Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
"intentional ADRV" AKA intentional Anti-Doping Rule Violation AKA doping AKA cheating[/quote
Did not get sanctioned for intent ; read the rules.
Intent is an express finding by the CAS Panel. You are a world champion liar - as your user name indicates.
Read the rules; intent is nowt to to with it.
You know this ; 10.2.3 etc..
So why do you lie?
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
"intentional ADRV" AKA intentional Anti-Doping Rule Violation AKA doping AKA cheating[/quote
Did not get sanctioned for intent ; read the rules.
Intent is an express finding by the CAS Panel. You are a world champion liar - as your user name indicates.
I said “ sanctioned”.
Intent is not considered.
You know this.
But then you refuse to read the rules.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I know you refuse to accept Houlihan is a doper. I guess her 4-year ban was for something completely unrelated to her taking a banned drug.
Those are your words, not mine. You are just confirming my points.
Yes or no - is she a doper?
Yes or no - was she banned for taking a banned drug?
Yes or no - do dopers take banned drugs?[/quote
Don’t know.
No
Yes.
The rules ban for having the drugs in your body, they don’t require intent.
Thus a conviction does not rule on intent and thus not rule on cheating.
Read the rules if still befuddled.
liar soorer wrote:
dullard wrote:
"intentional ADRV" AKA intentional Anti-Doping Rule Violation AKA doping AKA cheating
No you misquote to mislead.
The panels font sentence on intent, it is down black and white.
Misquote? Here's the full quote direct from the CAS media release:
Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.
See page 2:
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_7977.pdfThis guy is surely a troll or perhaps just not right the in the head.
dullard wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
No you misquote to mislead.
The panels font sentence on intent, it is down black and white.
Misquote? Here's the full quote direct from the CAS media release:
Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.
See page 2:
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_7977.pdf
You have not read the rules have you?
Read 10.2.3
And read the decision in full.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yes or no - is she a doper?
Yes or no - was she banned for taking a banned drug?
Yes or no - do dopers take banned drugs?
I don’t know what “doper” means to you.
She was banned for violating rules 2.1 “presence” and 2.2 “use”, not for “taking”.
liar soorer wrote:
dullard wrote:
Misquote? Here's the full quote direct from the CAS media release:
See page 2:
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_7977.pdfYou have not read the rules have you?
Read 10.2.3
And read the decision in full.
10.2.3
As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional”
is meant to identify those Athletes or other
Persons who engage in conduct which they knew
constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew
that there was a significant risk that the conduct
might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule
violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an
Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is
only prohibited In-Competition shall be rebuttably
presumed to be not “intentional” if the substance
is a Specified Substance and the Athlete can
establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used
Out-of-Competition. An anti-doping rule violation
resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding
for a substance which is only prohibited In-
Competition shall not be considered “intentional”
if the substance is not a Specified Substance
and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited
Substance was Used Out-of-Competition in a
context unrelated to sport performance.
Seems to me that "intentional" in this context means exactly what I thought it did.
dullard wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
You have not read the rules have you?
Read 10.2.3
And read the decision in full.
10.2.3
As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional”
is meant to identify those Athletes or other
Persons who engage in conduct which they knew
constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew
that there was a significant risk that the conduct
might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule
violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an
Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is
only prohibited In-Competition shall be rebuttably
presumed to be not “intentional” if the substance
is a Specified Substance and the Athlete can
establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used
Out-of-Competition. An anti-doping rule violation
resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding
for a substance which is only prohibited In-
Competition shall not be considered “intentional”
if the substance is not a Specified Substance
and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited
Substance was Used Out-of-Competition in a
context unrelated to sport performance.
Seems to me that "intentional" in this context means exactly what I thought it did.
Obviously not bothered to read comment 59 nor noted that AIU referred to “ deemed” intentional.
So I am not as daft as you might think.
Far more complicated and tortuous than anyone would think.
The central tenet is that they don’t judge intent.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yes or no - is she a doper?
Yes or no - was she banned for taking a banned drug?
Yes or no - do dopers take banned drugs?
I don’t know what “doper” means to you.
She was banned for violating rules 2.1 “presence” and 2.2 “use”, not for “taking”.
These subtleties are beyond most but all follow from no judgement of cheating.
Perhaps there should be or might be in the future but not for now.
Whites will pay.
hmmm a pain freak you say....
I have truly never seen someone who has been banned for doping treated with such kid gloves. Ever. Not with any of the cyclists, not with Marion, Gatlin, not with the Russians, Kenyans, Ethiopians.....anyone.
It's honestly fascinating to watch, and wild to see what people come up with to defend her.
Can you imagine when Ruth Jebet tested positive, instead of calling her a cheater, we waxed poetic about "presence , not taking" and "improbable not impossible"?
All of it is semantics. Take emotion out of it and ask yourself why it hurts so much to call Shelby a doper when literally anyone else who found themselves in that position would be labeled a doper immediately. So what changed?
You are right of course.
Why the change?
- Nike PR shills (especially at the beginning)
- trolls
- patriotic fans
- and of course the always present drug cheat apologists
avonaioen wrote:
I have truly never seen someone who has been banned for doping treated with such kid gloves. Ever. Not with any of the cyclists, not with Marion, Gatlin, not with the Russians, Kenyans, Ethiopians.....anyone.
It's honestly fascinating to watch, and wild to see what people come up with to defend her.
Can you imagine when Ruth Jebet tested positive, instead of calling her a cheater, we waxed poetic about "presence , not taking" and "improbable not impossible"?
All of it is semantics. Take emotion out of it and ask yourself why it hurts so much to call Shelby a doper when literally anyone else who found themselves in that position would be labeled a doper immediately. So what changed?
I have no skin in the SH game.
I am posted in various forms over more than a decade about the failing of the WADA code and have seen it improve over the time. Human Rights and Data Protection and Proportionality now are referenced.
The difference is that there is a great deal of interest in the case and much attached to her coaching set up.
Thus, an alternative view of the case and the rules and the interpretation of the decision has brought forth much reaction.
For completeness had I been on the panel I would have had to correctly interpret the rules and would have found her guilty.
Whether under revamped rules, in say ten years, would have caused the same decision I have huge doubts.
So it is more attacking WADA than defending her.
casual obsever wrote:
You are right of course.
Why the change?
- Nike PR shills (especially at the beginning)
- trolls
- patriotic fans
- and of course the always present drug cheat apologists
For those who don’t understand the rules or refuse to read them they would come up with the above.
avonaioen wrote:
I have truly never seen someone who has been banned for doping treated with such kid gloves. Ever. Not with any of the cyclists, not with Marion, Gatlin, not with the Russians, Kenyans, Ethiopians.....anyone.
It's honestly fascinating to watch, and wild to see what people come up with to defend her.
Can you imagine when Ruth Jebet tested positive, instead of calling her a cheater, we waxed poetic about "presence , not taking" and "improbable not impossible"?
All of it is semantics. Take emotion out of it and ask yourself why it hurts so much to call Shelby a doper when literally anyone else who found themselves in that position would be labeled a doper immediately. So what changed?
I don’t know — since 2015, USADA’s Tygart has helped 27 athletes achieve “no fault” sanctions — I’d say these athletes got treated with kid gloves, while Houlihan got double-gloved.
What changed? One thing is that the WADA Code changed in 2015 to place a much heavier burden on the athlete. Another is the TD for Nandrolone changed in 2021 warning WADA labs to treat potential pork ingestion differently when testing for Nandrolone and reporting results.
The facts for Ruth Jebet are more damning. Ruth Jebet was found with both an abnormal ABP profile and EPO in her urine, and she admitted getting shots to explain the source of the EPO. EPO is not known to be accidentally ingested endogenously in publicly available food. Similarly, the facts for cyclists, Marion, Gatlin, and the Russians are all more damning.
I think it is not just Houlihan. With regard to Kenyans, over 14 years, 49 Kenyans were sanctioned for nandrolone. Maybe they were all railroaded to a full ban too. Kenya is a country that largely does not castrate its pigs. How many of these 49 were unjustly sanctioned?
If you don’t want to look at Houlihan, look at the case of Simon Getzmann. He was able to successfully prove “not intentional”, and he still served more than 1 year suspension, and spent more than 10,000 Euros in scientific testing and legal fees. And it still counts as his first violation. He cleared his name, at the great expense of time and money and inability to compete, and yet we can still call him a one-time “doper”.
If Getzmann had consumed all of his legally produced and prescribed WADA-legal pain-killers, he would have suffered the same fate as Houlihan, being unable to prove the source to a panel on the balance of probability.
Something is seriously wrong with this justice system created to protect clean and diligent athletes. Most athletes, like surely many of the 49 Kenyans above, cannot always afford lawyers and scientific testing to clear their names.
For all this talk about the finding of “intentional”, the CAS promised to provide us the “grounds” for their findings, yet where are the grounds in the report for any finding of “intentional”? The WADA code refers “intentional” as meaning athletes engaging in conduct meeting certain conditions. Did the CAS show that their finding of “intentional” meets all of the conditions in WADA’s meaning? Where in the CAS report can we find what conduct Houlihan was found to have engaged in? Eating a burrito? Should she have known that eating a greasy pork burrito was risky, and she manifestly disregarded that risk? That is un-rebutted athlete conduct that can be found in the CAS report.
casual obsever wrote:
You are right of course.
Why the change?
- Nike PR shills (especially at the beginning)
- trolls
- patriotic fans
- and of course the always present drug cheat apologists
Isn’t this ad hominem?
rekrunner wrote:
avonaioen wrote:
I have truly never seen someone who has been banned for doping treated with such kid gloves. Ever. Not with any of the cyclists, not with Marion, Gatlin, not with the Russians, Kenyans, Ethiopians.....anyone.
It's honestly fascinating to watch, and wild to see what people come up with to defend her.
Can you imagine when Ruth Jebet tested positive, instead of calling her a cheater, we waxed poetic about "presence , not taking" and "improbable not impossible"?
All of it is semantics. Take emotion out of it and ask yourself why it hurts so much to call Shelby a doper when literally anyone else who found themselves in that position would be labeled a doper immediately. So what changed?
I don’t know — since 2015, USADA’s Tygart has helped 27 athletes achieve “no fault” sanctions — I’d say these athletes got treated with kid gloves, while Houlihan got double-gloved.
What changed? One thing is that the WADA Code changed in 2015 to place a much heavier burden on the athlete. Another is the TD for Nandrolone changed in 2021 warning WADA labs to treat potential pork ingestion differently when testing for Nandrolone and reporting results.
The facts for Ruth Jebet are more damning. Ruth Jebet was found with both an abnormal ABP profile and EPO in her urine, and she admitted getting shots to explain the source of the EPO. EPO is not known to be accidentally ingested endogenously in publicly available food. Similarly, the facts for cyclists, Marion, Gatlin, and the Russians are all more damning.
I think it is not just Houlihan. With regard to Kenyans, over 14 years, 49 Kenyans were sanctioned for nandrolone. Maybe they were all railroaded to a full ban too. Kenya is a country that largely does not castrate its pigs. How many of these 49 were unjustly sanctioned?
If you don’t want to look at Houlihan, look at the case of Simon Getzmann. He was able to successfully prove “not intentional”, and he still served more than 1 year suspension, and spent more than 10,000 Euros in scientific testing and legal fees. And it still counts as his first violation. He cleared his name, at the great expense of time and money and inability to compete, and yet we can still call him a one-time “doper”.
If Getzmann had consumed all of his legally produced and prescribed WADA-legal pain-killers, he would have suffered the same fate as Houlihan, being unable to prove the source to a panel on the balance of probability.
Something is seriously wrong with this justice system created to protect clean and diligent athletes. Most athletes, like surely many of the 49 Kenyans above, cannot always afford lawyers and scientific testing to clear their names.
For all this talk about the finding of “intentional”, the CAS promised to provide us the “grounds” for their findings, yet where are the grounds in the report for any finding of “intentional”? The WADA code refers “intentional” as meaning athletes engaging in conduct meeting certain conditions. Did the CAS show that their finding of “intentional” meets all of the conditions in WADA’s meaning? Where in the CAS report can we find what conduct Houlihan was found to have engaged in? Eating a burrito? Should she have known that eating a greasy pork burrito was risky, and she manifestly disregarded that risk? That is un-rebutted athlete conduct that can be found in the CAS report.
You have correctly identified many of the contradictions still sat there unexplained.
This case is like an onion; peel one set of rules and then you are faced with even more.
Some don’t have the brainpower to comprehend this.
I may be wrong but I have a feeling that the panel referenced some obscure previous case to help them play with the onion.