doping) can be treated as an AAF (doping).
Similarly, the CAS can maybe decide the AAF (doping) should have been properly reported as an ATF (no doping).
Good points.
That these are indeed good points shows how ridiculous and contorted these rules have become.
The rules started out as slam dunk sporting rules, and indeed the Code still says this, but real life and law has caused their upgrades to sort of mitigate strict liability bans zero tolerance. Thus fault/ no fault and degrees of negligence are impossibly bolted on to the original concept.
The Code now makes reference to Human Rights and Proportionality and we can await more messes as such are applied.
Within ten years I think each case will be evaluated on its merits of “ a cheat “ or “ not a cheat”.
And yes “ cheats” will avoid bans and the costs of it all will rise; just like real law.
Too complicated for the non reading Armstronglivs?