All excuses are merely "other possibilities" - but without evidence they are pure fantasy. That is sabotage. A mere fantasy in her case - much like her other excuses (and your arguments). So tell me more about the "possibility" that the moon is made of green cheese. There is just as much evidence for it. To you.
The only "excuse" with any evidence is the burrito. All others, including Prof. Ayotte's speculated norsteroid precursor, is without evidence and, by your own concession, pure fantasy.
Ordering a burrito isn't evidence. Same as a steak or a hamburger. It is simply a claim that it might have been something she ate. That isn't evidence.
"intentional doping is also a low probability".(quote)
That is the single-most ludicrous statement I have yet read here. The higher probability in regard to failing a doping test is of intentional doping, unless shown otherwise by contrary evidence. She didn't have that evidence. Nor do you. The CAS finding was accordingly of an intentional offence. Your arguments are pure fantasy. But you are making a convincing argument that bias of your kind ultimately manifests as sheer stupidity.
Considering the source, I'm not too worried about your judgements.
But please hold yourself to a higher intellectual standard. I'm prepared to entertain any contrary evidence regarding the probability of intentional doping.
"Because she doesn't know with 100% certainty, it could have been, and still can be, a burrito, or the vitamins, or sabotage, or any other possibility that still exists she hasn't thought of."(quote)
The possibility that hasn't occurred to either her or you is that she intentionally doped. It seems in all probability - not mere possibility - that's what she did, as CAS decided. But you are wedded to what is possible - not what is probably or most likely. What about the possibility (I would use a stronger term) that she is lying? Never occurred to you? I am 100% certain you will believe any argument except what has been shown to be most probable - that she doped.
I can't wait to hear the next "possibility" she hasn't yet thought of. She could say God/Trump/whoever told her to do it. You'll go with that - like all her other possibilities.
Got it, rekrunner. You call the near-zero chance that the roids were in the burrito low probability, and that she doped intentionally low probability because according to a survey, "only" 30-40% of all elite athletes dope.
That ignores not only the different orders of magnitude of probability (0.0000000000000001 v 0.3) but also that she was caught with roids and banned for intentional doping.
Still, a good comparison by your standards, rekrunner.
"Because she doesn't know with 100% certainty, it could have been, and still can be, a burrito, or the vitamins, or sabotage, or any other possibility that still exists she hasn't thought of."(quote)
The possibility that hasn't occurred to either her or you is that she intentionally doped. It seems in all probability - not mere possibility - that's what she did, as CAS decided. But you are wedded to what is possible - not what is probably or most likely. What about the possibility (I would use a stronger term) that she is lying? Never occurred to you? I am 100% certain you will believe any argument except what has been shown to be most probable - that she doped.
I can't wait to hear the next "possibility" she hasn't yet thought of. She could say God/Trump/whoever told her to do it. You'll go with that - like all her other possibilities.
CAS never decided she doped.
Read the Code and the Decision.
Right. She was pinged for jaywalking. Only in your mind is an intentional doping violation not doping. Read the decision.
Considering the source, I'm not too worried about your judgements.
But please hold yourself to a higher intellectual standard. I'm prepared to entertain any contrary evidence regarding the probability of intentional doping.
No, you aren't. You show that with every post.
But at least he has read the Code and knows what the various burdens are.
But at least he has read the Code and knows what the various burdens are.
The burden you and he both have is that nothing you can say changes the decision. That's because the decision was based on the rules and the facts. Nothing you say is.
She was never found guilty of intentional breaking of the anti doping rules.
You have been asked many many times what is doping and you have failed to respond.
You also had no clue as burden of proof is for a guilty decision.
CAS explicitly said she failed to rebut the presumption of intent. I don't expect you to understand what that statement means. Doping is taking a banned substance, and not by accident. As she did. But you and rekrunner probably believe it was put in her body by Martians.
The rules explicitly say that they do not rule on intent when finding guilt or otherwise.
Why do you invent stuff?
Why have you never in thousands of posts made any reference to the actual rules.
Also your definition of doping differs from the Wada Code. Have you realised this yet?
"Because she doesn't know with 100% certainty, it could have been, and still can be, a burrito, or the vitamins, or sabotage, or any other possibility that still exists she hasn't thought of."(quote)
The possibility that hasn't occurred to either her or you is that she intentionally doped. It seems in all probability - not mere possibility - that's what she did, as CAS decided. But you are wedded to what is possible - not what is probably or most likely. What about the possibility (I would use a stronger term) that she is lying? Never occurred to you? I am 100% certain you will believe any argument except what has been shown to be most probable - that she doped.
I can't wait to hear the next "possibility" she hasn't yet thought of. She could say God/Trump/whoever told her to do it. You'll go with that - like all her other possibilities.
How did you so elegantly put it? "possibilities ... without evidence ... are pure fantasy."
Got it, rekrunner. You call the near-zero chance that the roids were in the burrito low probability, and that she doped intentionally low probability because according to a survey, "only" 30-40% of all elite athletes dope.
That ignores not only the different orders of magnitude of probability (0.0000000000000001 v 0.3) but also that she was caught with roids and banned for intentional doping.
Still, a good comparison by your standards, rekrunner.
Do you get it? 0.3 was not my result and 0.0000000000000001 was no one's result.
You asked me for my bases in fact, and now it is your turn:
- Based on what facts did the CAS establish "intentional"? - Why is this case of a national record holder special? Based on what facts are you linking this case of ingesting a small quantity of nandrolone orally to national record performance? I entertained that possibility and could only find one study that compared a placebo group with a testosterone group and nandrolone group and found "no effect of multiple oral doses of AAS on endurance performance".
If you can provide no bases in fact, I can only assume your posts are not based on facts.
The only "excuse" with any evidence is the burrito. All others, including Prof. Ayotte's speculated norsteroid precursor, is without evidence and, by your own concession, pure fantasy.
Ordering a burrito isn't evidence. Same as a steak or a hamburger. It is simply a claim that it might have been something she ate. That isn't evidence.
The act of ordering a burrito is evidence. It may not be very probative evidence of the ultimate issues, but it is evidence.
But at least he has read the Code and knows what the various burdens are.
The burden you and he both have is that nothing you can say changes the decision. That's because the decision was based on the rules and the facts. Nothing you say is.
This not my burden, nor my goal. My goal is to evaluate the evidence.
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.