So your logic says as if you can’t account for possession you must be guilty of a deliberate action. Why do you think that you are better than the anti doping world?
The anti-doping world doesn't have to prove intent. But it lays the blame at the feet of the athlete when the athlete cannot show they weren't responsible for their being doped. If an accidental or otherwise external cause isn't accepted that necessarily only leaves the athlete as the cause. That cause will be either intent or negligence. But while neither has to be proven, fault is a necessary inference from the facts in the absence of a legitimate explanation. That is why a positive test without acceptable excuse results in a conviction and a ban.
The Wada Code does not have to prove intent because the rules explicitly say the have not to.Lack of intent still brings a guilty verdict.
You are not only one of the worst liars who comes to this site, you are also a virtuoso of stupidity. No one achieves that on the scale at which you practice it. You have made a monument out of coming to erroneous conclusions on an elaborate artifice of falsehoods.
That Houlihan says she doesn't know where the nandrolone came from amounts to nothing. It is a mere denial of guilt with no facts to support it. You can base no argument on it. She claimed that the nandrolone was the result of consuming contaminated food; the argument failed because the evidence did not favour her argument; it lacked a convincing factual basis. She had no other explanation (until now, when she suggests possible sabotage - another argument with no facts to support it). Thus, the arguments for her innocence were and are devoid of substance. Your speculations add nothing - they are empty "what ifs".
As against that, the presence of a banned drug in her body was undeniable. That is irrefutable evidence of guilt. It also has a factual basis - unlike her defence. The nandrolone could not have simply materialised in her body; it had to be put there, whether by accident or intention. Questions of fact - as these are - depend on evidence to resolve them; there was NO evidence that unequivocally demonstrated what she claimed. It was mere speculation. The factually necessary conclusion on the balance of probabilities is that she was therefore the only cause of the nandrolone in her body. Hence, CAS determined she failed to rebut the presumption she had intentionally doped. That presumption is sustained by the elimination of her claimed alternative explanation.
As for Getzman - so what? It is an entirely different case; nothing in it is persuasive of Houlihan's innocence. It is also the only case in thousands where you can point to a decision being overturned - but it had to be so on further evidence. Houlihan can't produce that evidence, so she isn't Getzman.
These points have been endlessly explained to you but you cannot get past your obsession with excusing convicted dopers and denying the realities of the practice. The result is that you have consigned yourself to an asylum where you alone think you are the voice of reason. Your reason left you a long time ago.
Once more you are guilty of asylum levels of tautological illogicalities.
But then you have never once made any reference to the Wada Code.
I guess this illustrates you can argue what you want when you make up what words mean.
In the dictionary, cheating is to "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage."
Neither the AIU nor the CAS, established "act dishonestly", "act unfairly", or "in order to gain an advantage".
Re-reading what you wrote:
"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."
cheating is not within the "context of WADA" so wasn't "found to be so" by "the people who matter (not you, sorry)".
You can spend another 1000 hours pretending to be an expert on the WADA/AIU/CAS code and logic/reasoning. No one is listening.
You have to prove it is false; that has been the burden you place on others when you put stuff in quotes and won’t support it.
And am I wrong when I explain what the burdens of proof are or to correct you when you said; persistently; that the bladder is part of the digestive system.
Perhaps you would like to explain how nandrolone from an alleged contaminated burrito came to be found in her urine. She ate the burrito - digested it even, did she not?
Still persistent in the view that the bladder is part of the digestive system. Next you will be saying that the heart is part of the digestive system because the blood is forced to the stomach.
You wish to rewrite the Wada Code and every medical book in existence.
You are a person who would be the ridiculed one in ever class room you ever sat in.
You are not only one of the worst liars who comes to this site, you are also a virtuoso of stupidity. No one achieves that on the scale at which you practice it. You have made a monument out of coming to erroneous conclusions on an elaborate artifice of falsehoods.
That Houlihan says she doesn't know where the nandrolone came from amounts to nothing. It is a mere denial of guilt with no facts to support it. You can base no argument on it. She claimed that the nandrolone was the result of consuming contaminated food; the argument failed because the evidence did not favour her argument; it lacked a convincing factual basis. She had no other explanation (until now, when she suggests possible sabotage - another argument with no facts to support it). Thus, the arguments for her innocence were and are devoid of substance. Your speculations add nothing - they are empty "what ifs".
As against that, the presence of a banned drug in her body was undeniable. That is irrefutable evidence of guilt. It also has a factual basis - unlike her defence. The nandrolone could not have simply materialised in her body; it had to be put there, whether by accident or intention. Questions of fact - as these are - depend on evidence to resolve them; there was NO evidence that unequivocally demonstrated what she claimed. It was mere speculation. The factually necessary conclusion on the balance of probabilities is that she was therefore the only cause of the nandrolone in her body. Hence, CAS determined she failed to rebut the presumption she had intentionally doped. That presumption is sustained by the elimination of her claimed alternative explanation.
As for Getzman - so what? It is an entirely different case; nothing in it is persuasive of Houlihan's innocence. It is also the only case in thousands where you can point to a decision being overturned - but it had to be so on further evidence. Houlihan can't produce that evidence, so she isn't Getzman.
These points have been endlessly explained to you but you cannot get past your obsession with excusing convicted dopers and denying the realities of the practice. The result is that you have consigned yourself to an asylum where you alone think you are the voice of reason. Your reason left you a long time ago.
Indeed the nandrolone was present, and she didn't collect enough evidence to establish the source.
Getzmann shows just how lucky it is for an innocent athlete to be able to establish the source.
Besides Getzmann, there were 27 athletes, in the USA, since 2015, where Tygart tells us the same things.
What is the value of endless explanations if, as you so elegantly put it, they are all without evidence and therefore pure fantasy?
Perhaps you would like to explain how nandrolone from an alleged contaminated burrito came to be found in her urine. She ate the burrito - digested it even, did she not?
Still persistent in the view that the bladder is part of the digestive system. Next you will be saying that the heart is part of the digestive system because the blood is forced to the stomach.
You wish to rewrite the Wada Code and every medical book in existence.
You are a person who would be the ridiculed one in ever class room you ever sat in.
So can't answer the question. How does consuming a burrito result in nandrolone in her urine? Basic biology, is it not?
The rules were written for those who can understand them. That doesn't include you.
You have never once discussed or referred to them.
You did not even know what the burden of proof for conviction was.
The decision - which is debated ad nauseam here - is based on the rules. You are the only one who doesn't get that because you don't understand the decision. What you also cannot grasp is that the decision will have factual implications beyond what the rules specifically say. Your repetitious incantation of the "rules" is mere flatulence on your part. But we understand - there cannot be a more intellectually impaired poster on this board than you.
You are not only one of the worst liars who comes to this site, you are also a virtuoso of stupidity. No one achieves that on the scale at which you practice it. You have made a monument out of coming to erroneous conclusions on an elaborate artifice of falsehoods.
That Houlihan says she doesn't know where the nandrolone came from amounts to nothing. It is a mere denial of guilt with no facts to support it. You can base no argument on it. She claimed that the nandrolone was the result of consuming contaminated food; the argument failed because the evidence did not favour her argument; it lacked a convincing factual basis. She had no other explanation (until now, when she suggests possible sabotage - another argument with no facts to support it). Thus, the arguments for her innocence were and are devoid of substance. Your speculations add nothing - they are empty "what ifs".
As against that, the presence of a banned drug in her body was undeniable. That is irrefutable evidence of guilt. It also has a factual basis - unlike her defence. The nandrolone could not have simply materialised in her body; it had to be put there, whether by accident or intention. Questions of fact - as these are - depend on evidence to resolve them; there was NO evidence that unequivocally demonstrated what she claimed. It was mere speculation. The factually necessary conclusion on the balance of probabilities is that she was therefore the only cause of the nandrolone in her body. Hence, CAS determined she failed to rebut the presumption she had intentionally doped. That presumption is sustained by the elimination of her claimed alternative explanation.
As for Getzman - so what? It is an entirely different case; nothing in it is persuasive of Houlihan's innocence. It is also the only case in thousands where you can point to a decision being overturned - but it had to be so on further evidence. Houlihan can't produce that evidence, so she isn't Getzman.
These points have been endlessly explained to you but you cannot get past your obsession with excusing convicted dopers and denying the realities of the practice. The result is that you have consigned yourself to an asylum where you alone think you are the voice of reason. Your reason left you a long time ago.
Indeed the nandrolone was present, and she didn't collect enough evidence to establish the source.
Getzmann shows just how lucky it is for an innocent athlete to be able to establish the source.
Besides Getzmann, there were 27 athletes, in the USA, since 2015, where Tygart tells us the same things.
What is the value of endless explanations if, as you so elegantly put it, they are all without evidence and therefore pure fantasy?
She failed in her burden of proof. If it was a prosecution in a criminal case which failed to achieve its burden of proof you would not argue that the only reason the defendant has gone free is that the prosecution didn't gather enough evidence. That is saying the defendant is still guilty, only there "wasn't enough evidence". You are ludicrous in your transparent bias to avoid the necessary conclusion from Houlihan failing to meet the burden on her to show she did not dope when the evidence established doping. Fortunately CAS understands the facts, the rules and the procedures better than you do.
That Getzman was able to furnish evidence of his innocence says absolutely nothing about whether Houlihan was innocent, as she was unable to provide such evidence. We cannot infer there was any evidence that would have exonerated her. Unless you also wish to infer Ted Bundy was also innocent but that he, too, "didn't furnish enough evidence".
Indeed the nandrolone was present, and she didn't collect enough evidence to establish the source.
Getzmann shows just how lucky it is for an innocent athlete to be able to establish the source.
Besides Getzmann, there were 27 athletes, in the USA, since 2015, where Tygart tells us the same things.
What is the value of endless explanations if, as you so elegantly put it, they are all without evidence and therefore pure fantasy?
She failed in her burden of proof. If it was a prosecution in a criminal case which failed to achieve its burden of proof you would not argue that the only reason the defendant has gone free is that the prosecution didn't gather enough evidence. That is saying the defendant is still guilty, only there "wasn't enough evidence". You are ludicrous in your transparent bias to avoid the necessary conclusion from Houlihan failing to meet the burden on her to show she did not dope when the evidence established doping. Fortunately CAS understands the facts, the rules and the procedures better than you do.
That Getzman was able to furnish evidence of his innocence says absolutely nothing about whether Houlihan was innocent, as she was unable to provide such evidence. We cannot infer there was any evidence that would have exonerated her. Unless you also wish to infer Ted Bundy was also innocent but that he, too, "didn't furnish enough evidence".
What Tygart claims isn't proof of anything.
You keep coming back to explaining the CAS verdict as your comfy place. You are wasting your words because 1) the verdict and the reasons were never in dispute; 2) they avoid providing "evidence" of what is in dispute: subsequent popular allegations from the ignorant masses not found in the CAS decision; and 3) your explanations are both legally contorted and intellecutally defective, when they are not factually incorrect.
The goalpost is evidence, not explanation. As you told us before, wIthout evidence, it is pure fantasy.
Getzmann illustrates how much luck is involved in having the evidence necessary to meet the burden of proof. Houlihan failed to meet that burden because she did not have Getzmann's luck by coincidentally keeping the uneaten portion of the burrito for one month.
If it was a prosecution in a criminal case, the AIU would have to establish intent, with evidence, or charge her with the lesser "crimes" of unintentional presence/use. That seems more fair, criminal or not.
I didn't argue to let her free, but rather, in the few cases like these, "in the low ng/ml range (less than 10 ng/ml)", apply the parts of the WADA Code that recommend treating these positive results as an ATF, rather than an AAF, to gain more certainty.
Tygart proves that Getzmann is not "the only case in thousands" requiring luck. In the USA alone (recall Houlihan is American), there were 27 such cases, and counting, since 2015. Recall Tygart is a long-time anti-doping chief, with a law background, and you are anonymous. Easy call.
Indeed the nandrolone was present, and she didn't collect enough evidence to establish the source.
Getzmann shows just how lucky it is for an innocent athlete to be able to establish the source.
Besides Getzmann, there were 27 athletes, in the USA, since 2015, where Tygart tells us the same things.
What is the value of endless explanations if, as you so elegantly put it, they are all without evidence and therefore pure fantasy?
She failed in her burden of proof. If it was a prosecution in a criminal case which failed to achieve its burden of proof you would not argue that the only reason the defendant has gone free is that the prosecution didn't gather enough evidence. That is saying the defendant is still guilty, only there "wasn't enough evidence". You are ludicrous in your transparent bias to avoid the necessary conclusion from Houlihan failing to meet the burden on her to show she did not dope when the evidence established doping. Fortunately CAS understands the facts, the rules and the procedures better than you do.
That Getzman was able to furnish evidence of his innocence says absolutely nothing about whether Houlihan was innocent, as she was unable to provide such evidence. We cannot infer there was any evidence that would have exonerated her. Unless you also wish to infer Ted Bundy was also innocent but that he, too, "didn't furnish enough evidence".
What Tygart claims isn't proof of anything.
You manage to avoid any reference to the rules.
This is because your arguments are based on not understanding the burdens of proof as set out in the rules.
Within what you say is your constant terms of “ dopes” or “doper”. Terms that do not appear in the rules.
When asked to explain what you mean you reply with the tautology of a doper is someone who dopes and dopes is what a doper does.
Rules ; Rules; Rules. Read them, study them and reflect.
As it happens I agree with CAS and how they have applied the rules but this does not mean that one can or should go further than the rules constrict.
Still persistent in the view that the bladder is part of the digestive system. Next you will be saying that the heart is part of the digestive system because the blood is forced to the stomach.
You wish to rewrite the Wada Code and every medical book in existence.
You are a person who would be the ridiculed one in ever class room you ever sat in.
So can't answer the question. How does consuming a burrito result in nandrolone in her urine? Basic biology, is it not?
First one assumes that a burrito contained Nandrolone. But come what may when discovered in her urine it is a contradiction of all medical expertise to say it was found in her digestive system.Found in her digestive system was what you persistently claim… found …not passed through.
You have never once discussed or referred to them.
You did not even know what the burden of proof for conviction was.
The decision - which is debated ad nauseam here - is based on the rules. You are the only one who doesn't get that because you don't understand the decision. What you also cannot grasp is that the decision will have factual implications beyond what the rules specifically say. Your repetitious incantation of the "rules" is mere flatulence on your part. But we understand - there cannot be a more intellectually impaired poster on this board than you.
Factual implications. What on earth are they.
I think a classic example of an oxymoron.
Now if you wish to say that that you wish to interpret the decision in your own personal way and perspective that is fine but don’t construct the decision and rules as justification for your values esp when the rules explicitly say the opposite.
She failed in her burden of proof. If it was a prosecution in a criminal case which failed to achieve its burden of proof you would not argue that the only reason the defendant has gone free is that the prosecution didn't gather enough evidence. That is saying the defendant is still guilty, only there "wasn't enough evidence". You are ludicrous in your transparent bias to avoid the necessary conclusion from Houlihan failing to meet the burden on her to show she did not dope when the evidence established doping. Fortunately CAS understands the facts, the rules and the procedures better than you do.
That Getzman was able to furnish evidence of his innocence says absolutely nothing about whether Houlihan was innocent, as she was unable to provide such evidence. We cannot infer there was any evidence that would have exonerated her. Unless you also wish to infer Ted Bundy was also innocent but that he, too, "didn't furnish enough evidence".
What Tygart claims isn't proof of anything.
You keep coming back to explaining the CAS verdict as your comfy place. You are wasting your words because 1) the verdict and the reasons were never in dispute; 2) they avoid providing "evidence" of what is in dispute: subsequent popular allegations from the ignorant masses not found in the CAS decision; and 3) your explanations are both legally contorted and intellecutally defective, when they are not factually incorrect.
The goalpost is evidence, not explanation. As you told us before, wIthout evidence, it is pure fantasy.
Getzmann illustrates how much luck is involved in having the evidence necessary to meet the burden of proof. Houlihan failed to meet that burden because she did not have Getzmann's luck by coincidentally keeping the uneaten portion of the burrito for one month.
If it was a prosecution in a criminal case, the AIU would have to establish intent, with evidence, or charge her with the lesser "crimes" of unintentional presence/use. That seems more fair, criminal or not.
I didn't argue to let her free, but rather, in the few cases like these, "in the low ng/ml range (less than 10 ng/ml)", apply the parts of the WADA Code that recommend treating these positive results as an ATF, rather than an AAF, to gain more certainty.
Tygart proves that Getzmann is not "the only case in thousands" requiring luck. In the USA alone (recall Houlihan is American), there were 27 such cases, and counting, since 2015. Recall Tygart is a long-time anti-doping chief, with a law background, and you are anonymous. Easy call.
Garbage. I come back to the CAS verdict because you continually misrepresent what it means.
If Houlihan had supplied the burrito as evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion. The odds are it almost certainly would have confirmed what the experts said - a "near zero" likelihood of contamination. But you will always go with what is least possible over what is probable; CAS - and any other rational mind - doesn't.
If your goalpost is evidence, the only evidence confirming anything is the failed drug test. Only a drug cheat or an apologist says it isn't. Your "what ifs" are mere speculation. Facts always beat speculation.
For the last time, Houlihan is not Getzman. With two different individuals the facts can never be the same. That one athlete has doped or not has nothing to do with any other case. Getzmam obtained evidence that exonerated him - she didn't - and there is nothing to suggest from his case that she could have.
So Tygart has a law background - so do I. But you agree with him solely because it suits you. And you have no legal training that would enable you to judge who is correct. Tygart's views remain his own; he hasn't convinced the anti-doping authorities - who know as much if not more than he does. I go with WADA. It's an easy call, as you say.
So can't answer the question. How does consuming a burrito result in nandrolone in her urine? Basic biology, is it not?
First one assumes that a burrito contained Nandrolone. But come what may when discovered in her urine it is a contradiction of all medical expertise to say it was found in her digestive system.Found in her digestive system was what you persistently claim… found …not passed through.
Her defence was to argue that she had consumed a contaminated burrito. The drug was found in her urine. So if the burrito was the cause of her testing positive it had to be the result of her digesting the burrito. But clearly that is a fact you are unable to digest. One of many.
First one assumes that a burrito contained Nandrolone. But come what may when discovered in her urine it is a contradiction of all medical expertise to say it was found in her digestive system.Found in her digestive system was what you persistently claim… found …not passed through.
Her defence was to argue that she had consumed a contaminated burrito. The drug was found in her urine. So if the burrito was the cause of her testing positive it had to be the result of her digesting the burrito. But clearly that is a fact you are unable to digest. One of many.
Typical of flipping away from your previous statements.
You said repeatedly that the drug is was found in her digestive system.
You keep coming back to explaining the CAS verdict as your comfy place. You are wasting your words because 1) the verdict and the reasons were never in dispute; 2) they avoid providing "evidence" of what is in dispute: subsequent popular allegations from the ignorant masses not found in the CAS decision; and 3) your explanations are both legally contorted and intellecutally defective, when they are not factually incorrect.
The goalpost is evidence, not explanation. As you told us before, wIthout evidence, it is pure fantasy.
Getzmann illustrates how much luck is involved in having the evidence necessary to meet the burden of proof. Houlihan failed to meet that burden because she did not have Getzmann's luck by coincidentally keeping the uneaten portion of the burrito for one month.
If it was a prosecution in a criminal case, the AIU would have to establish intent, with evidence, or charge her with the lesser "crimes" of unintentional presence/use. That seems more fair, criminal or not.
I didn't argue to let her free, but rather, in the few cases like these, "in the low ng/ml range (less than 10 ng/ml)", apply the parts of the WADA Code that recommend treating these positive results as an ATF, rather than an AAF, to gain more certainty.
Tygart proves that Getzmann is not "the only case in thousands" requiring luck. In the USA alone (recall Houlihan is American), there were 27 such cases, and counting, since 2015. Recall Tygart is a long-time anti-doping chief, with a law background, and you are anonymous. Easy call.
Garbage. I come back to the CAS verdict because you continually misrepresent what it means.
If Houlihan had supplied the burrito as evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion. The odds are it almost certainly would have confirmed what the experts said - a "near zero" likelihood of contamination. But you will always go with what is least possible over what is probable; CAS - and any other rational mind - doesn't.
If your goalpost is evidence, the only evidence confirming anything is the failed drug test. Only a drug cheat or an apologist says it isn't. Your "what ifs" are mere speculation. Facts always beat speculation.
For the last time, Houlihan is not Getzman. With two different individuals the facts can never be the same. That one athlete has doped or not has nothing to do with any other case. Getzmam obtained evidence that exonerated him - she didn't - and there is nothing to suggest from his case that she could have.
So Tygart has a law background - so do I. But you agree with him solely because it suits you. And you have no legal training that would enable you to judge who is correct. Tygart's views remain his own; he hasn't convinced the anti-doping authorities - who know as much if not more than he does. I go with WADA. It's an easy call, as you say.
The CAS verdict had nothing whatsoever to do with the burrito matter.Thus your whole post b comes farce.
One day you get round to reading the Wada code.
You do not need legal training to add up the cases of no fault decisions.
The decision - which is debated ad nauseam here - is based on the rules. You are the only one who doesn't get that because you don't understand the decision. What you also cannot grasp is that the decision will have factual implications beyond what the rules specifically say. Your repetitious incantation of the "rules" is mere flatulence on your part. But we understand - there cannot be a more intellectually impaired poster on this board than you.
Factual implications. What on earth are they.
I think a classic example of an oxymoron.
Now if you wish to say that that you wish to interpret the decision in your own personal way and perspective that is fine but don’t construct the decision and rules as justification for your values esp when the rules explicitly say the opposite.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.