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.
Weak attempt to cover up that you have not a clue what the rules are.
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.
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.
I do prefer allegations when they are not baseless. In the realm of science, and law, basis gives something meaning and weight, and allegations lacking basis are generally rejected or ignored.
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.
If NOP never doped any single NOP athlete, then Howman's general quote is not applicable, but just more noise. It's like you saying "the extent of our ignorance is so far beyond our comprehension that anything could be possible and that wouldn't surprise us".
What is undisputed is that any allegations of NOP doping remains baseless, despite a lengthy investigation including 30 witnesses, a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts, reviewed by 4 separate anti-doping organizations, each explicitly saying there is no basis to suspect any NOP athlete.
It's farcical now to see the attention turn to Bowerman athletes, after all these predicted NOP busts failed to materialize.
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.
Your weird analogies provide some insight to how weirdly you think. Of course it's nothing like heroin in your veins, except for the most shallow intellects.
You only look ignorant when you haven't yet read the Code. The "comfortable satisfaction" burden is not applied to the confirmed test, but whether that constitutes an ADRV. Confirmed tests can be reported as an ATF, which would not be prosecuted, at least without further testing. Determining it was an ADRV was not a unanimous conclusion among the CAS panel.
The ADRV decision is also not beyond reasonable doubt, because there are reasonable doubts about the unidentified source of the nandrolone, and whether it's undisputed ingestion was no-fault, non-negligent, intentional, or with knowledge. It's just that the artificial WADA principle of "strict liability", designed to make prosecution of both innocent and guilty athletes alike, removes any benefit of the doubt.
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.
Your weird analogies provide some insight to how weirdly you think. Of course it's nothing like heroin in your veins, except for the most shallow intellects.
You only look ignorant when you haven't yet read the Code. The "comfortable satisfaction" burden is not applied to the confirmed test, but whether that constitutes an ADRV. Confirmed tests can be reported as an ATF, which would not be prosecuted, at least without further testing. Determining it was an ADRV was not a unanimous conclusion among the CAS panel.
The ADRV decision is also not beyond reasonable doubt, because there are reasonable doubts about the unidentified source of the nandrolone, and whether it's undisputed ingestion was no-fault, non-negligent, intentional, or with knowledge. It's just that the artificial WADA principle of "strict liability", designed to make prosecution of both innocent and guilty athletes alike, removes any benefit of the doubt.
Exactly.
The Wada code actually says they can’t afford to do things as expected in criminal or civil cases.ie … what would be called the real world.
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.
Hardly a cottage industry at a billion.
Anti-doping is not a billion - and it was anti-doping that I referred to as a "cottage industry". Are you really so dim you cannot tell the difference between doping and anti-doping? I guess you must be.
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.
Your weird analogies provide some insight to how weirdly you think. Of course it's nothing like heroin in your veins, except for the most shallow intellects.
You only look ignorant when you haven't yet read the Code. The "comfortable satisfaction" burden is not applied to the confirmed test, but whether that constitutes an ADRV. Confirmed tests can be reported as an ATF, which would not be prosecuted, at least without further testing. Determining it was an ADRV was not a unanimous conclusion among the CAS panel.
The ADRV decision is also not beyond reasonable doubt, because there are reasonable doubts about the unidentified source of the nandrolone, and whether it's undisputed ingestion was no-fault, non-negligent, intentional, or with knowledge. It's just that the artificial WADA principle of "strict liability", designed to make prosecution of both innocent and guilty athletes alike, removes any benefit of the doubt.
I see analogies are beyond your reasoning powers. Heroin was merely given as an example of a banned substance, as nandrolone is in sports, that can be detected by tests.
Your waffle about an ADRV shows you are unable to distinguish between evidence that is conforms to the highest standard of proof, as a confirmed failed test does, and a verdict arrived at on the totality of the evidence, which will be based on the balance of probabilities.
Your arguments - or inability to grapple with them - explains how CAS is able to arrive at a logically and factually sound decision but you are unable to understand it. Life must be very difficult for you.
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.
If NOP never doped any single NOP athlete, then Howman's general quote is not applicable, but just more noise. It's like you saying "the extent of our ignorance is so far beyond our comprehension that anything could be possible and that wouldn't surprise us".
What is undisputed is that any allegations of NOP doping remains baseless, despite a lengthy investigation including 30 witnesses, a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts, reviewed by 4 separate anti-doping organizations, each explicitly saying there is no basis to suspect any NOP athlete.
It's farcical now to see the attention turn to Bowerman athletes, after all these predicted NOP busts failed to materialize.
As Richard Pound has said of dopers that "only the dumb and the careless get caught" the least that can be said of NOP athletes is not that they were not doped but that they weren't dumb or careless. But their coach was.
What you call the "real world" is merely your preferences. CAS and WADA are the real world, whether you like it or not.
I do prefer allegations when they are not baseless. In the realm of science, and law, basis gives something meaning and weight, and allegations lacking basis are generally rejected or ignored.
Yes, they - so it is reassuring that WADA and CAS claims aren't rejected or ignored.
I see analogies are beyond your reasoning powers. Heroin was merely given as an example of a banned substance, as nandrolone is in sports, that can be detected by tests.
Your waffle about an ADRV shows you are unable to distinguish between evidence that is conforms to the highest standard of proof, as a confirmed failed test does, and a verdict arrived at on the totality of the evidence, which will be based on the balance of probabilities.
Your arguments - or inability to grapple with them - explains how CAS is able to arrive at a logically and factually sound decision but you are unable to understand it. Life must be very difficult for you.
It's amusing when you think the issue must be that no one understands your dumbed-down ideas lacking nuance and depth.
It is a failed analogy, as 1) their is no burden that applies to confirmed tests, so there is nothing to distinguish, 2) nandrolone was not injected into the veins, but ingested and mostly first-passed into the urine, and 3) nandrolone is naturally available in the food supply, and experts like Prof. Ayotte have known this for decades.
As we just saw, the verdict arrived at on the totality of the evidence is based on the comfortable satisfiction of the CAS Panel.
I completely understand the CAS decision. It is only possible within the WADA Code, which allows ADAs/ADOs to take some shortcuts to make the decisions less factual and sound.
As Richard Pound has said of dopers that "only the dumb and the careless get caught" the least that can be said of NOP athletes is not that they were not doped but that they weren't dumb or careless. But their coach was.
Richard Pound was talking about getting caught from WADA testing, and not a multi-year intensive investigation including 30 witnesses, a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts, reviewed by 4 separate anti-doping organizations.
I do prefer allegations when they are not baseless. In the realm of science, and law, basis gives something meaning and weight, and allegations lacking basis are generally rejected or ignored.
Yes, they - so it is reassuring that WADA and CAS claims aren't rejected or ignored.
Then you should also be reassured that I don't reject or ignore WADA and CAS claims either, but the non-logical extrapolated claims of anonymous nobodies that cannot be found in the CAS report.
I point out that the CAS doesn't call Houlihan a doper, nor did they find she knowingly doped with an exogenous nandrolone product.
If NOP never doped any single NOP athlete, then Howman's general quote is not applicable, but just more noise. It's like you saying "the extent of our ignorance is so far beyond our comprehension that anything could be possible and that wouldn't surprise us".
What is undisputed is that any allegations of NOP doping remains baseless, despite a lengthy investigation including 30 witnesses, a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts, reviewed by 4 separate anti-doping organizations, each explicitly saying there is no basis to suspect any NOP athlete.
It's farcical now to see the attention turn to Bowerman athletes, after all these predicted NOP busts failed to materialize.
As Richard Pound has said of dopers that "only the dumb and the careless get caught" the least that can be said of NOP athletes is not that they were not doped but that they weren't dumb or careless. But their coach was.
Appalling simplistic allegations that have been found groundless from the man who did not know what the standard of proof is after 15,000 posts.
Your weird analogies provide some insight to how weirdly you think. Of course it's nothing like heroin in your veins, except for the most shallow intellects.
You only look ignorant when you haven't yet read the Code. The "comfortable satisfaction" burden is not applied to the confirmed test, but whether that constitutes an ADRV. Confirmed tests can be reported as an ATF, which would not be prosecuted, at least without further testing. Determining it was an ADRV was not a unanimous conclusion among the CAS panel.
The ADRV decision is also not beyond reasonable doubt, because there are reasonable doubts about the unidentified source of the nandrolone, and whether it's undisputed ingestion was no-fault, non-negligent, intentional, or with knowledge. It's just that the artificial WADA principle of "strict liability", designed to make prosecution of both innocent and guilty athletes alike, removes any benefit of the doubt.
I see analogies are beyond your reasoning powers. Heroin was merely given as an example of a banned substance, as nandrolone is in sports, that can be detected by tests.
Your waffle about an ADRV shows you are unable to distinguish between evidence that is conforms to the highest standard of proof, as a confirmed failed test does, and a verdict arrived at on the totality of the evidence, which will be based on the balance of probabilities.
Your arguments - or inability to grapple with them - explains how CAS is able to arrive at a logically and factually sound decision but you are unable to understand it. Life must be very difficult for you.
“Evidence that conforms to the highest standard of proof” you say.What does that mean as you are clueless what the standard of proof is.
As it happens the lab report only conforms to what Wada say are the standards that Wada use.
This can be challenged on various grounds but the corridor to do so is limited due to it being deemed as a prior fact that they are correct.
Once again you utterly fail at the most basic steps of reading and understanding the Wada code.
The standard is NOT balance of probabilities!
Why do you keep demonstrating your lack of education.
Go away until you have the basic grasp of what you are talking about.
Anti-doping is not a billion - and it was anti-doping that I referred to as a "cottage industry". Are you really so dim you cannot tell the difference between doping and anti-doping? I guess you must be.
More lack of your education demonstrated and this reinforced by your continuing insults .
Anti doping is a billion dollar industry and thus not a cottage industry.
Anti-doping is not a billion - and it was anti-doping that I referred to as a "cottage industry". Are you really so dim you cannot tell the difference between doping and anti-doping? I guess you must be.
More lack of your education demonstrated and this reinforced by your continuing insults .
Anti doping is a billion dollar industry and thus not a cottage industry.
Do pay attention.
Show us the money. Who is spending a billion dollars on anti-doping? Figures for each agency involved.
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.