Because the CAS hearing is not in a criminal jurisdiction, which has "beyond reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof. The decision refers to what was "probable" (and less than probable), which requires adherence to the standard of the balance of probabilities when dealing with competing claims of fact. If this were not so there would be no measure for assessing these respective claims, since they cannot be decided in the black and white terms that a positive test can. Houlihan failed the drug test - that is unequivocal - but her excuse failed the test of what the Court deemed probable. It furthermore deemed her offence intentional since accidental contamination was ruled out by virtue of the Court not accepting her explanation. I do not expect you to understand any of this.
Still not a clue what the standard of proof is for conviction.Waffle meaningless waffle.
I understand the application of rule 10 in the SH case but note that not once have you referred to rule 10.But then you have never given any indication that you have read the code.
Appalling intellectual application to the question.Do you actually know but dare not admit it or you just can’t be bothered to read the Wada code after all these years of issuing forth.
So for the n th time what is the standard of proof for a conviction under the Wada code?
For all this talk about this thread being about Shelby Houlihan's case, the CAS did not call her a doper, and the CAS did not find that she took any nandrolone product, or that it was likely. These findings cannot be found in the case -- only in the drivel of anonymous posts that have veered off-topic.
A person who commits an ADRV that is deemed intentional (because an accidental cause is not accepted) with an unequivocal finding of a banned drug in her system is by definition a doper. The term does not have to be used by CAS for it to be a fact. All CAS is concerned with is coming to a conclusion, one way or the other, about a breach of the anti-doping rules on the evidence before it. She had nandrolone in her system for which she could not produce a explanation that was accepted by CAS. It was thereby deemed an intentional offence that drew a penalty of a 4-year ban. In the real world that tells us she is a doper. You're welcome.
That is an easy answer which was not and cannot be proved, and gives no real insight into whether NOP athletes ever actually doped. WADA would be expected to take such a position as part of lobbying for more support of WADA, despite the already high expense of achieving its low 1-2% detection rates.
Howman is part of the anti doping industry and depends on keeping the moral panic going to keep his industry afloat.
Nothing like the money spent on doping. I guess that's why there is an "anti-doping (cottage) industry".
A person who commits an ADRV that is deemed intentional (because an accidental cause is not accepted) with an unequivocal finding of a banned drug in her system is by definition a doper. The term does not have to be used by CAS for it to be a fact. All CAS is concerned with is coming to a conclusion, one way or the other, about a breach of the anti-doping rules on the evidence before it. She had nandrolone in her system for which she could not produce a explanation that was accepted by CAS. It was thereby deemed an intentional offence that drew a penalty of a 4-year ban. In the real world that tells us she is a doper. You're welcome.
Here we go.
What is a doper?
No, we don't "go". You have ruled out understanding anything.
Still not a clue what the standard of proof is for conviction.Waffle meaningless waffle.
I understand the application of rule 10 in the SH case but note that not once have you referred to rule 10.But then you have never given any indication that you have read the code.
Appalling intellectual application to the question.Do you actually know but dare not admit it or you just can’t be bothered to read the Wada code after all these years of issuing forth.
So for the n th time what is the standard of proof for a conviction under the Wada code?
I did say you wouldn't understand what I said.
Even when exposed as either a fool or a liar your still persist with not reading the code.
So what is the standard of proof for a conviction under the Wada code.
Two words are the answer; very very simple. But having to read the Wada code and admit what they are seemingly is too much for you.
Before Armstronglies gets banned again for vile insults could he explain why he keeps saying the standard of proof for convictions is on the balance of probabilities.
I suspect he is a fool or a liar. Only he can clarify.
Because the CAS hearing is not in a criminal jurisdiction, which has "beyond reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof. The decision refers to what was "probable" (and less than probable), which requires adherence to the standard of the balance of probabilities when dealing with competing claims of fact. If this were not so there would be no measure for assessing these respective claims, since they cannot be decided in the black and white terms that a positive test can. Houlihan failed the drug test - that is unequivocal - but her excuse failed the test of what the Court deemed probable. It furthermore deemed her offence intentional since accidental contamination was ruled out by virtue of the Court not accepting her explanation. I do not expect you to understand any of this.
I think the answer he is looking for can easily be found in the Wada Code in Article 3: the ADA's burden of "conviction" is "comfortable satisfaction", and the athlete's burden of "defense" is "balance of probability".
Because the CAS hearing is not in a criminal jurisdiction, which has "beyond reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof. The decision refers to what was "probable" (and less than probable), which requires adherence to the standard of the balance of probabilities when dealing with competing claims of fact. If this were not so there would be no measure for assessing these respective claims, since they cannot be decided in the black and white terms that a positive test can. Houlihan failed the drug test - that is unequivocal - but her excuse failed the test of what the Court deemed probable. It furthermore deemed her offence intentional since accidental contamination was ruled out by virtue of the Court not accepting her explanation. I do not expect you to understand any of this.
I think the answer he is looking for can easily be found in the Wada Code in Article 3: the ADA's burden of "conviction" is "comfortable satisfaction", and the athlete's burden of "defense" is "balance of probability".
Comfortable satisfaction is indeed correct and has been since Beloff introduced this over 20 yrs ago.
But Armstronglies could not answer even though he has posted his uneducated thoughts over 15,000 times.
Howman is effectively saying NOP could dope and we wouldn't know. However no one can be penalised absent a confirmed violation. So no one (except maybe Houlihan) gets caught. WADA and anti-doping always argue for more resources but the sporting bodies have nothing to gain from busting their marquee athletes, so immeasurably more money goes into professional athlete salaries than anti-doping. But behind this veil we know that drugs are being used by many athletes, even if we can't say for certain which ones. It is a safe bet that if you can be more successful with drugs than not and not get caught then some athletes will use them. For many, their lives and careers will depend on it.
Likewise, NOP could be clean, and you wouldn't know. The common thread is that you don't really know either way.
You are effectively saying Howman doesn't really know anything about NOP, and you think that that should somehow be a more convincing argument, than a multi-year investigation into NOP, with two whistleblowers and 30 witnesses.
Maybe the reason they found nothing on NOP is best found by using Occam's razor -- NOP didn't dope their athletes.
For all this talk about this thread being about Shelby Houlihan's case, the CAS did not call her a doper, and the CAS did not find that she took any nandrolone product, or that it was likely. These findings cannot be found in the case -- only in the drivel of anonymous posts that have veered off-topic.
A person who commits an ADRV that is deemed intentional (because an accidental cause is not accepted) with an unequivocal finding of a banned drug in her system is by definition a doper. The term does not have to be used by CAS for it to be a fact. All CAS is concerned with is coming to a conclusion, one way or the other, about a breach of the anti-doping rules on the evidence before it. She had nandrolone in her system for which she could not produce a explanation that was accepted by CAS. It was thereby deemed an intentional offence that drew a penalty of a 4-year ban. In the real world that tells us she is a doper. You're welcome.
What you have described is what I mean by the artificial world created by the WADA Code, where WADA created its own expanded definition of "Doping", relaxed standards and removed any burden on the ADA/ADO to establish "intentional".
In the real world, a finding of "intent" would require substantial evidence, and not be allowed to be deemed by presumption, and an allegation of exogenous doping would require reliable evidence of the source.
Because the required evidence is lacking, we cannot logically and intelligently equate the CAS findings and sanction with the popular, hopeful, but unfounded real-world allegations.
Still not a clue what the standard of proof is for conviction.Waffle meaningless waffle.
I understand the application of rule 10 in the SH case but note that not once have you referred to rule 10.But then you have never given any indication that you have read the code.
Appalling intellectual application to the question.Do you actually know but dare not admit it or you just can’t be bothered to read the Wada code after all these years of issuing forth.
So for the n th time what is the standard of proof for a conviction under the Wada code?
I did say you wouldn't understand what I said.
I did fully understand what you said; pity you did not
A person who commits an ADRV that is deemed intentional (because an accidental cause is not accepted) with an unequivocal finding of a banned drug in her system is by definition a doper. The term does not have to be used by CAS for it to be a fact. All CAS is concerned with is coming to a conclusion, one way or the other, about a breach of the anti-doping rules on the evidence before it. She had nandrolone in her system for which she could not produce a explanation that was accepted by CAS. It was thereby deemed an intentional offence that drew a penalty of a 4-year ban. In the real world that tells us she is a doper. You're welcome.
What you have described is what I mean by the artificial world created by the WADA Code, where WADA created its own expanded definition of "Doping", relaxed standards and removed any burden on the ADA/ADO to establish "intentional".
In the real world, a finding of "intent" would require substantial evidence, and not be allowed to be deemed by presumption, and an allegation of exogenous doping would require reliable evidence of the source.
Because the required evidence is lacking, we cannot logically and intelligently equate the CAS findings and sanction with the popular, hopeful, but unfounded real-world allegations.
What you call the "real world" is merely your preferences. CAS and WADA are the real world, whether you like it or not.
Howman is effectively saying NOP could dope and we wouldn't know. However no one can be penalised absent a confirmed violation. So no one (except maybe Houlihan) gets caught. WADA and anti-doping always argue for more resources but the sporting bodies have nothing to gain from busting their marquee athletes, so immeasurably more money goes into professional athlete salaries than anti-doping. But behind this veil we know that drugs are being used by many athletes, even if we can't say for certain which ones. It is a safe bet that if you can be more successful with drugs than not and not get caught then some athletes will use them. For many, their lives and careers will depend on it.
Likewise, NOP could be clean, and you wouldn't know. The common thread is that you don't really know either way.
You are effectively saying Howman doesn't really know anything about NOP, and you think that that should somehow be a more convincing argument, than a multi-year investigation into NOP, with two whistleblowers and 30 witnesses.
Maybe the reason they found nothing on NOP is best found by using Occam's razor -- NOP didn't dope their athletes.
NOP may be clean but it can just as well be doping. But when one of its most prominent athletes is busted it raises questions about the others since they all train (and often live) together.
I didn't say that Howman doesn't know anything about NOP; his comments weren't directed specifically to them. I referred to his comments that dopers are generally able to evade being caught (a known fact) in response to your claim that NOP must be clean because no one (outside Houlihan) has been busted. Your cited investigation does not prove what you think it does. Conversely, I am not saying it is proven fact that NOP is doping. However, given the nature of the practice in modern elite sport I would be surprised if it wasn't.
Nothing like the money spent on doping. I guess that's why there is an "anti-doping (cottage) industry".
A billion dollar cottage industry!
As I said, you cannot read. Doping is a billion dollar plus black market (Al Jazeera) but anti-doping is a fraction of that. That is one of the reasons why doping remains ahead of anti-doping.
Because the CAS hearing is not in a criminal jurisdiction, which has "beyond reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof. The decision refers to what was "probable" (and less than probable), which requires adherence to the standard of the balance of probabilities when dealing with competing claims of fact. If this were not so there would be no measure for assessing these respective claims, since they cannot be decided in the black and white terms that a positive test can. Houlihan failed the drug test - that is unequivocal - but her excuse failed the test of what the Court deemed probable. It furthermore deemed her offence intentional since accidental contamination was ruled out by virtue of the Court not accepting her explanation. I do not expect you to understand any of this.
I think the answer he is looking for can easily be found in the Wada Code in Article 3: the ADA's burden of "conviction" is "comfortable satisfaction", and the athlete's burden of "defense" is "balance of probability".
A confirmed test for a banned substance (as we saw with Houlihan) goes way beyond "comfortable satisfaction". It is the equivalent of heroin, for example, in your veins for which you can provide no explanation that refutes you administered it to yourself.