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:

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").

The CAS is like a court, with many similarities and significant differences.

WADA re-defines doping as any rule violation -- Bravo. How do I "lose" when I have told you exactly that many times, and you are really just parroting what I said?

"Presumption of innocence" can be applied in any situation where the choice between innocent and guilty is to be made -- not just criminal courts.

Any "Presumption of intent" as used by the CAS and WADA, can solely be used for the purpose of Article 10.2.

I also told you many times that Houlihan couldn't meet the legal burden required.

You have lost the plot. Do you even remember what you were arguing? We weren't talking about rule violations, or criminal courts, but whether alternatives were "ruled out" and whether "intent" was established as an objective fact.

You said "ruled out" but the CAS did not rule out the possibility of ingestion by burrito.

You said "the only likely and therefore most probable explanation", as if any explanations were entirely ruled out, and as if the likeliness of any alternatives were evaluated as more likely.

Here you presume too much.

Because intent is presumed, no specific details have been established.

This prevents everyone from concluding any specific details about the nature of Houlihan's actions, beyond the narrow purpose of Article 10.2.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You completely duck the point that "the balance of probability" is not an argument of percentages, as you have previously maintained, and you can find no reference in the decision to percentages accorded to any argument before the panel. Your falsehoods never cease.

You clearly asked about percentages of credibility. Since credibility was not determined, something I fully addressed, there are also no percentages of credibility to be found. You are right -- I cannot find what the CAS did not attempt to determine.

With respect to intent, the athlete has to meet the burden "balance of probabilities". This is described in many law firms as a likelihood of "greater than 50%". Your ignorance of the law is truly stupefying. Here is a paper that might help you understand how that works:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333582749_Probability_Formulations_of_the_Verdict_in_Civil_and_Criminal_Common_Law

In the same vein, the CAS confirming something is possible means a non-zero probability greater than 0%.

When the CAS finds that Houlihan's explanation is possible, but did not meet the burden of "balance of probabilities", this gives us both the upper (not greater than 50%) and lower bound (greater than 0%) of the likelihood actually determined by CAS, based on the limited evidence before them.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You don't understand the rule that you keep mindlessly yapping about . Rule 10.2.3. says "intent" applies when the athlete knew they were committing a violation or knew there was a risk they would be committing a violation and were careless about doing so. Intent doesn't have to be proven. The athlete is responsible for what is found in their body. Following a confirmed positive test there is a presumption of intent unless the athlete can show there was no fault or negligence on their part. Houlihan couldn't, so the CAS Panel accordingly found she had committed an "intentional" violation. The logic is quite simple - except to a denier or a moron (and you are both). If the athlete cannot show the positive test was not their fault it could only be their fault - no one else's. In other words, the violation arose out of their choices - which, by definition, must be "intentional".

That's progress. Yet you need to read the Article once again more closely.

Besides being "specially" redefined solely for the purpose of Article 10.2, it is also greatly relaxed, by starting out with "... is meant to identify ...". 10.2.3 explains the wishful thinking behind the usage of the word "intentional".

The consequence of "presumption of intent", means we cannot be sure, out here in the real world, that Houlihan engaged in the conduct that is meant by WADA.

It is precisely the "presumption" that makes it so weak -- there is no data, no evidence, no proof, no arguments, no findings, and no conclusions, no anything, of real world substance.

We are all left to imagine -- did Houlihan engage in such conduct? What conduct exactly? Did she know it was, or it risked, being a violation? There was no burden to find out, so this is all left to everyone's imagination.

The CAS is free to presume that such conduct that meets what is meant by WADA happened, whether it really happened or not, for the purpose of Article 10.2.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That's progress. Yet you need to read the Article once again more closely.

Besides being "specially" redefined solely for the purpose of Article 10.2, it is also greatly relaxed, by starting out with "... is meant to identify ...". 10.2.3 explains the wishful thinking behind the usage of the word "intentional".

The consequence of "presumption of intent", means we cannot be sure, out here in the real world, that Houlihan engaged in the conduct that is meant by WADA.

It is precisely the "presumption" that makes it so weak -- there is no data, no evidence, no proof, no arguments, no findings, and no conclusions, no anything, of real world substance.

We are all left to imagine -- did Houlihan engage in such conduct? What conduct exactly? Did she know it was, or it risked, being a violation? There was no burden to find out, so this is all left to everyone's imagination.

The CAS is free to presume that such conduct that meets what is meant by WADA happened, whether it really happened or not, for the purpose of Article 10.2.

Yes, there is evidence. There is an undisputed failed drug test for which she was unable to show a convincing alternative to intentional doping. The evidential failure is hers, not anti-doping. Her indisputable positive test is the equivalent of being caught holding the smoking gun, for which she was unable to show anything other than that she was the one who fired it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The CAS is like a court, with many similarities and significant differences.

WADA re-defines doping as any rule violation -- Bravo. How do I "lose" when I have told you exactly that many times, and you are really just parroting what I said?

"Presumption of innocence" can be applied in any situation where the choice between innocent and guilty is to be made -- not just criminal courts.

Any "Presumption of intent" as used by the CAS and WADA, can solely be used for the purpose of Article 10.2.

I also told you many times that Houlihan couldn't meet the legal burden required.

You have lost the plot. Do you even remember what you were arguing? We weren't talking about rule violations, or criminal courts, but whether alternatives were "ruled out" and whether "intent" was established as an objective fact.

You said "ruled out" but the CAS did not rule out the possibility of ingestion by burrito.

You said "the only likely and therefore most probable explanation", as if any explanations were entirely ruled out, and as if the likeliness of any alternatives were evaluated as more likely.

Here you presume too much.

Because intent is presumed, no specific details have been established.

This prevents everyone from concluding any specific details about the nature of Houlihan's actions, beyond the narrow purpose of Article 10.2.

CAS is "like a court"? CAS is a court. You insist on parading your ignorance.

The Court doesn't have to prove intent; it is for the athlete to prove its absence. Houlihan couldn't. And neither can you. None of the "possibilities" you refer to were accepted as an excuse. Without adequate evidence "possibilities" are mere conjecture. They mean nothing. So the fact remains that the Court came to a finding of intentional doping, resulting in a 4 year ban. A judicial finding trumps mere conjecture. Except to a doping denier.

liar soorer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That's progress. Yet you need to read the Article once again more closely.

Besides being "specially" redefined solely for the purpose of Article 10.2, it is also greatly relaxed, by starting out with "... is meant to identify ...". 10.2.3 explains the wishful thinking behind the usage of the word "intentional".

The consequence of "presumption of intent", means we cannot be sure, out here in the real world, that Houlihan engaged in the conduct that is meant by WADA.

It is precisely the "presumption" that makes it so weak -- there is no data, no evidence, no proof, no arguments, no findings, and no conclusions, no anything, of real world substance.

We are all left to imagine -- did Houlihan engage in such conduct? What conduct exactly? Did she know it was, or it risked, being a violation? There was no burden to find out, so this is all left to everyone's imagination.

The CAS is free to presume that such conduct that meets what is meant by WADA happened, whether it really happened or not, for the purpose of Article 10.2.

Armstronglivs has refused to read 10.2.3 in its specific context of 10.2.

He has been told this dozens of times over several threads.

And he has not grasped no fault cases and he still thinks the panel upheld the four year ban. Or has he grasped such and just keeps on being the king liar?

Armstronglivs wrote:

A "balance of probabilities" is a conclusion arrived at after an assessment of the total evidence available. In most instances the evidence cannot be numerically measured or apportioned, such as whether a witness is believable (what's the "percentage" allocated to that?), whether an individual event is considered likely or not (what is the figure allocated to a contaminated burrito?), or whether a given sequence of events leads to a more probable conclusion (so what was the numerical basis for the official finding that there was only one shooter in the JFK assassination?). Probability, like proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case, is arrived at by coming to a conclusion about the weight of all the evidence combined, not by according percentages to each item and then adding them up.

You are merely proof that "a mathematician with a bent for statistics" is intellectually illiterate outside his banal specialty.