LRC note. We added in to the title that she trained in Cheptegei's camp as this is much more newsworthy than your average run of the mill doping bust. the same thing was true last year when someone in Kipchoge's camp was banned.
Another immature retort. You keep ptoving my point.
You have made no point here other than your piffling comments directed at me. It is certainly easy to flush the unthinking out of the woodwork. You're currently at the front of that queue.
You are describing everything but "established fact".
It is an established fact that she was found by a Court to have intentionally doped. Only a doping denier can't accept that.
Not quite true. The CAS "deemed" intent based on a "presumption" of "intent" codified by WADA with no additional supporting evidence. Without such evidence, no finding has any real weight, regardless of court. You have no understanding of how the WADA arbitration process works, hence you make a fool of yourself on thread after thread. The CAS is not a master of matters of law and matters of fact, but they are subservient to WADA, constrained to interpret incomplete evidence, within an artifically simplified context created by WADA lawyers. This is what makes any such CAS finding fall far short of actually establishing a real-world fact.
But even if it were true, it completely fails to rebut the original point, that "intent" is everything but "established fact".
The "established fact" is she tested positive for a banned substance without legitimate excuse and was deemed to have intentionally doped according to the balance of probabilities.
"Found" Intent:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is an established fact that she was found by a Court to have intentionally doped. Only a doping denier can't accept that.
The "established fact" is she tested positive for a banned substance without legitimate excuse and was deemed to have intentionally doped according to the balance of probabilities.
"Found" Intent:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is an established fact that she was found by a Court to have intentionally doped. Only a doping denier can't accept that.
The Court didn't come to a finding solely on a presumption. But I don't expect you to understand what its decision was based on. However none of your attempts to argue away what it decided changes the fact she is a convicted doper serving a ban. The right result.
You have made no point here other than your piffling comments directed at me. It is certainly easy to flush the unthinking out of the woodwork. You're currently at the front of that queue.
My point is that you are immature and insecure.
Actually I feel more like a pest exterminator does, who successfully flushes them out of the woodwork. They identify themselves as you do.
It is an established fact that she was found by a Court to have intentionally doped. Only a doping denier can't accept that.
Not quite true. The CAS "deemed" intent based on a "presumption" of "intent" codified by WADA with no additional supporting evidence. Without such evidence, no finding has any real weight, regardless of court. You have no understanding of how the WADA arbitration process works, hence you make a fool of yourself on thread after thread. The CAS is not a master of matters of law and matters of fact, but they are subservient to WADA, constrained to interpret incomplete evidence, within an artifically simplified context created by WADA lawyers. This is what makes any such CAS finding fall far short of actually establishing a real-world fact.
But even if it were true, it completely fails to rebut the original point, that "intent" is everything but "established fact".
It is a "fact" because a banned substance was in her system - an undeniable fact - and she couldn't show accidental cause according to the balance of probabilities (her defence was rejected as being "near-zero" likelihood, according to experts) - another fact. It is a further fact that you will never relent in your efforts to argue she isn't a doper. That's what a doping-denier does. But 4 years says otherwise.
I use to love east Africans in the days of Kip Keino, Ben Jipcho and Filbert Bayi and Henry Rono , but now esp Kenya and Uganda, they are suspect. I don't trust any of these guys running 2 hr flat marathons, that's total BS!
Yes. But unlike in Shelburrito's case, they couldn't get a quiet provisional ban. And people wonder why some are suspicious about Mu - especially with her Chemist.
I always thought the theories that athletes can somehow fake injuries/make up stories to skip races as a way to cover up for suspensions was too tinfoil hat for me. But now I'm seriously considering it.
How many athletes will fake injuries or make up other stories to cover up for suspensions? Does the AIU/WADA/USADA actually cover up suspensions from the public? This is insane.
Confirmed! And Mu was allowed to serve her ban in increments, ergo why she was able to race twice at USAs.
The struggle is real, things are really unfair for the white man/ woman.
The Court didn't come to a finding solely on a presumption. But I don't expect you to understand what its decision was based on. However none of your attempts to argue away what it decided changes the fact she is a convicted doper serving a ban. The right result.
You had it right the first time -- the panel of arbitrators "deemed" intent.
They deemed intent, based on a WADA codified presumption of intent, completely lacking any supporting evidence or demonstration or otherwise establishing of intent.
That was all made explicit in the CAS report -- you should really inform yourself better rather than making an ignorant fool of yourself in every thread.
Not quite true. The CAS "deemed" intent based on a "presumption" of "intent" codified by WADA with no additional supporting evidence. Without such evidence, no finding has any real weight, regardless of court. You have no understanding of how the WADA arbitration process works, hence you make a fool of yourself on thread after thread. The CAS is not a master of matters of law and matters of fact, but they are subservient to WADA, constrained to interpret incomplete evidence, within an artifically simplified context created by WADA lawyers. This is what makes any such CAS finding fall far short of actually establishing a real-world fact.
But even if it were true, it completely fails to rebut the original point, that "intent" is everything but "established fact".
It is a "fact" because a banned substance was in her system - an undeniable fact - and she couldn't show accidental cause according to the balance of probabilities (her defence was rejected as being "near-zero" likelihood, according to experts) - another fact. It is a further fact that you will never relent in your efforts to argue she isn't a doper. That's what a doping-denier does. But 4 years says otherwise.
You are only demonstrating you don't know how to establish a fact. Mere presence, and the inability to identify the source is not enough to establish "intent" as a fact.
According to WADA's guidelines, the substance in her system could have been ruled an ATF or an AAF. I agreed with the minority of the CAS Panel that the AAF was not properly reported. Treating the positive as an ATF would render the question of "intent" moot.
And I agree with Tygart that placing the burden on athletes to prove "not intentional", even on the balance of probabilty, railroads innocent athletes to 4-year bans and treats them like intentional cheats for having done nothing wrong.
In the CAS's own words, it is possible that Houlihan was an intentional doper, but that was not established by the WADA lab, nor the AIU and its experts, nor the CAS, on the balance of probability.
The Court didn't come to a finding solely on a presumption. But I don't expect you to understand what its decision was based on. However none of your attempts to argue away what it decided changes the fact she is a convicted doper serving a ban. The right result.
You had it right the first time -- the panel of arbitrators "deemed" intent.
They deemed intent, based on a WADA codified presumption of intent, completely lacking any supporting evidence or demonstration or otherwise establishing of intent.
That was all made explicit in the CAS report -- you should really inform yourself better rather than making an ignorant fool of yourself in every thread.
More drivel. Fact: she is a convicted doper. Nothing you attempt to argue otherwise changes that.
It is a "fact" because a banned substance was in her system - an undeniable fact - and she couldn't show accidental cause according to the balance of probabilities (her defence was rejected as being "near-zero" likelihood, according to experts) - another fact. It is a further fact that you will never relent in your efforts to argue she isn't a doper. That's what a doping-denier does. But 4 years says otherwise.
You are only demonstrating you don't know how to establish a fact. Mere presence, and the inability to identify the source is not enough to establish "intent" as a fact.
According to WADA's guidelines, the substance in her system could have been ruled an ATF or an AAF. I agreed with the minority of the CAS Panel that the AAF was not properly reported. Treating the positive as an ATF would render the question of "intent" moot.
And I agree with Tygart that placing the burden on athletes to prove "not intentional", even on the balance of probabilty, railroads innocent athletes to 4-year bans and treats them like intentional cheats for having done nothing wrong.
In the CAS's own words, it is possible that Houlihan was an intentional doper, but that was not established by the WADA lab, nor the AIU and its experts, nor the CAS, on the balance of probability.
I don't bother to read through your lengthy posts because they are merely yet another nauseatingly repetitious attempt to deny the fact that a doper has been caught doping. It never ceases with you. Houlihan is serving a ban and there is nothing doping apologists like you will be able to do to change that.
It isn't a term used in isolation but in the context of the case and the evidence before the Court. But you aren't bright enough to understand that. On that basis, the Court decided she was a doper - which is what a person is who has been deemed to have intentionally doped who cannot show otherwise - a fact the unintelligent, such as yourself, cannot accept.
Courts regularly make decisions on civil matters based on the balance of probabilities, as the Court did in this case, and only someone who has no idea about the legal process says such a decision isn't based on "established fact". It cannot come to a decision except on the facts before it. You have no understanding of how this process works, hence you make a fool of yourself on thread after thread.
In other words, "intent" is not an "established fact". Thanks for the reminders.
FFS dude, enough already. You lost the argument moons ago. Why are you persisting? STOP! for all that's holy... STOP!
You had it right the first time -- the panel of arbitrators "deemed" intent.
They deemed intent, based on a WADA codified presumption of intent, completely lacking any supporting evidence or demonstration or otherwise establishing of intent.
That was all made explicit in the CAS report -- you should really inform yourself better rather than making an ignorant fool of yourself in every thread.
More drivel. Fact: she is a convicted doper. Nothing you attempt to argue otherwise changes that.
The point was whether "intent" was an "established fact". It is not.
I don't bother to read through your lengthy posts because they are merely yet another nauseatingly repetitious attempt to deny the fact that a doper has been caught doping. It never ceases with you. Houlihan is serving a ban and there is nothing doping apologists like you will be able to do to change that.
It seems like there is much you don't bother to read, and that is why your posts are more fantasy than fact-based reality.
In other words, "intent" is not an "established fact". Thanks for the reminders.
FFS dude, enough already. You lost the argument moons ago. Why are you persisting? STOP! for all that's holy... STOP!
"The argument"? Which argument exactly? I'm not arguing that the CAS upheld a 4-year ban, but Armstronglivs seems obsessed with arguing this result. This fails to address or rebut the only point I made.
The WADA Code is clear that intent is presumed, and bodies like the AIU are not required to, and in fact they did not, establish it as fact. It is clear from the CAS report that no such fact was established.
While that is sufficient for the AIU to presume intent, and the CAS to deem intent, the whole adjudication process falls far short of establishing intent as a real world fact.