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

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.

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.

You are incapable of the understanding the processes. A breach of the rules does not require the authorities to establish intent - it follows from the fact of a breach - that's what a legal presumption means. Once the breach is established then intent is a given. The onus then falls on the athlete to show otherwise, that there was no intentional breach. Houlihan couldn't, so she was found by the panel to have intentionally doped. You would be embarrassed in any court.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

The "balance of probability" is not an argument of percentages - that is your invention. Can you find that part of the CAS decision which apportions percentages of credibility to either Houlihan's argument or the findings of the panel? You can't.

The decision is clear; the panel did not accept Houlihan's defence and it arrived at a finding of an intentional breach of the anti-doping rules on her part. There is nothing subjective about that; these are incontrovertible facts - as much as the fact that Houlihan tested positive for a banned substance is unarguable. The panel therefore upheld the penalty of a ban of 4 years. Those of us who deplore doping are glad.

No amount of contorted confused and rambling dissembling of the facts and the processes by you or your lap dancer "liar forever" changes any of that.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are incapable of the understanding the processes. A breach of the rules does not require the authorities to establish intent - it follows from the fact of a breach - that's what a legal presumption means. Once the breach is established then intent is a given. The onus then falls on the athlete to show otherwise, that there was no intentional breach. Houlihan couldn't, so she was found by the panel to have intentionally doped. You would be embarrassed in any court.

Of course I understand the process. This is a tired refrain which only shows you don’t understand the conversation you are attempting to participate in. You weren’t talking within the process when you said the CAS “ruled out” her explanation, and concluded “the only likely and therefore most probable explanation”.

If the rules do not require establishing intent, and the prosecutors do not establish intent, then it is correct to conclude that they did not establish intent. The process not requiring it doesn’t negate that conclusion, but rather reinforces it. Furthermore, it is not “a given” but “presumed”, and only then, for the sole purpose of 10.2.3, and not for any other purpose.

We are not in any court. In any court, there would be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In any court, the prosecution would be required to establish intent, and not merely benefit from an implied presumption in a contract where the athlete is forced to click “I agree” in order to compete.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The "balance of probability" is not an argument of percentages - that is your invention. Can you find that part of the CAS decision which apportions percentages of credibility to either Houlihan's argument or the findings of the panel? You can't.

The decision is clear; the panel did not accept Houlihan's defence and it arrived at a finding of an intentional breach of the anti-doping rules on her part. There is nothing subjective about that; these are incontrovertible facts - as much as the fact that Houlihan tested positive for a banned substance is unarguable. The panel therefore upheld the penalty of a ban of 4 years. Those of us who deplore doping are glad.

No amount of contorted confused and rambling dissembling of the facts and the processes by you or your lap dancer "liar forever" changes any of that.

Why do you triple-down on ignorance? The CAS doesn’t determine “credibility” at all, except of course when they called Houlihan credible.

As I have shown, reporting the negative result as an AAF rather than an ATF was a subjective interpretation of the TD, and “intentional” is not a finding, nor an objective fact, but merely a presumption established by contract.

The decision is clear. The WADA rules are clear. It boggles my mind that you do not understand their limits.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are incapable of the understanding the processes. A breach of the rules does not require the authorities to establish intent - it follows from the fact of a breach - that's what a legal presumption means. Once the breach is established then intent is a given. The onus then falls on the athlete to show otherwise, that there was no intentional breach. Houlihan couldn't, so she was found by the panel to have intentionally doped. You would be embarrassed in any court.

Of course I understand the process. This is a tired refrain which only shows you don’t understand the conversation you are attempting to participate in. You weren’t talking within the process when you said the CAS “ruled out” her explanation, and concluded “the only likely and therefore most probable explanation”.

If the rules do not require establishing intent, and the prosecutors do not establish intent, then it is correct to conclude that they did not establish intent. The process not requiring it doesn’t negate that conclusion, but rather reinforces it. Furthermore, it is not “a given” but “presumed”, and only then, for the sole purpose of 10.2.3, and not for any other purpose.

We are not in any court. In any court, there would be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In any court, the prosecution would be required to establish intent, and not merely benefit from an implied presumption in a contract where the athlete is forced to click “I agree” in order to compete.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Of course I understand the process. This is a tired refrain which only shows you don’t understand the conversation you are attempting to participate in. You weren’t talking within the process when you said the CAS “ruled out” her explanation, and concluded “the only likely and therefore most probable explanation”.

If the rules do not require establishing intent, and the prosecutors do not establish intent, then it is correct to conclude that they did not establish intent. The process not requiring it doesn’t negate that conclusion, but rather reinforces it. Furthermore, it is not “a given” but “presumed”, and only then, for the sole purpose of 10.2.3, and not for any other purpose.

We are not in any court. In any court, there would be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In any court, the prosecution would be required to establish intent, and not merely benefit from an implied presumption in a contract where the athlete is forced to click “I agree” in order to compete.

So the Court of Arbitration in Sport is not a court now? Your denial of the facts is truly stupefying. As is your ignorance of the law. Not all courts are criminal courts. No one claims CAS is a criminal court. But it is still a court. Doping is still a violation. You lose again.

That a doping violation is not a criminal offence - since your "presumption of innocence" applies only to a criminal court - still makes it a violation under the Code that applies to sport - and one confirmed by a Court. But I guess if CAS had exonerated Houlihan you would then say it was a "court".

A "presumption of intent" applies to a doping violation because in the absence of an accepted innocent explanation it is deemed the only way for a banned substance to have found its way into an athlete's body is through the actions of the athlete. After a confirmed positive test, the onus falls on the athlete to show otherwise. Houlihan couldn't. But as you repeatedly show, logic is quite beyond you (and your little lap-dancer "liar forever").

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So the Court of Arbitration in Sport is not a court now? Your denial of the facts is truly stupefying. As is your ignorance of the law. Not all courts are criminal courts. No one claims CAS is a criminal court. But it is still a court. Doping is still a violation. You lose again.

That a doping violation is not a criminal offence - since your "presumption of innocence" applies only to a criminal court - still makes it a violation under the Code that applies to sport - and one confirmed by a Court. But I guess if CAS had exonerated Houlihan you would then say it was a "court".

A "presumption of intent" applies to a doping violation because in the absence of an accepted innocent explanation it is deemed the only way for a banned substance to have found its way into an athlete's body is through the actions of the athlete. After a confirmed positive test, the onus falls on the athlete to show otherwise. Houlihan couldn't. But as you repeatedly show, logic is quite beyond you (and your little lap-dancer "liar forever").

It would be helpful if posters actually read the rules both available and provided on this forum.

However this may not stop some from lying about them continuously.

So an other post from someone who is proud to say they don’t read but take delight in lying.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The "balance of probability" is not an argument of percentages - that is your invention. Can you find that part of the CAS decision which apportions percentages of credibility to either Houlihan's argument or the findings of the panel? You can't.

The decision is clear; the panel did not accept Houlihan's defence and it arrived at a finding of an intentional breach of the anti-doping rules on her part. There is nothing subjective about that; these are incontrovertible facts - as much as the fact that Houlihan tested positive for a banned substance is unarguable. The panel therefore upheld the penalty of a ban of 4 years. Those of us who deplore doping are glad.

No amount of contorted confused and rambling dissembling of the facts and the processes by you or your lap dancer "liar forever" changes any of that.

Why do you triple-down on ignorance? The CAS doesn’t determine “credibility” at all, except of course when they called Houlihan credible.

As I have shown, reporting the negative result as an AAF rather than an ATF was a subjective interpretation of the TD, and “intentional” is not a finding, nor an objective fact, but merely a presumption established by contract.

The decision is clear. The WADA rules are clear. It boggles my mind that you do not understand their limits.