Ok , so let's say I’m doing testosterone with the goal of looking better and to service my wife more often. coincidently i am an elite runner and get popped. It's not my intent to improve my running performance, so i should be just fine, right?
*showing "intent" is made up. The drug is in me, it enhances performance, I’m busted.
Additionally, returning to competition and breaking records does not prove i didn't dope 4 years ago
In this context, "intent" doesn't mean intended purpose, but intentionally violating rules, regardless of why, and regardless of whether it can or has enhanced performance.
Intent in this case simply means taking a banned substance. It wouldn't matter if she didn't know it was banned - she doesn't have to "intend to break the rules" - since she is obligated to be informed about what substances are on WADA'S list.
No member of the BTC has done themselves any favors by standing with her. And I agree, they are suspicious as a group, especially miss 14:26...
But I do understand why they would support their friend. A friendship doesn't just go away. And I also do think there have been people who don't support her. They may just not be as public about it.
Why wouldn't her closest friends and club stand with her, when knowing her character and believing she was innocent? What kind of friend would you be to turn your back after your friend was railroaded to a 4-year ban?
We weren't using the term "evidence" at all. The claim was "proof of intent".
Nevertheless, even in the commonly understood contexts of both logic and legal systems, there is simply no "evidence" or "proof" of "intent" to commit a rule violation. "Intent" is a state of mind. The evidentiary support for "intent" in the CAS report is completely non-exsistent, and the legal standard they applied was "presumption".
If I'm wrong, someone would have pointed me to the relevant parts of the CAS report already.
Intent can be inferred from actions, and doesn't require evidence of state of mind. You repeatedly fail to understand this.
No one said "inferred intent". You said "proof of intent". "800 dude" said "evidence of intent".
And I don't say it cannot be inferred from actions, but that there is no evidence let alone proof. In any case, they do not refer to any action either.
Intent in law isn't "state of mind". It isn't a psychological test. It is the inference that actions were deliberate unless they can be shown to be otherwise. In the criminal law, for example, it is presumed that the natural consequence of one's actions were intended. In antidoping it can thus be presumed that a drug which requires ingestion or application was the result of a deliberate - and thus intentional - act unless it is shown otherwise, because the presence of the drug in an athlete's system must have a cause. The onus falls on the athlete - and rightly so - to show legitimate cause if they are to avoid being found in violation of the rules.
So now you are saying "it is presumed" and "it can thus be presumed". Where have I heard that before?
In Houlihan's case, there was no proof, there was no evidence, and for your new argument, there was no action permitting inference. No matter how many ways you wish to describe what was imagined, there was only presumption, which was deemed intentional.
Intent in law isn't "state of mind". It isn't a psychological test. It is the inference that actions were deliberate unless they can be shown to be otherwise. In the criminal law, for example, it is presumed that the natural consequence of one's actions were intended. In antidoping it can thus be presumed that a drug which requires ingestion or application was the result of a deliberate - and thus intentional - act unless it is shown otherwise, because the presence of the drug in an athlete's system must have a cause. The onus falls on the athlete - and rightly so - to show legitimate cause if they are to avoid being found in violation of the rules.
So now you are saying "it is presumed" and "it can thus be presumed". Where have I heard that before?
In Houlihan's case, there was no proof, there was no evidence, and for your new argument, there was no action permitting inference. No matter how many ways you wish to describe what was imagined, there was only presumption, which was deemed intentional.
I have never seen another poster move the goalposts as much as Armstronglivs..
In this context, "intent" doesn't mean intended purpose, but intentionally violating rules, regardless of why, and regardless of whether it can or has enhanced performance.
Intent in this case simply means taking a banned substance. It wouldn't matter if she didn't know it was banned - she doesn't have to "intend to break the rules" - since she is obligated to be informed about what substances are on WADA'S list.
That is not what "intent" means in this case (nor anywhere else for that matter, except maybe one basement in New Zealand). It actually does matter that she knows. WADA says the term *requires* knowledge.
WADA explicitly provides a "special definition" of "intent": "As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she 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."
In the CAS report, there was no evidence, let alone proof, that the athlete engaged in the conduct described with such knowledge. The only intentional conduct identified was that the athlete ordered and ate a greasy burrito. This falls far short of establishing the criteria that the term requires -- that she engaged in coduct she knew was a violation, or was risky.
Intent in this case simply means taking a banned substance. It wouldn't matter if she didn't know it was banned - she doesn't have to "intend to break the rules" - since she is obligated to be informed about what substances are on WADA'S list.
That is not what "intent" means in this case (nor anywhere else for that matter, except maybe one basement in New Zealand). It actually does matter that she knows. WADA says the term *requires* knowledge.
WADA explicitly provides a "special definition" of "intent": "As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she 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."
In the CAS report, there was no evidence, let alone proof, that the athlete engaged in the conduct described with such knowledge. The only intentional conduct identified was that the athlete ordered and ate a greasy burrito. This falls far short of establishing the criteria that the term requires -- that she engaged in coduct she knew was a violation, or was risky.
No. The evidence was the nandrolone in her body. The conduct was her putting nandrolone in her body. Her lawyer's attempt at an excuse for the nandrolone in her body was a magical beef burrito that transformed into a greasy wild boar burrito that an elite athlete with somewhere around 5% body fat just went ahead and slaughtered. Being educated adults, the board likely Laughed Out Loud, and found this "defense" preposterous. Maybe a .1% likelihood, which statistically would be zero.
So, where do we think she will open her season? I doubt Millrose will allow her in, or maybe they will, who knows. I would guess she would start with something more low key like a Sound Running or Portland Track meet. What say you?
Also, her latest IG post suggests that she has accepted and embraced the jokes that are certainly coming for her.
