Shelby Quote " it could've been someone around me " .... Who is the saboteur 🧐?

The thing is, I never asked you to show me evidence of "doping".

What you are saying is that the CAS had no evidence of intent but found it anyway. There is no basis in evidence for that finding.

My jay-walking analogy is far superior, not requiring any explanations to remove the weirdness. But in any case, bank embezzlement is just more fantasy. I'm tired of you injecting your fantasy in the discussion, when you are simply asked to show the evidence of your own claims.

Proving your innocence one month after the fact involves a lot of luck. That's what Getzmann shows us. He got lucky. The bar is very high if you don't have samples to test, like Getzmann, and in any case, higher than "reasonable possibility". Houlihan provided a reasonable possibility -- one that scientists like Prof. Ayotte have spent decades studying. The bar is "more likely than not", which requires concrete evidence. I thought you had a law background. That just looks like another one of your domains of incompetence.

Why should I? It is not my claim. Saying something is possible requires no evidence. Anything is possible until it is found to be impossible. Even the CAS ruled that nandrolone by burrito was possible. The meaning was large enough then.

But while we are at it, here we are 18 months later, and Armstronglivs did not provide any shred of evidence of intent.

"Houlihan provided a reasonable possibility -- one that scientists like Prof. Ayotte have spent decades studying. The bar is "more likely than not", which requires concrete evidence."(quote)

You never stop lying. Houlihan did not provide a "reasonable possibility" - her explanation was officially described as being "close to zero" likelihood. That is virtually a polar opposite to "more likely than not". Her lack of what you describe as "concrete evidence" is because she had nothing more than a claim it might have been a burrito. Yet you keep insisting - and without evidence - that somehow she could have obtained evidence for a sustainable defence. But your problem - and thus hers - is that there is no evidence to make that claim.

Wrong again. Saying something is possible requires evidence. Otherwise it is merely hot air. For something to be true or simply probable requires more evidence than that which is only deemed possible. That you cannot grasp that explains why you cannot understand the decision. CAS accepted contamination was possible on the evidence submitted but ruled it unlikely. It failed all measures of probability.

I don't have to provide evidence of intent; the evidence is the decision itself, which found intent on the facts of the case. Your doping-denier mind simply cannot come to terms with the fact that to have a banned drug in your system invokes the presumption of intent because the drug could not have got there by itself. The only way the athlete can rebut that presumption is to satisfy the Panel that she was not the cause of the violation. Houlihan failed to do that. She therefore established intent by being unable to show that. That is what an onus of proof requires - to provide evidence to satisfy that onus. But you cannot accept that in a doping case it falls on the athlete once the violation has been established; in your world the onus has to rest solely with the prosecuting authority. It doesn't. But that is because you want to make it as hard as possible for the anti-doping authorities to prove doping. You are the doper's friend.

You show that you never read the title of the thread or the first page (which quoted Houlihan from her published comments). What is theoretically possible (to use your term) is that you might not be a complete mental incompetent; unfortunately for you the evidence confirms that you are.

"Armstronglivs called possibilities without evidence pure fantasy."

"Fantasy is not a proper basis for justice and ensuring fairness to all athletes."(quote)

In that I would have to agree with you. Unfortunately, fantasies are all you have.

"But you said found.

FOUND FOUND FOUND"(quote)

TEST TEST TEST

Nothing in his case suggests Houlihan also would have had evidence that could have exonerated her. You show you do not understand that evidence is not "luck". Houlihan wasn't unlucky - she lacked evidence. That goes hand in hand with guilt.

Insult upon insult.

You just can’t go off an isolated quote outside context.

Nor can you mangle the English language as you do and hope to get away with it.

She offered no alternative reason only the theoretical possibility that such could exist and that was said in the context of trying to account for something unknown a month ago.

Only in your own mind.

What sort of answer is that.

Cant you face up to your utter lack of knowledge.

Drug found in digestive system; that is what you kept saying.

How does science propose a theory to be tested but at the same time have evidence that proves the theory.

You still continue to demonstrate that you have yet to read or understand the rules.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove the athlete’s guilt.My world is the same as Wada’s .I

ditto

ditto

ditto

Armstronglivs.
What % of convictions of non cheaters do you accept as ok.

Asked scores of time.

What % of convictions of non-cheaters is there? Confirmed data, please. Otherwise, I don't see a problem exists other than in your fevered mind.

An other insult.

So there is no problem with the innocent being found guilty.

My question does not require any data.It did not ask what % are convicted non cheats.It asked yet again what % would you find acceptable.

Found you said.

Armstronglivs.

what are “factual implications”?

Haven’t read of much the thread but this certainly incorrect. Once the drug is found in your system, the burden of proof now rests with the athlete to prove lack of intent.

Don’t bother with the thread: get round to reading the rules.