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

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

All of your insults look like self-projection combined with self-denial.

You are the pot calling the kettle black, but the kettle is stainless steel and teflon, and the pot is rusty.

The CAS is like a court, but arbitration is not litigation.

CAS is a court - it is not like a court. It is not "litigation" - which is a civil process - and nor is it a criminal court, upon which you repose your misplaced "presumption of innocence". It is deciding an appeal on a question of whether an athlete had a plausible excuse for a doping violation. It decided she didn't.

Speaking of parading your ignorance, courts don’t ever have to prove intent. That would be up to one of the parties.

This from a "mathematician with a bent for statistics" And your qualifications in law are? Speaking of "ignorance".

I did not say CAS has to prove intent. I said the opposite. Intent is required to be proven by the prosecution in a criminal case, and in some civil cases. CAS is not a criminal court as doping is not a criminal matter and the anti-doping authorities do not have to prove intent. But when there is a presumption of intent then intent exists unless the athlete is able to show otherwise. Houlihan couldn't.

As no party was obligated to prove intent, it directly follows that intent was not proved.

Sigh. Intent does not have to be proven by anti-doping in order for it to exist; intent is a given once an athlete tests positive. That is what a presumption of intent means. The burden of proof of showing the absence of intent falls on the athlete, who is required to show no fault or negligence. Houlihan couldn't. Hard for you to grasp, I know.

None of your alternative “possibilities” was accepted either — rendering it as mere conjecture without adequate evidence, meaning nothing.

As no other "possibility" - such as those you have posited - was accepted by the Panel the finding was of an intentional violation of the rules. Try understanding the decision.

There was no judicial finding of “intentional”, but rather a “presumption” effectively codified by WADA.

Wrong. The decision resulted in a finding of intent because Houlihan was unable to refute the presumption.

Therefore, “intentional” is not an objective fact. It is more like the CAS “pretending” for a narrow purpose.

It is a finding by a Court. That is an objective fact. It isn't "pretending" anything. If the athlete cannot show that the violation was innocent the only alternative is that it was the result of her deliberate actions. Hard for you to grasp, I know.

Since “intention”, as meant to be used in 10.2, was presumed and deemed, and not proved, nor established, nor determined, nor found, there is nothing we can infer from it, beyond the sole purpose of 10.2.

You can take a horse to water. The presumption of intent that Houlihan was unable to refute, that consequently led to a finding of an intentional violation of the rules, means that CAS decided Houlihan - and no one else - was responsible for the nandrolone being found in her body. That is why she is serving a 4 year ban. Hard for you to accept, I know.

Amidst all the drivel you post, the most reassuring fact is none of it makes the slightest difference to the outcome of the case. Doping apologists lose.

Armstronglivs, the narcissist. A collection from this thread wrote:

I can see how far your reading has got. Clueless.

you really are quite a nutter, aren't you? The voices in your head have completely taken over.

Jon, I will say this - a shortage of oxygen to the brain can have tragic consequences. I feel for you.

I don't admit anything of the kind - especially to a numb-brain like you.

You are a predictable tedious apologist.

The "voices" in your head have really taken over. If I read what you think is important I would show the same lunacy that you do.

You must be about 10.

You are in need of psychiatric attention.

You are no different from a Trumpster claiming "election fraud", or a climate-change denier or Covid denier, except that doping denial is your chosen mania.

You respond to everything I say. With your vacuous indignant spluttering.

Only someone utterly ignorant of the extent of doping in sports and its effect on performance will not see that. But that is you. You are like someone who attends a concert but is unable to tell that it is music. Tone deaf. To doping.

You are a stuck record. Who still can't ignore what I post.

Jon, take your flat-earthism elsewhere.

I think the men in white coats should be calling for you soon.

it won't take them much to realise all your posts are simply about me, such is your fixation.

Of course you need a "peer-reviewed paper" to define the word "doper". I suppose the word "liar" also requires a peer-reviewed paper to define it. "Moron" is another that obviously comes to mind in your case.

Proof how dim you really are.

You are a religious crank in drag.

Nor do I expect a moron to be able to tell me what I think about doping. You speak only for yourself.

Hard for you to understand, I know.

That shows how really obtuse you are. As does your grasp of English.

You do like to parade your ignorance.

You are incapable of following a simple train of reasoning.

therefore she doped - which is by definition an intentional act, both to WADA and those who understand English. That rules you out.

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.

It is hard to debate with stupidity of your level.

You are a mental incompetent.

You are incapable of the understanding the processes.

You would be embarrassed in any court.

No, wait - you wouldn't have understood it even if you had read it.

Your posts have the intellectual content of a f*rt.

I admit nothing of the kind, you jerk.

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.

But as you repeatedly show, logic is quite beyond you (and your little lap-dancer "liar forever").

The logic is quite simple - except to a denier or a moron (and you are both).

Actually, you are quite insane.

You insist on parading your ignorance.

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

You need to take your pills.

I do know for sure that you have never proven me wrong about anything. That goes for your fellow morons on this board.

You need medical help.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

All of your insults look like self-projection combined with self-denial.

You are the pot calling the kettle black, but the kettle is stainless steel and teflon, and the pot is rusty.

The CAS is like a court, but arbitration is not litigation.

CAS is a court - it is not like a court. It is not "litigation" - which is a civil process - and nor is it a criminal court, upon which you repose your misplaced "presumption of innocence". It is deciding an appeal on a question of whether an athlete had a plausible excuse for a doping violation. It decided she didn't.

Speaking of parading your ignorance, courts don’t ever have to prove intent. That would be up to one of the parties.

This from a "mathematician with a bent for statistics" And your qualifications in law are? Speaking of "ignorance".

I did not say CAS has to prove intent. I said the opposite. Intent is required to be proven by the prosecution in a criminal case, and in some civil cases. CAS is not a criminal court as doping is not a criminal matter and the anti-doping authorities do not have to prove intent. But when there is a presumption of intent then intent exists unless the athlete is able to show otherwise. Houlihan couldn't.

As no party was obligated to prove intent, it directly follows that intent was not proved.

Sigh. Intent does not have to be proven by anti-doping in order for it to exist; intent is a given once an athlete tests positive. That is what a presumption of intent means. The burden of proof of showing the absence of intent falls on the athlete, who is required to show no fault or negligence. Houlihan couldn't. Hard for you to grasp, I know.

None of your alternative “possibilities” was accepted either — rendering it as mere conjecture without adequate evidence, meaning nothing.

As no other "possibility" - such as those you have posited - was accepted by the Panel the finding was of an intentional violation of the rules. Try understanding the decision.

There was no judicial finding of “intentional”, but rather a “presumption” effectively codified by WADA.

Wrong. The decision resulted in a finding of intent because Houlihan was unable to refute the presumption.

Therefore, “intentional” is not an objective fact. It is more like the CAS “pretending” for a narrow purpose.

It is a finding by a Court. That is an objective fact. It isn't "pretending" anything. If the athlete cannot show that the violation was innocent the only alternative is that it was the result of her deliberate actions. Hard for you to grasp, I know.

Since “intention”, as meant to be used in 10.2, was presumed and deemed, and not proved, nor established, nor determined, nor found, there is nothing we can infer from it, beyond the sole purpose of 10.2.

You can take a horse to water. The presumption of intent that Houlihan was unable to refute, that consequently led to a finding of an intentional violation of the rules, means that CAS decided Houlihan - and no one else - was responsible for the nandrolone being found in her body. That is why she is serving a 4 year ban. Hard for you to accept, I know.

Amidst all the drivel you post, the most reassuring fact is none of it makes the slightest difference to the outcome of the case. Doping apologists lose.

No fault cases ignored by the non reader of the rules.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The CAS is like a court, but arbitration is not litigation.

CAS is a court - it is not like a court. It is not "litigation" - which is a civil process - and nor is it a criminal court, upon which you repose your misplaced "presumption of innocence". It is deciding an appeal on a question of whether an athlete had a plausible excuse for a doping violation. It decided she didn't.

Speaking of parading your ignorance, courts don’t ever have to prove intent. That would be up to one of the parties.

This from a "mathematician with a bent for statistics" And your qualifications in law are? Speaking of "ignorance".

I did not say CAS has to prove intent. I said the opposite. Intent is required to be proven by the prosecution in a criminal case, and in some civil cases. CAS is not a criminal court as doping is not a criminal matter and the anti-doping authorities do not have to prove intent. But when there is a presumption of intent then intent exists unless the athlete is able to show otherwise. Houlihan couldn't.

As no party was obligated to prove intent, it directly follows that intent was not proved.

Sigh. Intent does not have to be proven by anti-doping in order for it to exist; intent is a given once an athlete tests positive. That is what a presumption of intent means. The burden of proof of showing the absence of intent falls on the athlete, who is required to show no fault or negligence. Houlihan couldn't. Hard for you to grasp, I know.

None of your alternative “possibilities” was accepted either — rendering it as mere conjecture without adequate evidence, meaning nothing.

As no other "possibility" - such as those you have posited - was accepted by the Panel the finding was of an intentional violation of the rules. Try understanding the decision.

There was no judicial finding of “intentional”, but rather a “presumption” effectively codified by WADA.

Wrong. The decision resulted in a finding of intent because Houlihan was unable to refute the presumption.

Therefore, “intentional” is not an objective fact. It is more like the CAS “pretending” for a narrow purpose.

It is a finding by a Court. That is an objective fact. It isn't "pretending" anything. If the athlete cannot show that the violation was innocent the only alternative is that it was the result of her deliberate actions. Hard for you to grasp, I know.

Since “intention”, as meant to be used in 10.2, was presumed and deemed, and not proved, nor established, nor determined, nor found, there is nothing we can infer from it, beyond the sole purpose of 10.2.

You can take a horse to water. The presumption of intent that Houlihan was unable to refute, that consequently led to a finding of an intentional violation of the rules, means that CAS decided Houlihan - and no one else - was responsible for the nandrolone being found in her body. That is why she is serving a 4 year ban. Hard for you to accept, I know.

Amidst all the drivel you post, the most reassuring fact is none of it makes the slightest difference to the outcome of the case. Doping apologists lose.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It sounds like you still believe the CAS is a court. I find your simply restating your beliefs unpersuasive, and can only conclude it is like a court, but with significant differences.

It sounds like you believe the CAS ruled on “plausibility”. The CAS did not rule on “plausibility”. Try to understand the decision.

It sounds like you believe the CAS found “intent” and that “intentional” is an “objective” fact. Sigh. You can lead a horse to water. But I can’t lead a donkey.

WADA implicitly allows the CAS to “presume” a “special” definition of intent, as meant in 10.2.3, solely for the purpose of 10.2. Therefore, it is presumptuous to conclude that Houlihan engaged in conduct she knew was a violation, or knew was a high risk of a violation, and manifestly disregarded that risk.

You may find it reassuring, in an “ignorance is bliss” way, but I find the risk of the WADA process railroading athletes to 4-year penalties, just for eating USDA approved meat they cannot prove they ate one month later, runs counter to WADA’s stated goal of protecting clean athletes. This may or may not include Houlihan, but with all the presumptions and lack of burden, the adjudication process cannot distinguish genuine intentional dopers from those who unknowingly ingest a banned substance, yet simply cannot prove it. I can only hope that USADA Chief Travis Tygart will succeed in reforming the WADA Code to prevent this risk of failure to protect clean athletes.