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

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Pure nonsense. No evidence is required to say you still don't know where it came from. In fact, "no evidence" is a good reason to explain why you still wouldn't know. Lookup Ishikawa and show me where he says evidence is required to create a diagram of possibilities.

A "finding" of intent based solely on a presumption of intent is not "evidence" of intent. Maybe with your law background, you still have contact with some smart lawyers who can explain to you what "evidence" means. And for that matter, what "possible" means. Or maybe not because you annoyed all of them too much with your false arrogance and self-belief in your intelligence and your tendency for insults when unable to support your beliefs.

The reason you cannot provide evidence of intent is because the basis for the CAS "finding" of intent cannot be found in the CAS report. It can only be found in changes in the WADA Code drafted in 2015. As there is no evidence for this finding, in a real-world context not constrained by limited interpretations, it becomes pure fantasy.

You continue to think the problem is my understanding or not coming to terms with "facts". I can understand your pseudo-legal babble. It's just more nonsense. Your babble contradicts the clear understanding gained from reading what is explicit in the CAS report and from the WADA Code and associated ISTI guidelines and Technical Documents. I have read all the relevant parts of the documents and that allows me to reject your gospels.

I'm not a friend of the dopers, but a friend of a robust process that can properly identify the intentional dopers before the ignorant masses treats them like intentional cheats. It's hard to get things right, but also important for the sport. I'm also a friend of science and logic and mathematics, including probabilities, and can see all the weaknesses in the "near-zero" argument. Like Tygart -- I am arguing on behalf of all innocent athletes who have done nothing wrong, by not making them reponsible for things unreasonably beyond their control and knowledge. Punish intentional dopers to the full extent of the Code. Just make sure you have a process that gets it right by design, and not by luck. This requires further WADA Code reform.

Armstronglivs wrote:

1. "No evidence is required to say you still don't know where it came from. In fact, "no evidence" is a good reason to explain why you still wouldn't know." (quote)

- To say you "don't know" is a comment that establishes nothing factual. It is a statement just as easily made by someone who is guilty - and likely would be.

2. "A "finding" of intent based solely on a presumption of intent is not "evidence" of intent."(quote)

- A finding of intent is NOT based solely on a presumption of intent; it is based, firstly, on the undeniable presence of a banned drug in the athlete's system, and, secondly, on the athlete's failure to provide a convincing explanation. The athlete has thereby failed to rebut the presumption. Absence of convincing evidence of her innocence in the light of a banned drug in her system thereby becomes evidence of intent.

Houlihan was found quite properly to be an intentional doper. You have not identified an injustice or a system that requires reform. You simply show a refusal beyond all reason to face what CAS and the majority of readers on this site readily understand and a transparent desire to make it as difficult as possible to catch and punish offenders under the Code.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

1. "No evidence is required to say you still don't know where it came from. In fact, "no evidence" is a good reason to explain why you still wouldn't know." (quote)

- To say you "don't know" is a comment that establishes nothing factual. It is a statement just as easily made by someone who is guilty - and likely would be.

2. "A "finding" of intent based solely on a presumption of intent is not "evidence" of intent."(quote)

- A finding of intent is NOT based solely on a presumption of intent; it is based, firstly, on the undeniable presence of a banned drug in the athlete's system, and, secondly, on the athlete's failure to provide a convincing explanation. The athlete has thereby failed to rebut the presumption. Absence of convincing evidence of her innocence in the light of a banned drug in her system thereby becomes evidence of intent.

Houlihan was found quite properly to be an intentional doper. You have not identified an injustice or a system that requires reform. You simply show a refusal beyond all reason to face what CAS and the majority of readers on this site readily understand and a transparent desire to make it as difficult as possible to catch and punish offenders under the Code.

How thick are you?

No one ever said that possibilities are established facts. Why do you fabricate points just to argue with yourself? Is that the only way you can win arguments?

"Presence" is not a basis for intent. Presence can be intentional or unintentional. WADA treats these independently.

A presumption of intent, or a failure to rebut it, is also not a basis of intent.

Were we in 2014, with no presumption of intent, the same evidence would lead the CAS to declare a finding of presence/use, with no finding of "intentional" -- still a 2-year ban. The sole difference is the change of presumption codified by WADA in 2015.

I have identifed injustices: Getzmann and Lawson and 27 USADA cases are all injustices, as all of them were still penalized, and all of them still have a guilty verdict on their record.

My expressed desire is that it should be harder to railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans, and, because the bell rang, for the salivating ignorant masses to treat these athletes like intentional cheats. What you and the majority of readers you want to belong to don't want to admit is that the WADA Code, thanks to a few shortcuts in requiring evidence and logic, can arrive at findings that would not otherwise be possible. A finding resulting from the artifical constraints and redefinitions and interpretations of the WADA Code is not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality. Houlihan is contractually bound to accept them, as she is subect to WADA's contract. But I am not subject to WADA and as I am not constrained to turn off parts of my brain, I will apply much more robust intellectual standards.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So "possibilities" aren't established facts? You mean they might simply be lies? That is a possibility you can't possibly entertain. Since you are effectively saying anything is "possible", because it doesn't have to be established by facts, then you aren't saying anything. Guilt is just as easily inferred as innocence when "possibilities" aren't established by evidence of some kind. So your "possibilities" are largely meaningless. On that basis, your arguments are "possibly" the confused ramblings of a mind veering towards a psychosis of some kind. Since - like you - I don't require evidence to entertain what is possible I will entertain that view (although I suspect if pressed I could find evidence for it).

Of course "presence" is a basis for intent, otherwise intent would not need to be rebutted. Whether presence is intentional or unintentional has to be established by evidence. As we know, intent can be presumed because the most likely cause of the presence of a banned drug in an athlete's system is the athlete themselves. For it to be treated as unintentional requires evidence from the athlete showing this to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authorities.

But round and round the mulberry bush you continue to go, lamenting how "broken" the system is and how we cannot call Houlihan a doper because somewhere "out there" - like the X Files, no doubt - there may be evidence that shows Mexican food vendors are carelessly pouring performance enhancing drugs into their unsuspecting customers.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So "possibilities" aren't established facts? You mean they might simply be lies? That is a possibility you can't possibly entertain. Since you are effectively saying anything is "possible", because it doesn't have to be established by facts, then you aren't saying anything. Guilt is just as easily inferred as innocence when "possibilities" aren't established by evidence of some kind. So your "possibilities" are largely meaningless. On that basis, your arguments are "possibly" the confused ramblings of a mind veering towards a psychosis of some kind. Since - like you - I don't require evidence to entertain what is possible I will entertain that view (although I suspect if pressed I could find evidence for it).

Of course "presence" is a basis for intent, otherwise intent would not need to be rebutted. Whether presence is intentional or unintentional has to be established by evidence. As we know, intent can be presumed because the most likely cause of the presence of a banned drug in an athlete's system is the athlete themselves. For it to be treated as unintentional requires evidence from the athlete showing this to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authorities.

But round and round the mulberry bush you continue to go, lamenting how "broken" the system is and how we cannot call Houlihan a doper because somewhere "out there" - like the X Files, no doubt - there may be evidence that shows Mexican food vendors are carelessly pouring performance enhancing drugs into their unsuspecting customers.

This is your merry-go-round, because you still think I'm arguing she is innocent, after all this time, rather than criticizing a process that can't tell the difference precisely because it allows drawing conclusions without evidence. Your X-files comment only highlights the depth of your ignorance. Prof. Ayotte has been studying nandrolone from pork ingestion for decades, for a reason, and nandrolone is not something added to pork, but occurs naturally in intact boars. Prof. McGlone conceded that intact boars slip through the cracks into the food supply despite USDA inspectors best efforts. This was never the fault of Mexican food vendors -- who I assume simply purchased USDA approved pork and pork products.

No, possibilities are not established facts, but just possibilities. With evidence they can become established facts.

"Intentional doping" is also a possibility, but not quite an established fact, lacking the evidence necessary to establish it. WADA got around that difficult evidentiary burden by allowing antidoping bodies to presume it, something the CAS was bound to respect.

These are not my possibilities. They exist with or without me.

Contrary to your serial self-deception, I can entertain the possibility that Houlihan is lying, and that she is guilty of intentional doping, in the real world sense. But without more evidence, it remains one of several possibilities.

I can also entertain the possibility that Prof. Ayotte lied, and that Prof. McGlone understated the impact of the pandemic.

When you discount meaningless possibilities, this necessarily includes Prof. Ayotte's suggestion of doping with an exogenous norsteroid precursor.

Presence is clearly not a basis for intent, because presence can be unintentional -- see Getzmann, and Lawson, and 27 USADA athletes -- and these are just the tips of the iceberg we know about. For these cases of potential unintended ingestion of small quantities of a banned substance, with questionable performance benefit, there is no basis to say "because the most likely cause of the presence of a banned drug in an athlete's system is the athlete themselves". This is another one of your many pure fantasies.