Your speculated alternative that her doping was not accidental, wasn't argued before the CAS, nor supported by evidence, nor established by the CAS. That is why it is so weak, intellectually, when evaluated without the constraints and shortcuts permitted by the WADA Code, under long established real world standards used for centuries.
As we have seen before, in science, all possibilities exist, until they are proven or established not to exist.
I would rather the Code ensures innocent athletes are not punished. We know from cases like Getzmann, Lawson, and 27 USADA cases since 2015, that the Code ensures no such thing. It's more like "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".
"Your speculated alternative that her doping was not accidental, wasn't argued before the CAS, nor supported by evidence, nor established by the CAS."(quote)
- So a confirmed positive test for a banned drug meant nothing; it was just a curious incidental fact, like the colour of her running shoes? Fortunately, WADA and CAS correctly presume it is evidence of doping unless the athlete can show otherwise. She couldn't - and neither can you. So we have a finding of an intentional violation that produced a 4 year ban (and upheld in a subsequent appeal). But round and round the mulberry bush you still go - looking for everything except the truth.
You still have no clue as to what the rules are so your post is a mixed up series of irrelevant waffle .!
"The reality is that prosecution under the WADA Code does not attempt to distinguish accidental but unprovable ingestion of a small quantity of a substance known for decades to be found in food, from intentional doping with the expectation of enhancing performance."(quote)
- If the ingestion of a banned substance is "accidental but unprovable" you have no evidence that it was indeed accidental and the athlete wasn't doping. You are merely guessing. Cases aren't decided by guessing.
Indeed you have no proof it was doping and thus you are advocating that the case is decided by guessing.
Your speculated alternative that her doping was not accidental, wasn't argued before the CAS, nor supported by evidence, nor established by the CAS. That is why it is so weak, intellectually, when evaluated without the constraints and shortcuts permitted by the WADA Code, under long established real world standards used for centuries.
As we have seen before, in science, all possibilities exist, until they are proven or established not to exist.
I would rather the Code ensures innocent athletes are not punished. We know from cases like Getzmann, Lawson, and 27 USADA cases since 2015, that the Code ensures no such thing. It's more like "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".
"Your speculated alternative that her doping was not accidental, wasn't argued before the CAS, nor supported by evidence, nor established by the CAS."(quote)
- So a confirmed positive test for a banned drug meant nothing; it was just a curious incidental fact, like the colour of her running shoes? Fortunately, WADA and CAS correctly presume it is evidence of doping unless the athlete can show otherwise. She couldn't - and neither can you. So we have a finding of an intentional violation that produced a 4 year ban (and upheld in a subsequent appeal). But round and round the mulberry bush you still go - looking for everything except the truth.
We wouldn't be going round and round if you were able to address or rebut any of my posts on the merits.
"The reality is that prosecution under the WADA Code does not attempt to distinguish accidental but unprovable ingestion of a small quantity of a substance known for decades to be found in food, from intentional doping with the expectation of enhancing performance."(quote)
- If the ingestion of a banned substance is "accidental but unprovable" you have no evidence that it was indeed accidental and the athlete wasn't doping. You are merely guessing. Cases aren't decided by guessing.
Because of a broken Code in need of reform, to better protect innocent athletes, these kinds of cases, consistent with ingestion from food, are decided by presumptions and luck.
"Your speculated alternative that her doping was not accidental, wasn't argued before the CAS, nor supported by evidence, nor established by the CAS."(quote)
- So a confirmed positive test for a banned drug meant nothing; it was just a curious incidental fact, like the colour of her running shoes? Fortunately, WADA and CAS correctly presume it is evidence of doping unless the athlete can show otherwise. She couldn't - and neither can you. So we have a finding of an intentional violation that produced a 4 year ban (and upheld in a subsequent appeal). But round and round the mulberry bush you still go - looking for everything except the truth.
We wouldn't be going round and round if you were able to address or rebut any of my posts on the merits.
"The reality is that prosecution under the WADA Code does not attempt to distinguish accidental but unprovable ingestion of a small quantity of a substance known for decades to be found in food, from intentional doping with the expectation of enhancing performance."(quote)
- If the ingestion of a banned substance is "accidental but unprovable" you have no evidence that it was indeed accidental and the athlete wasn't doping. You are merely guessing. Cases aren't decided by guessing.
Indeed you have no proof it was doping and thus you are advocating that the case is decided by guessing.
A positive test without an accepted excuse is "no proof"? Only in your doping apologist's world.
"The reality is that prosecution under the WADA Code does not attempt to distinguish accidental but unprovable ingestion of a small quantity of a substance known for decades to be found in food, from intentional doping with the expectation of enhancing performance."(quote)
- If the ingestion of a banned substance is "accidental but unprovable" you have no evidence that it was indeed accidental and the athlete wasn't doping. You are merely guessing. Cases aren't decided by guessing.
Because of a broken Code in need of reform, to better protect innocent athletes, these kinds of cases, consistent with ingestion from food, are decided by presumptions and luck.
No they aren't. They are decided by positive tests for which there is no accepted defence. No "luck" in it.
"The reality is that prosecution under the WADA Code does not attempt to distinguish accidental but unprovable ingestion of a small quantity of a substance known for decades to be found in food, from intentional doping with the expectation of enhancing performance."(quote)
- If the ingestion of a banned substance is "accidental but unprovable" you have no evidence that it was indeed accidental and the athlete wasn't doping. You are merely guessing. Cases aren't decided by guessing.
Because of a broken Code in need of reform, to better protect innocent athletes, these kinds of cases, consistent with ingestion from food, are decided by presumptions and luck.
It's a simple point but you have trouble getting it. If ingestion of a banned substance is "accidental but unprovable" that means there isn't the evidence that it was accidental. So what are you relying on to make the claim it was accidental? "Faith"? The mere denial of a likely doper? But no evidence, apparently.
Because of a broken Code in need of reform, to better protect innocent athletes, these kinds of cases, consistent with ingestion from food, are decided by presumptions and luck.
No they aren't. They are decided by positive tests for which there is no accepted defence. No "luck" in it.
Again you mash up words,rules and procedures that are just not part of the Wada code.
Because of a broken Code in need of reform, to better protect innocent athletes, these kinds of cases, consistent with ingestion from food, are decided by presumptions and luck.
It's a simple point but you have trouble getting it. If ingestion of a banned substance is "accidental but unprovable" that means there isn't the evidence that it was accidental. So what are you relying on to make the claim it was accidental? "Faith"? The mere denial of a likely doper? But no evidence, apparently.
Why do you not properly read the post you are responding to and then reply within the context of the rules?
All your posts are contaminated by your tautological bias, as the above is, and disregard of the Wada Code.
I realise the Code is neatly 200 pages long with many sub clauses and then separate “ comments” as well but after 15,000 posts you really should make the effort of actually reading it.
Because of a broken Code in need of reform, to better protect innocent athletes, these kinds of cases, consistent with ingestion from food, are decided by presumptions and luck.
No they aren't. They are decided by positive tests for which there is no accepted defence. No "luck" in it.
Yes they are. Without a presumption of intent, the CAS cannot find it, and indeed, before 2015, innocent athletes were only railroaded to 2-year bans.
As I have shown you, with proven cases like Getzmann, and Lawson, and 27 USADA athletes, being able to form an accepted defense to rebut a set of presumptions requires luck at several levels. When a panel reaches a conclusion of "possible but unlikely", he is also measuring the athlete's capability to defend him/herself, when only put on notice one month after the fact, when the best evidence is long gone.
Even when the defense is accepted, there are injustices: Getzmann and Lawson served more than 1 year of suspension/ban. Defenses cost money for testing and legal support, while most athletes, even in rich countries, live in poverty. All of these proven innocent athletes were still found guilty, because the rules of presence and use do not consider innocence in a real world sense.
A Code that doesn't require evidence, i.e. evidence of intent, and then finds intent, is broken. Even when it works, the Code is broken.
Because of a broken Code in need of reform, to better protect innocent athletes, these kinds of cases, consistent with ingestion from food, are decided by presumptions and luck.
It's a simple point but you have trouble getting it. If ingestion of a banned substance is "accidental but unprovable" that means there isn't the evidence that it was accidental. So what are you relying on to make the claim it was accidental? "Faith"? The mere denial of a likely doper? But no evidence, apparently.
I don't rely on anything to support a claim I didn't make.