The way the owners of this site covered for Houlihan is something I’m not going to forget. All their anti-doping posturing is a lie. The Brojos and Gault simply do not apply the same standards when an athlete they like is the doper.
Maybe with the wisdom that comes with time and experience, they have come to see and appreciate the ambiguity and uncertainty in Houlihan's case that doesn't exist in other cases.
Keep doubling down on your stupidity. The subject was judicial bodies - nothing else - and any judicial body that has "court" in its title is a court. Your use of it in an informal or metaphorical sense or in the vernacular - such as "courting" disaster - only shows your wilful stupidity.
The arbitration process that WADA signatories agree to is still a legal process. If it wasn't it could be rejected or appealed against for failing to conform to that process. It isn't a criminal process so no breaches of "the law" of that kind were involved, but it did involve areas of civil law that apply to sports law. This is chiefly the agreement to a Code of Rules that bind the parties while preserving their rights, with an agreed adjudicative process in the event of disputes. Because you are pig-ignorant of the law you don't know that adminstrative codes of practice are also "law" and subject to law. The most telling demonstration of this is that Houlihan was unable to appeal because the Court of Arbitration had properly applied the principles of law involved, such as determination of the facts, the interpretation and application of the antidoping rules, and observing the rights of the parties - which of course includes Houlihan.
This place is not a "court" but there are laws that govern how it works and it could be subject to the adjudication of a court if legal actions were to arise from its operation. It is the same with sports. The adjudication in this case was from the Court of Arbitration in Sport, which has the power to impose binding decisions on the parties, as "real" courts do.
"judicial bodies"? That sounds like another personal fabrication you argue with yourself. What I said was: "you keep conflating an arbitration based on rules as a court of law." That was the subject you responded to, but never refuted.
Now you are effectively saying that arbitrations aren't illegal. That doesn't make arbitrations of rules the same as courts of law.
You keep looking for similarities to pretend they are the same, while ignoring the differences that show they are not the same. WADA rules are not civil or criminal laws. They are rules and processes and guidelines crafted by WADA lawyers. Principles of justice built into civil and criminal laws provide the accused with many protections, and benefits of the doubt, to prevent the wrong person from being punished, or prevent the accused from being punished too severely. The WADA Code has removed some of these benefits for the accused, or placed difficult hurdles in front of them.
Even her right to appeal the CAS decision was limited. Comically, you keep saying "The most telling demonstration of this is that Houlihan was unable to appeal because the Court of Arbitration ...", when it is again the WADA Code which limited her right to appeal the CAS decision.
Her crack legal team chose to present to the CAS directly, therefore creating the inability to appeal to an appeal without new evidence.
Keep doubling down on your stupidity. The subject was judicial bodies - nothing else - and any judicial body that has "court" in its title is a court. Your use of it in an informal or metaphorical sense or in the vernacular - such as "courting" disaster - only shows your wilful stupidity.
The arbitration process that WADA signatories agree to is still a legal process. If it wasn't it could be rejected or appealed against for failing to conform to that process. It isn't a criminal process so no breaches of "the law" of that kind were involved, but it did involve areas of civil law that apply to sports law. This is chiefly the agreement to a Code of Rules that bind the parties while preserving their rights, with an agreed adjudicative process in the event of disputes. Because you are pig-ignorant of the law you don't know that adminstrative codes of practice are also "law" and subject to law. The most telling demonstration of this is that Houlihan was unable to appeal because the Court of Arbitration had properly applied the principles of law involved, such as determination of the facts, the interpretation and application of the antidoping rules, and observing the rights of the parties - which of course includes Houlihan.
This place is not a "court" but there are laws that govern how it works and it could be subject to the adjudication of a court if legal actions were to arise from its operation. It is the same with sports. The adjudication in this case was from the Court of Arbitration in Sport, which has the power to impose binding decisions on the parties, as "real" courts do.
"judicial bodies"? That sounds like another personal fabrication you argue with yourself. What I said was: "you keep conflating an arbitration based on rules as a court of law." That was the subject you responded to, but never refuted.
Now you are effectively saying that arbitrations aren't illegal. That doesn't make arbitrations of rules the same as courts of law.
You keep looking for similarities to pretend they are the same, while ignoring the differences that show they are not the same. WADA rules are not civil or criminal laws. They are rules and processes and guidelines crafted by WADA lawyers. Principles of justice built into civil and criminal laws provide the accused with many protections, and benefits of the doubt, to prevent the wrong person from being punished, or prevent the accused from being punished too severely. The WADA Code has removed some of these benefits for the accused, or placed difficult hurdles in front of them.
Even her right to appeal the CAS decision was limited. Comically, you keep saying "The most telling demonstration of this is that Houlihan was unable to appeal because the Court of Arbitration ...", when it is again the WADA Code which limited her right to appeal the CAS decision.
To appeal from CAS to the Swiss Appeal Court would have required grounds in law. You don't understand that organisational bodies, like WADA, are also subject to law, which is why their decisions can be judicially reviewed or appealed. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your pointless w*nking.
Her crack legal team chose to present to the CAS directly, therefore creating the inability to appeal to an appeal without new evidence.
It is unfortunate that the AIU put Team Houlihan in the position that they had to sacrifice their only right to appeal in order to get a speedy trial.
It's just one more reason to think Houlihan was a victim of a process heavily balanced against accused athletes.
In real courts, the accused would have a right to a speedy trial. Here the AIU dragged their feet just to even bring the charge of an ADRV - quite inexplicable for a case so many seem to think was a slam-dunk.
To appeal from CAS to the Swiss Appeal Court would have required grounds in law. You don't understand that organisational bodies, like WADA, are also subject to law, which is why their decisions can be judicially reviewed or appealed. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your pointless w*nking.
You are unremarkably arguing that any injustice against athletes built into the WADA rules and processes do not violate Swiss Law. People are free to enter into contracts with rules and procedures that do not violate Swiss Law. In this case, the athletes have no choice since agreement to a contract that they did not right and cannot negotiate is mandatory for participation.
Where there are matters of fact in dispute, i.e. CAS interpretations of ambiguous WADA TDs, there is no further opportunity to appeal these decisions.
I note you don't/can't dispute that "accidental contamination" is something you imagined -- most likely because you haven't read either the CAS report, nor the WADA Code.
Nor do/can you dispute that "judicial bodies" was something you fabricated.
Your repeated accusation of my failure to understand is really just you projecting your own failure to understand that Arbitrations based on rules are not the sames as proceedings in real courts based on laws, even if there are similarities, because there are significant differences.
It isn't any law. It is arbitration based on rules. Here's some info from "LexisNexis" about how arbitration of rules differs significatnly from courts of law:
"Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that offers parties involved in a legal dispute an alternative to traditional courtroom litigation. Unlike litigation, where disputes are resolved in court, arbitration takes place in a private setting, typically chosen by the parties involved."
"Arbitration tends to be less expensive than litigation because it typically involves fewer procedural hurdles and streamlined processes."
"What is a Disadvantage of Arbitration?
Limited Ability to Appeal
One notable drawback is the limited ability to appeal arbitration decisions. Unlike court cases, where decisions can be appealed to higher courts, arbitration awards are typically final and binding. This means that if the arbitrator makes a legal error or misinterprets the evidence, it can be challenging to have the decision overturned."
To appeal from CAS to the Swiss Appeal Court would have required grounds in law. You don't understand that organisational bodies, like WADA, are also subject to law, which is why their decisions can be judicially reviewed or appealed. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your pointless w*nking.
You are unremarkably arguing that any injustice against athletes built into the WADA rules and processes do not violate Swiss Law. People are free to enter into contracts with rules and procedures that do not violate Swiss Law. In this case, the athletes have no choice since agreement to a contract that they did not right and cannot negotiate is mandatory for participation.
Where there are matters of fact in dispute, i.e. CAS interpretations of ambiguous WADA TDs, there is no further opportunity to appeal these decisions.
I note you don't/can't dispute that "accidental contamination" is something you imagined -- most likely because you haven't read either the CAS report, nor the WADA Code.
Nor do/can you dispute that "judicial bodies" was something you fabricated.
Your repeated accusation of my failure to understand is really just you projecting your own failure to understand that Arbitrations based on rules are not the sames as proceedings in real courts based on laws, even if there are similarities, because there are significant differences.
You still have no idea how the legal processes work. The appeal from CAS would not have been in respect of Swiss law but whether CAS had failed to properly exercise its processes. The reason the Swiss Appeal Court could have become involved in an appeal is because CAS is located in Lausanne. You also are unable to understand that rules applied by sporting bodies are subject to law, which means arbitration is legally reviewable and can be appealed on grounds of law. But of course you don't know this. You have no idea how doping works in the sport, either.
It isn't any law. It is arbitration based on rules. Here's some info from "LexisNexis" about how arbitration of rules differs significatnly from courts of law:
"Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that offers parties involved in a legal dispute an alternative to traditional courtroom litigation. Unlike litigation, where disputes are resolved in court, arbitration takes place in a private setting, typically chosen by the parties involved."
"Arbitration tends to be less expensive than litigation because it typically involves fewer procedural hurdles and streamlined processes."
"What is a Disadvantage of Arbitration?
Limited Ability to Appeal
One notable drawback is the limited ability to appeal arbitration decisions. Unlike court cases, where decisions can be appealed to higher courts, arbitration awards are typically final and binding. This means that if the arbitrator makes a legal error or misinterprets the evidence, it can be challenging to have the decision overturned."
Courts' decisions may not be reviewed or appealed either unless there are grounds in law for doing so. There may not be. It isn't automatic. This is the same in regard to arbitration. There have to be grounds.
The main difference between arbitration and court action is that the former seeks to achieve resolution through discussion and agreement between the parties whereas the latter is the parties presenting opposing arguments that result in a judicial decision. That is what the Court of Arbitration did in Houlihan's case, as it typically does in doping cases.
You still have no idea how the legal processes work. The appeal from CAS would not have been in respect of Swiss law but whether CAS had failed to properly exercise its processes. The reason the Swiss Appeal Court could have become involved in an appeal is because CAS is located in Lausanne. You also are unable to understand that rules applied by sporting bodies are subject to law, which means arbitration is legally reviewable and can be appealed on grounds of law. But of course you don't know this. You have no idea how doping works in the sport, either.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Courts' decisions may not be reviewed or appealed either unless there are grounds in law for doing so. There may not be. It isn't automatic. This is the same in regard to arbitration. There have to be grounds. The main difference between arbitration and court action is that the former seeks to achieve resolution through discussion and agreement between the parties whereas the latter is the parties presenting opposing arguments that result in a judicial decision. That is what the Court of Arbitration did in Houlihan's case, as it typically does in doping cases.
Of course I understand both "WADA Law" and "WADA science" -- apparently far better than you do. For someone who claims to have passed the bar, it is easy for me to find authoritative contradictions to your simpleton thinking. You are still conflating arbitration based on rules with matters of law.
As I've said all along, as confirmed by legal authorities smarter than you, the process defined by the WADA Code is a "streamlined process" with "fewer procedural hurdles" -- including hurdles that exist in courts of law designed to protect innocent athletes from wrongful punishments, which are stripped in the Code, i.e. "strict liability", and "guilty until proven innocent" and "limited ability to appeal".
You seem to now suggest in your "main difference", "(dispute) resolution" is not "a judicial decision" -- only helping me make my point.
And contrary to your suggestion, any appeal of the CAS decision can only be "in respect of Swiss Law", as you keep confirming by saying things like "can be appealed on grounds of law" and "unless there are grounds in law for doing so". What cannot be appealed are matters of facts and wrongful interpretations and adverse presumptions, because the rules do not permit such appeals on these bases. I do not so much claim that the CAS wrongly followed the rules it is subservient to, but that the very rules themselves are wrong because they presume too much, and create difficult, if not impossible, hurdles for innocent athletes to clear their name. I would predict Swiss Courts to say the CAS properly followed wrong rules, and there is nothing they can do because there is no matter of law before them.