Still lying. The decision was based explicitly on the "balance of probabilities" on the facts before the Court. Your claims remain mere "possibilities" (of "near-zero" likelihood) without evidence that meets the test of the balance of probabilities.
Why keep on lying.
You have been told dozens of times what the standard of proof is.
When will you read the rules and accept them and stop making things up to suit your own prejudices.
From the decision:
92. Pursuant to Rule 3.1 of the WA ADR, to rebut the presumption the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities:
So how long have you had this intellectual impediment?
If Houlihan's doping conviction was wrongful, then Tygart is supporting an innocent athlete who was not exonerated, because the AIU failed "to work just as hard to exonerate the innocent as (they) do pursuing the true cheaters". The WADA Code doesn't require it, but human ethics does.(quote).
- "If Houlihan's conviction was wrongful" - only Houlihan and you maintain that it was.
- Tygart is not "supporting an innocent athlete who was not exonerated". The evidence of a positive test and her failure to adduce evidence of her innocence to the legal standard required shows Tygart is supporting a convicted doper.
- The role of anti-doping is to catch the cheats, not to "exonerate the innocent". They are a prosecuting body. They cannot prosecute and defend without compromising either role. That is why these roles are conducted independently in any legal process. The athletes have a right to defend themselves. But that is not the responsibility of WADA. Despite what you maintain, there is no ethical conflict in this process.
You have built your argument for reform of a "broken system" on a case about a burrito, in which expert evidence has concluded the likelihood of accidental doping is near zero. What a flimsy case. It won't produce the reforms you advocate.
Also, WADA rarely appeals decisions made by other sporting bodies like USADA because those sporting bodies often rely on laboratory data, such as tests results, from WADA facilities. But Tygart has increasingly shown that his goals are not those of WADA.
Kipketer gives an anti-doping mesage to young athletes at the U20 Champs on behalf of the AIU. I hope that's Wilson and not Alfred, who won the U20 800m in 2018 ahead of Kyle Langford and then famously fled anti-doping testers before finally testing positive for EPO and getting banned.
Still lying. The decision was based explicitly on the "balance of probabilities" on the facts before the Court. Your claims remain mere "possibilities" (of "near-zero" likelihood) without evidence that meets the test of the balance of probabilities.
It's sufficient to read the CAS decision, to see that you've plucked out some keywords and formed your own conclusions which resembles the CAS decision they way a 7-year old would draw it with crayons.
The finding of "intent" is based, not on probabilities, but purely on presumption, and was not made by the CAS nor the AIU, but by the authors of the changes in the 2015 release of the WADA Code, who tied the hands of the CAS.
The balance of probabilities applies solely to Houlihan's arguments and evidence to establish "not intentional", in order to undo the codified presumption of intentional doping. Lacking a primary piece of evidence, it was impossible to meet that burden.
Most guilty athletes lack a "primary piece of evidence" - the evidence that would purportedly show their claimed "innocence". Houlihan was no different. But even without such evidence her argument was rejected as being of "near- zero" likelihood. I think the phrase used was "cascading improbabilities". A warehouse in Arizona, in other words. She therefore failed to rebut the presumption of intent according to the required standard of the balance of probabilities. As you do. That is to be expected with a guilty athlete.
Kipketer gives an anti-doping mesage to young athletes at the U20 Champs on behalf of the AIU. I hope that's Wilson and not Alfred, who won the U20 800m in 2018 ahead of Kyle Langford and then famously fled anti-doping testers before finally testing positive for EPO and getting banned.
Looks like he couldn't run the 800m in under 3 minutes these days.
1. He says his name is Wilson.
2. You couldn't run the 800m in under 3 minutes either.
False. I was training hard for the 2025 world masters championships and got under 3 minutes. Then I read that Lagat and other Kenyans were targeting them too, so I decided there was no point.
You have been told dozens of times what the standard of proof is.
When will you read the rules and accept them and stop making things up to suit your own prejudices.
From the decision:
92. Pursuant to Rule 3.1 of the WA ADR, to rebut the presumption the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities:
So how long have you had this intellectual impediment?
But the decision is not based on the standard of proof you suggest. The rules have been explained to you many times so for you to keep getting it wrong suggests you are content to lie.
It's sufficient to read the CAS decision, to see that you've plucked out some keywords and formed your own conclusions which resembles the CAS decision they way a 7-year old would draw it with crayons.
The finding of "intent" is based, not on probabilities, but purely on presumption, and was not made by the CAS nor the AIU, but by the authors of the changes in the 2015 release of the WADA Code, who tied the hands of the CAS.
The balance of probabilities applies solely to Houlihan's arguments and evidence to establish "not intentional", in order to undo the codified presumption of intentional doping. Lacking a primary piece of evidence, it was impossible to meet that burden.
Most guilty athletes lack a "primary piece of evidence" - the evidence that would purportedly show their claimed "innocence". Houlihan was no different. But even without such evidence her argument was rejected as being of "near- zero" likelihood. I think the phrase used was "cascading improbabilities". A warehouse in Arizona, in other words. She therefore failed to rebut the presumption of intent according to the required standard of the balance of probabilities. As you do. That is to be expected with a guilty athlete.
Whatever evidence the athlete provides they can never be seen of being innocent of a doping rule violation.
2. You couldn't run the 800m in under 3 minutes either.
False. I was training hard for the 2025 world masters championships and got under 3 minutes. Then I read that Lagat and other Kenyans were targeting them too, so I decided there was no point.
Sub 3? That's impressive. Since the M55 record is 2:02 there would be a good chance for you not to be lapped.
If Houlihan's doping conviction was wrongful, then Tygart is supporting an innocent athlete who was not exonerated, because the AIU failed "to work just as hard to exonerate the innocent as (they) do pursuing the true cheaters". The WADA Code doesn't require it, but human ethics does.(quote).
- "If Houlihan's conviction was wrongful" - only Houlihan and you maintain that it was.
- Tygart is not "supporting an innocent athlete who was not exonerated". The evidence of a positive test and her failure to adduce evidence of her innocence to the legal standard required shows Tygart is supporting a convicted doper.
- The role of anti-doping is to catch the cheats, not to "exonerate the innocent". They are a prosecuting body. They cannot prosecute and defend without compromising either role. That is why these roles are conducted independently in any legal process. The athletes have a right to defend themselves. But that is not the responsibility of WADA. Despite what you maintain, there is no ethical conflict in this process.
You have built your argument for reform of a "broken system" on a case about a burrito, in which expert evidence has concluded the likelihood of accidental doping is near zero. What a flimsy case. It won't produce the reforms you advocate.
Also, WADA rarely appeals decisions made by other sporting bodies like USADA because those sporting bodies often rely on laboratory data, such as tests results, from WADA facilities. But Tygart has increasingly shown that his goals are not those of WADA.
If WADA's goal and reason for existence is to protect all innocent athletes, it is the duty and obligation of all WADA signatories, like the AIU and USADA, to ensure they can correctly tell the difference between accidental unknowing ingestion and intentional cheating according to a proven and robust method, rather than relying on a set of presumptions introduced by recent changes. The current system is more like throwing someone into the deep end of the pool to see which ones can swim while unknowledgeable onlookers condemn the ones that sink.
It's not only me and Houlihan, but also a "minority" of the CAS "judges" who ruled that the determination of an AAF deviated from WADA's procedures and guidelines and standards, and apparently Tygart who suggests that the AIU failed in its duty to protect a still possibly innocent athlete.
My case for reform is built upon a plain reading of Articles 2.1 and 2.2 not requiring "intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part" to establish a rule violation. The athlete has no opportunity to defend themselves from these rule violations on the basis of any demonstrated lack of intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use.
The case is also built on recent changes in Article 10.2.1 which now presumes intent as the baseline, and shifts a nearly impossible burden to the athlete to show otherwise. The words in these WADA Articles tie the CAS's hands, as their job is to interpret the rules as written, according to contract law, rather than enforce real world justice and fairness to the accused.
While Houlihan's case is one example that clearly demonstrates the need for WADA Code reform, there are also the "WADA approved" examples of 27 USADA athletes since 2015 and the near miss, but for luck, of Simon Getzmann, still at great personal expense including a 1+ year suspension and 10,000+ Euros for legal and scientific support, and the appeal of Jarrion Lawson, overturned because of material but non-factual testimony from the AIU "expert".
Regarding your insistence that the "experts" "concluded" "near zero": 1) The "near zero" likelihood was not "the likelihood of accidental doping"; 2) it's not clear if this "cascading likelihood" argument came from the AIU "experts", or from AIU lawyers; and 3) Lawson's appeal was overturned largely because the "expert" testimony was not factually correct and also because the CAS panel realized the burden for athletes is too high and ruled that Lawson could reasonably do no more to meet his burden. I can't put too much weight on what the "experts" for the party of one side of a dispute guesses, particularly when they are not bound to be truthful, or required to provide any evidence for their guesses.
Speaking of unfairness to athletes and unlevel playing fields, note also that shifting an impossible burden to the athlete highly prejudices poor athletes in first, second and third world countries, unable to afford lawyers and scientific tests, and that codifying and conducting proceedings in English or French highly prejudices non-English and non-French speaking countries. In America, if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for free, to ensure fairness and due process.
It's sufficient to read the CAS decision, to see that you've plucked out some keywords and formed your own conclusions which resembles the CAS decision they way a 7-year old would draw it with crayons.
The finding of "intent" is based, not on probabilities, but purely on presumption, and was not made by the CAS nor the AIU, but by the authors of the changes in the 2015 release of the WADA Code, who tied the hands of the CAS.
The balance of probabilities applies solely to Houlihan's arguments and evidence to establish "not intentional", in order to undo the codified presumption of intentional doping. Lacking a primary piece of evidence, it was impossible to meet that burden.
Most guilty athletes lack a "primary piece of evidence" - the evidence that would purportedly show their claimed "innocence". Houlihan was no different. But even without such evidence her argument was rejected as being of "near- zero" likelihood. I think the phrase used was "cascading improbabilities". A warehouse in Arizona, in other words. She therefore failed to rebut the presumption of intent according to the required standard of the balance of probabilities. As you do. That is to be expected with a guilty athlete.
Irrelevant. The imbalance inherent in the Code impacts innocent and guilty athletes alike. It might catch more intentional cheats, but not without collateral damage, and civilian casualties. What is lacking is a robust process that can reliably distinguish the truly intentional cheat from the diligent athlete who unknowingly ingested a banned substance in a meal.
The "near zero" "cascading improbabilites" argument only comes from a party on one side of a dispute, so neutrality and truthfulness cannot be taken for granted, especially given the history of one of the "experts" in a previous case. It is also not specific to Houlihan's case, where the probabilities were altered due to global supply issues during a pandemic (and it measures the wrong likelihood).
The AIU proposed argument was only partly accepted by the CAS to the extent needed to decide that the incomplete evidence and arguments before them was not enough for them to conclude "probably not intentional", and therefore the WADA Code requires, by default by contractual agreement, a 4-year ban.
Kipketer gives an anti-doping mesage to young athletes at the U20 Champs on behalf of the AIU. I hope that's Wilson and not Alfred, who won the U20 800m in 2018 ahead of Kyle Langford and then famously fled anti-doping testers before finally testing positive for EPO and getting banned.
Looks like he couldn't run the 800m in under 3 minutes these days.
Fact check: Alfred Kipketer has never tested positive for EPO. The World Juniors race was in 2014 and Langford ran a distant 1:55 for 8th. World Youth was 2013 and Langford was 3rd there behind Kipketer. There is no article I’ve read talking about fleeing drug testers and the AIU documents say he has more ordinary failures mostly of not updating his whereabouts to Nairobi when he went to domestic meets and to visit his son. There is no discussion of anything you’re talking about so I assume you’re mixing him up with someone else or making up a fantastical story. https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/AIU-19-281_KIPKETER_DECISION_FINAL.pdf
Kipketer gives an anti-doping mesage to young athletes at the U20 Champs on behalf of the AIU. I hope that's Wilson and not Alfred, who won the U20 800m in 2018 ahead of Kyle Langford and then famously fled anti-doping testers before finally testing positive for EPO and getting banned.
Kipketer gives an anti-doping mesage to young athletes at the U20 Champs on behalf of the AIU. I hope that's Wilson and not Alfred, who won the U20 800m in 2018 ahead of Kyle Langford and then famously fled anti-doping testers before finally testing positive for EPO and getting banned.
Looks like he couldn't run the 800m in under 3 minutes these days.
Fact check: Alfred Kipketer has never tested positive for EPO. The World Juniors race was in 2014 and Langford ran a distant 1:55 for 8th. World Youth was 2013 and Langford was 3rd there behind Kipketer. There is no article I’ve read talking about fleeing drug testers and the AIU documents say he has more ordinary failures mostly of not updating his whereabouts to Nairobi when he went to domestic meets and to visit his son. There is no discussion of anything you’re talking about so I assume you’re mixing him up with someone else or making up a fantastical story.
Thanks Thoughtsleader for the reality checks. Alfred Kipketer was banned for 2 years, for 4 whereabouts violations in 12 months, and not for failing any drug test for EPO, or any other banned drug.
More fact checking:
- The tweet itself says former 800m World record holder -- it can only be Wilson Kipketer, who competed for Denmark
- In 2018, Alfred Kipketer, born in Dec. 1996, would have been 21 years old
- The only "famously fled testers" athlete I can think of is Patrick Siele, the athlete who jumped out the window when testers arrived
92. Pursuant to Rule 3.1 of the WA ADR, to rebut the presumption the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities:
So how long have you had this intellectual impediment?
But the decision is not based on the standard of proof you suggest. The rules have been explained to you many times so for you to keep getting it wrong suggests you are content to lie.
I just quoted from the decision. Are you brain dead?
But the decision is not based on the standard of proof you suggest. The rules have been explained to you many times so for you to keep getting it wrong suggests you are content to lie.
I just quoted from the decision. Are you brain dead?
The decision to find her guilty is not based on the standard of proof you insist.
You have been told this dozens of times and been directed to the rules.
The "near zero" "cascading improbabilites" argument only comes from a party on one side of a dispute, so neutrality and truthfulness cannot be taken for granted, especially given the history of one of the "experts" in a previous case. (quote)
"Only" comes from a party in one side of the dispute? The party you refer to is those who are responsible for formulating and enforcing the antidoping rules, and who conducted the test that she failed. They are not partial but simply enforce the rules. The evidence they presented was part of the process of determining on the facts available whether there had been an offence. As the other party she is an athlete who failed a drug test and thereby breached the rules unless she could produce an acceptable defence. She couldn't. AIU/WADA and Houlihan are hardly equivalent as parties to a dispute. She was subject to their authority. She had a right of appeal against their ban and her appeal failed. Case closed.
Thanks Thoughtsleader for the reality checks. Alfred Kipketer was banned for 2 years, for 4 whereabouts violations in 12 months, and not for failing any drug test for EPO, or any other banned drug.
More fact checking:
- The tweet itself says former 800m World record holder -- it can only be Wilson Kipketer, who competed for Denmark
- In 2018, Alfred Kipketer, born in Dec. 1996, would have been 21 years old
- The only "famously fled testers" athlete I can think of is Patrick Siele, the athlete who jumped out the window when testers arrived
Missing 4 tests in 12 months is tantamount to 'fleeing drug testers though'.
You know it's almost impossible to have only ducked 4 times if you miss 4 times.
He must have been ducking countless times during the year.
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.