The denial here is endless, as it always is on the doper threads. Despite an appeal court finding of a doping violation that results in a 4-year ban the offender is a "victim of an unfair process" and should on no account be labelled a "doper" as understood by most users of the English language. It is like reading the President Putin is defending Russia against a Nazi invasion from Ukraine. It is beyond intelligible discourse.
-
231
-
Appeal wrote:
RunRaider wrote:
Okay but how is it a violation of Swiss law that CAS issued a non-unanimous ruling?
It should be noted that Houlihan’s legal team is already 0-1 at the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
They don’t have to show a violation of Swiss law to win the appeal. You may have read that on a board somewhere.
Houlihan’s attorney was unable to get an injunction because the Swiss court hadn’t heard any facts of the case. They may lose this case, but i don’t believe an earlier application for an injunction has any relation to the case itself.
What do they have to show, then?
The Court of Arbitration for Sport is not a “real” court — it’s a binding arbitration board whose parties must mutually agree to abide by its decisions. Unless there was some violation of the law, why should the Swiss Federal Tribunal care if an American doesn’t like the ruling she previously agreed she’d abide by?
It doesn’t stand to reason that, actually, CAS doesn’t have the “final say” in these cases, the Swiss Federal Tribunal does.
Interestingly, Caster Semenya tried a similar Hail Mary appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal and lost. You can read their ruling here, but the Tribunal explicitly says in their dismissal that they didn’t have grounds to vacate the CAS ruling in her case.
“The SFC emphasized that its competences in the case were limited to examine whether the CAS Award violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order, which, as it clarified, includes the prohibition of discrimination, certain personality rights of athletes and the notion of human dignity”
If that description doesn’t apply to Caster Semenya’s case, it certainly doesn’t bode well for Shelby Houlihan.
70 -
Welness clynic wrote:
Not this garbage again wrote:
Why should we stress about the meat supply in U.S. and S. Houlihan's burrito? S. Houlihan did not accidently ingest P.E.D.s. S. Houlihan did not miraculously become P.E.D. positive from a burrito. Your issue is that the case was not proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. As I stated, Preponderance of the Evidence is the standard.
Actually it is “ comfortable satisfaction” comes very very close to being “ beyond reasonable doubt “ in serious cases.
And how on earth do you know SH did not injest a PED.The CAS panel did not so how do you?
Your question shows the you do not understand the balance of probabilities, which was the test applied. It is not in any way "beyond reasonable doubt", the standard applied in criminal cases. That simple misunderstanding shows how you are essentially wrong about everything in this case.
52 -
The only deniers are Rojo and Gault. A vast majority of the posters here have no doubts regarding the verdict. Rojo seems to have a personal connection with the BTC coaches, which has clouded his judgement. Gault woks for Rojo.
231 -
Jeramy Throuop wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I don't know why anyone stresses about the meat supply in the US. It is the wrong measure of intent.
Ignoring that you mixed up the applicable standards, my issue is separating what can be logically concluded from the CAS report, in the context of the WADA Code, and what claims simply do not follow, lacking tangible evidence.
The core problem is that strict liability was primarily for administrative offences and low level offences and not offences that have a huge life changing effect.
That isn't the core problem. The core problem would be having to prove intent for the presence of a banned drug. No one would ever be found guilty of a doping offence. The athlete is properly deemed responsible for what is in their body unless they can show it was without negligence or conduct in breach of the rules. Since the consequences of their failure to do this are - as you say - of some personal magnitude, it requires of them a high standard of both diligence and compliance. Without that spur we would see many more cases of "careless" doping. Houlihan is hardly a case to go into bat for, to argue the alleged injustice of the system.
110 -
Iron Bars wrote:
The only deniers are Rojo and Gault. A vast majority of the posters here have no doubts regarding the verdict. Rojo seems to have a personal connection with the BTC coaches, which has clouded his judgement. Gault woks for Rojo.
They aren't the only deniers. They have their usual Greek chorus here.
100 -
Could Schumacher be in love with Houlihan, thus protecting her? I've never heard of a wife, etc. Big emotional attachment blinding decision making?
59 -
DI Coach Here wrote:
Could Schumacher be in love with Houlihan, thus protecting her? I've never heard of a wife, etc. Big emotional attachment blinding decision making?
He has a wife and four kids… Houlihan literally peed hot at Centro’s place
140 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Iron Bars wrote:
The only deniers are Rojo and Gault. A vast majority of the posters here have no doubts regarding the verdict. Rojo seems to have a personal connection with the BTC coaches, which has clouded his judgement. Gault woks for Rojo.
They aren't the only deniers. They have their usual Greek chorus here.
They fully accept there is doping in the sport so that they are not deniers.Why do you make things up to the point that you are a liar?
010 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Jeramy Throuop wrote:
The core problem is that strict liability was primarily for administrative offences and low level offences and not offences that have a huge life changing effect.
That isn't the core problem. The core problem would be having to prove intent for the presence of a banned drug. No one would ever be found guilty of a doping offence. The athlete is properly deemed responsible for what is in their body unless they can show it was without negligence or conduct in breach of the rules. Since the consequences of their failure to do this are - as you say - of some personal magnitude, it requires of them a high standard of both diligence and compliance. Without that spur we would see many more cases of "careless" doping. Houlihan is hardly a case to go into bat for, to argue the alleged injustice of the system.
Yes they would still be found guilty; the problem would be the process would take longer.
No other justice system would accept strict liability in such life changing rules.
Intent has to be proved in nearly every court case.Think about the difference between murder or manslaughter.Or possession of stolen goods.
A billion people are expected to follow the Wada rules; how can they be fairly and evenly applied?
012 -
This thread really went off the rails. Aren't there other threads out there to debate the intricacies of the case?
120 -
Reer wrote:
This thread really went off the rails. Aren't there other threads out there to debate the intricacies of the case?
That is my fault for asking about the appeals process which prompted the usual nutjobs to spout the same crap they've been spouting in every thread ad nauseum. Apologies for getting off-topic.
100 -
Burritogatorz wrote:
DI Coach Here wrote:
Could Schumacher be in love with Houlihan, thus protecting her? I've never heard of a wife, etc. Big emotional attachment blinding decision making?
He has a wife and four kids… Houlihan literally peed hot at Centro’s place
How does it make sense that Centro never tested positive then?
You know they weren't sleeping in separate beds.
18 -
Rupp is a Carbon Cyborg wrote:
Burritogatorz wrote:
He has a wife and four kids… Houlihan literally peed hot at Centro’s place
How does it make sense that Centro never tested positive then?
You know they weren't sleeping in separate beds.
Because nandrolone isn't an STD?
261 -
Low Mileage Runner wrote:
Go GDS! Makes me an even bigger fan of her. Seems like she has way more personality than the other BTC people and also she actually likes to race. Hopefully we'll see her on the track more often now.
^This. I was suspicious of anybody remaining at BTC and GDS left at what sounds like was her earliest opportunity, and she spoke out in the process. Good for her. I will go back to rooting for her and hope she has a lot of success.
160 -
RunRaider wrote:
Appeal wrote:
They don’t have to show a violation of Swiss law to win the appeal. You may have read that on a board somewhere.
Houlihan’s attorney was unable to get an injunction because the Swiss court hadn’t heard any facts of the case. They may lose this case, but i don’t believe an earlier application for an injunction has any relation to the case itself.
What do they have to show, then?
The Court of Arbitration for Sport is not a “real” court — it’s a binding arbitration board whose parties must mutually agree to abide by its decisions. Unless there was some violation of the law, why should the Swiss Federal Tribunal care if an American doesn’t like the ruling she previously agreed she’d abide by?
It doesn’t stand to reason that, actually, CAS doesn’t have the “final say” in these cases, the Swiss Federal Tribunal does.
Interestingly, Caster Semenya tried a similar Hail Mary appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal and lost. You can read their ruling here, but the Tribunal explicitly says in their dismissal that they didn’t have grounds to vacate the CAS ruling in her case.
“The SFC emphasized that its competences in the case were limited to examine whether the CAS Award violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order, which, as it clarified, includes the prohibition of discrimination, certain personality rights of athletes and the notion of human dignity”
If that description doesn’t apply to Caster Semenya’s case, it certainly doesn’t bode well for Shelby Houlihan.
The Caster Semenya case has zero to do with the Houlihan case, IMO. It is just one of countless court cases appealed to the Swiss Court where one side wins.
Your post gave one example of what could overturn a CAS ruling: “whether the CAS Award violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order.” Some may argue that if the Award violates priciples of public order, then it “violates Swiss Law.” I don’t think that debate is important. They can also appeal on procedural grounds such as bias or new evidence.
I believe that there was a significant problem with the CAS Award that “violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order” irrespective of whether Houlihan is “innocent” or “gulity.”
12 -
Reer wrote:
This thread really went off the rails. Aren't there other threads out there to debate the intricacies of the case?
not off the rails, central being is she a cheat; if not seen as such the BTC will be seen in a different light.
06 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Welness clynic wrote:
Actually it is “ comfortable satisfaction” comes very very close to being “ beyond reasonable doubt “ in serious cases.
And how on earth do you know SH did not injest a PED.The CAS panel did not so how do you?
Your question shows the you do not understand the balance of probabilities, which was the test applied. It is not in any way "beyond reasonable doubt", the standard applied in criminal cases. That simple misunderstanding shows how you are essentially wrong about everything in this case.
You are mistaken; read 3.1 of the wada code and then apologise.
It is comfortable satisfaction. You have been told this many time and this you thus must be seen as a liar.
I do recall you saying you can’t be bothered reading the rules but that is no excuse for carrying on lying.
06 -
Appeal wrote:
RunRaider wrote:
What do they have to show, then?
The Court of Arbitration for Sport is not a “real” court — it’s a binding arbitration board whose parties must mutually agree to abide by its decisions. Unless there was some violation of the law, why should the Swiss Federal Tribunal care if an American doesn’t like the ruling she previously agreed she’d abide by?
It doesn’t stand to reason that, actually, CAS doesn’t have the “final say” in these cases, the Swiss Federal Tribunal does.
Interestingly, Caster Semenya tried a similar Hail Mary appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal and lost. You can read their ruling here, but the Tribunal explicitly says in their dismissal that they didn’t have grounds to vacate the CAS ruling in her case.
“The SFC emphasized that its competences in the case were limited to examine whether the CAS Award violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order, which, as it clarified, includes the prohibition of discrimination, certain personality rights of athletes and the notion of human dignity”
If that description doesn’t apply to Caster Semenya’s case, it certainly doesn’t bode well for Shelby Houlihan.
The Caster Semenya case has zero to do with the Houlihan case, IMO. It is just one of countless court cases appealed to the Swiss Court where one side wins.
Your post gave one example of what could overturn a CAS ruling: “whether the CAS Award violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order.” Some may argue that if the Award violates priciples of public order, then it “violates Swiss Law.” I don’t think that debate is important. They can also appeal on procedural grounds such as bias or new evidence.
I believe that there was a significant problem with the CAS Award that “violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order” irrespective of whether Houlihan is “innocent” or “gulity.”
There is substantial legal opinion that as the athlete has no choice of the arbitration then the CAS process fails in law.
06 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Jeramy Throuop wrote:
The core problem is that strict liability was primarily for administrative offences and low level offences and not offences that have a huge life changing effect.
That isn't the core problem. The core problem would be having to prove intent for the presence of a banned drug. No one would ever be found guilty of a doping offence. The athlete is properly deemed responsible for what is in their body unless they can show it was without negligence or conduct in breach of the rules. Since the consequences of their failure to do this are - as you say - of some personal magnitude, it requires of them a high standard of both diligence and compliance. Without that spur we would see many more cases of "careless" doping. Houlihan is hardly a case to go into bat for, to argue the alleged injustice of the system.
Why is it deemed proper for the athlete to be responsible for what is in their body?
08
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun