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?
Is your question "knowledge" or "intent"? Which goalpost are you barking up?
Either way, explicit in the WADA Code, the ADRVs of "Presence" and "Use" can be both unintentional and without personal knowledge, as athletes do no know all that happens in the food industry before they buy their food, especially during a pandemic.
USADA found this in 27 "no-fault" cases since 2015.
I am kind of disappointed that Shelby wasn't able to present the burrito in question as evidence. It would have been the end of her defence. But as her lawyer knew, she only had a possible defence if there was no burrito that could be tested that would show what the experts said - "close to zero" likelihood of accidental doping. Like a sabotage defence. There's no possible defence there once she actually names someone - who then says, "prove it".
That would have clarified things for certain one way or another. Based on general population expectations, exceptions would never happen.
Actually nothing is "in dispute" anymore. The case is now finally and officially closed. Houlihan was declared guilty as charged, and received a four year ban for intentional doping.
I am kind of disappointed that Shelby wasn't able to present the burrito in question as evidence. It would have been the end of her defence. But as her lawyer knew, she only had a possible defence if there was no burrito that could be tested that would show what the experts said - "close to zero" likelihood of accidental doping. Like a sabotage defence. There's no possible defence there once she actually names someone - who then says, "prove it".
That would have clarified things for certain one way or another. Based on general population expectations, exceptions would never happen.
Basing a defence on an "expectation" of "close to zero" likelihood would be more like hoping to win a lottery than a court case.
Actually nothing is "in dispute" anymore. The case is now finally and officially closed. Houlihan was declared guilty as charged, and received a four year ban for intentional doping.
Bye bye Shelby!
one man’s intent is another man’s sabotage.
we know Shelby didn’t deliberately dope because she said so and we know it wasn’t the burrito because lol. so that leaves?
So she didn't know she was doping - because no one else doped her. How does that happen?
Is your question "knowledge" or "intent"? Which goalpost are you barking up?
Either way, explicit in the WADA Code, the ADRVs of "Presence" and "Use" can be both unintentional and without personal knowledge, as athletes do no know all that happens in the food industry before they buy their food, especially during a pandemic.
USADA found this in 27 "no-fault" cases since 2015.
"Unintentional and without personal knowledge" didn't apply in her case. She couldn't show that - so a doper it is.
Actually nothing is "in dispute" anymore. The case is now finally and officially closed. Houlihan was declared guilty as charged, and received a four year ban for intentional doping.
Bye bye Shelby!
one man’s intent is another man’s sabotage.
we know Shelby didn’t deliberately dope because she said so and we know it wasn’t the burrito because lol. so that leaves?
If you only ask wrong questions, you will never arrive at the right answers.
The positive test result is not in dispute.
It is all the subsequent interpretations.
If you only speak in riddles and squabble over semantics you will never arrive at a conclusion.
but I suppose that’s the point
I appreciate your posts -- I hope you are having fun, because they are truly amusing.
I think I said earlier my goal was to evaluate the evidence. If the evidence is inconclusive, we should not arrive at a conclusion. I don't think that is just necessarily my point.
"Squabble over semantics" always seems like a cop-out. If we can redefine words to mean whatever we want, virtually any argument can be made. Every argument can be redefined as 1+1=2. When WADA explicitly redefines both "doping" and "intention", I think it's fair to ask what does "intentional doping" mean to WADA, and what does it mean to fans everywhere else, and what is the difference in meanings? Is sending an email doping? Is failing to update a website doping? Is taking a legally prescribed, WADA-legal painkiller doping? Is kissing your girlfried doping? Is eating a teriyaki bowl doping? In all cases, WADA has answered yes at one time or another. But this isn't like US Postal or BALCO.
I agree we can unambiguously conclude she was found guilty of committing an ADRV with the length of sanction deemed as intentional, as she could not establish "not intentional", on the balance of probability.
But subsequently, many fans want to extrapolate from that and draw more conclusions that the CAS did not draw, conclusions not supported by the CAS report and not supported by any evidence to date.
My initial conclusion is that, for practical reasons, the WADA Code itself allows anti-doping bodies and adjudicating panels to draw limited conclusions based on broader definitions, or more restricted definitions, depending, and based on incomplete evidence supplemented with presumptions, sometimes at the expense of innocent athletes. And because of these allowances, there is no way to tell for certain how fair a ruling is to the athlete, and how accurately it reflects the reality.
In addition, I have raised some questions about the completeness of testimony from the AIU experts, if not the accuracy. Although I do not expect the AIU to select experts based on neutrality, it is in the interest of fairness, that the expertise is both neutral and complete, not to mention the neutrality of the arbitraters.
Just because Houlihan was caught in the net, that doesn't tell us if they caught a tuna or a dolphin.
If you only speak in riddles and squabble over semantics you will never arrive at a conclusion.
but I suppose that’s the point
I appreciate your posts -- I hope you are having fun, because they are truly amusing.
I think I said earlier my goal was to evaluate the evidence. If the evidence is inconclusive, we should not arrive at a conclusion. I don't think that is just necessarily my point.
"Squabble over semantics" always seems like a cop-out. If we can redefine words to mean whatever we want, virtually any argument can be made. Every argument can be redefined as 1+1=2. When WADA explicitly redefines both "doping" and "intention", I think it's fair to ask what does "intentional doping" mean to WADA, and what does it mean to fans everywhere else, and what is the difference in meanings? Is sending an email doping? Is failing to update a website doping? Is taking a legally prescribed, WADA-legal painkiller doping? Is kissing your girlfried doping? Is eating a teriyaki bowl doping? In all cases, WADA has answered yes at one time or another. But this isn't like US Postal or BALCO.
I agree we can unambiguously conclude she was found guilty of committing an ADRV with the length of sanction deemed as intentional, as she could not establish "not intentional", on the balance of probability.
But subsequently, many fans want to extrapolate from that and draw more conclusions that the CAS did not draw, conclusions not supported by the CAS report and not supported by any evidence to date.
My initial conclusion is that, for practical reasons, the WADA Code itself allows anti-doping bodies and adjudicating panels to draw limited conclusions based on broader definitions, or more restricted definitions, depending, and based on incomplete evidence supplemented with presumptions, sometimes at the expense of innocent athletes. And because of these allowances, there is no way to tell for certain how fair a ruling is to the athlete, and how accurately it reflects the reality.
In addition, I have raised some questions about the completeness of testimony from the AIU experts, if not the accuracy. Although I do not expect the AIU to select experts based on neutrality, it is in the interest of fairness, that the expertise is both neutral and complete, not to mention the neutrality of the arbitraters.
Just because Houlihan was caught in the net, that doesn't tell us if they caught a tuna or a dolphin.
"Just because Houlihan was caught in the net, that doesn't tell us if they caught a tuna or a dolphin."(quote)
No one except you might think they did. They caught a doper.
If you only speak in riddles and squabble over semantics you will never arrive at a conclusion.
but I suppose that’s the point
I appreciate your posts -- I hope you are having fun, because they are truly amusing.
I think I said earlier my goal was to evaluate the evidence. If the evidence is inconclusive, we should not arrive at a conclusion. I don't think that is just necessarily my point.
"Squabble over semantics" always seems like a cop-out. If we can redefine words to mean whatever we want, virtually any argument can be made. Every argument can be redefined as 1+1=2. When WADA explicitly redefines both "doping" and "intention", I think it's fair to ask what does "intentional doping" mean to WADA, and what does it mean to fans everywhere else, and what is the difference in meanings? Is sending an email doping? Is failing to update a website doping? Is taking a legally prescribed, WADA-legal painkiller doping? Is kissing your girlfried doping? Is eating a teriyaki bowl doping? In all cases, WADA has answered yes at one time or another. But this isn't like US Postal or BALCO.
I agree we can unambiguously conclude she was found guilty of committing an ADRV with the length of sanction deemed as intentional, as she could not establish "not intentional", on the balance of probability.
But subsequently, many fans want to extrapolate from that and draw more conclusions that the CAS did not draw, conclusions not supported by the CAS report and not supported by any evidence to date.
My initial conclusion is that, for practical reasons, the WADA Code itself allows anti-doping bodies and adjudicating panels to draw limited conclusions based on broader definitions, or more restricted definitions, depending, and based on incomplete evidence supplemented with presumptions, sometimes at the expense of innocent athletes. And because of these allowances, there is no way to tell for certain how fair a ruling is to the athlete, and how accurately it reflects the reality.
In addition, I have raised some questions about the completeness of testimony from the AIU experts, if not the accuracy. Although I do not expect the AIU to select experts based on neutrality, it is in the interest of fairness, that the expertise is both neutral and complete, not to mention the neutrality of the arbitraters.
Just because Houlihan was caught in the net, that doesn't tell us if they caught a tuna or a dolphin.
the evidence was conclusive in the context of the WADA code which is what all athletes sign up for and need to abide by. the people who matter (not you, sorry) found it to be so.
I’m not sure if Shelby is the dolphin or tuna in your analogy but if the system is truly broken then why aren’t more dolphin/tuna? getting caught in the net?
Is your question "knowledge" or "intent"? Which goalpost are you barking up?
Either way, explicit in the WADA Code, the ADRVs of "Presence" and "Use" can be both unintentional and without personal knowledge, as athletes do no know all that happens in the food industry before they buy their food, especially during a pandemic.
USADA found this in 27 "no-fault" cases since 2015.
"Unintentional and without personal knowledge" didn't apply in her case. She couldn't show that - so a doper it is.
It boggles the mind how staggeringly ignorant you still are of the WADA Code despite all these opportunities.
It doesn't apply in anyone's case when deciding a violation of "presence" or "use".
Establishing these violations is the burden of the ADA/ADO.
Once established, any subsequent showing of "non-intent" or "no knowledge" does not reverse these violations.