Unless you and/or your friends have eaten the same pork (or beef) burrito from the same food truck, your personal experience at other restaurants or food trucks is irrelevant.
You have continued to bring up the "greasy burrito" as proof that Shelby likely ate a offal burrito. My experience is relevant in that asada burritos can be greasy. One place I frequent I almost always order the same asada burrito and sometimes it is much more greasy than other times. Again, the chance that she consumed half an offal burrito without noticing the taste is infinitely unlikely.
Is it your experience that all burritos are always the same regardless of restaurant/store/truck?
Unless you and your friends ordered beef burritos from the same truck, your personal experience has no relevance in this case -- a case where witnesses described the amount of grease as uncharacteristic.
He seems to be passing (and entering) many bars on a daily basis.
The bar I passed is the one that you would fail - your IQ absolutely shows that.
You are so insecure. Typical narcissist. So insecure he tries to belittle others. You know nothing about me. I know you are an ignorant, insecure narcissist. Thanks, you are dismissed.
The bar I passed is the one that you would fail - your IQ absolutely shows that.
You are so insecure. Typical narcissist. So insecure he tries to belittle others. You know nothing about me. I know you are an ignorant, insecure narcissist. Thanks, you are dismissed.
Presuming intent from testing positive when a drug has been ingested but not accidentally is both logically and legally consistent. I don't drink but you clearly do.
Which bar teaches "guilty until proven innocent" is legally consistent?
Note in anti-doping, the presumed intent comes directly from the Code, and in this case, no one established (i.e. by arguments with evidence and proof) that ingestion was not accidental.
It was established once accidental contamination was not accepted by CAS. That only leaves intentional ingestion of the banned substance. Since it wasn't a criminal case the evidence was decided according to the balance of probabilities. She failed to produce a defence to that standard. Your endless whining that the onus of proof fell upon her to produce an acceptable defence is irrelevant - like all your arguments.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Which bar teaches "guilty until proven innocent" is legally consistent?
Note in anti-doping, the presumed intent comes directly from the Code, and in this case, no one established (i.e. by arguments with evidence and proof) that ingestion was not accidental.
It was established once accidental contamination was not accepted by CAS. That only leaves intentional ingestion of the banned substance. Since it wasn't a criminal case the evidence was decided according to the balance of probabilities. She failed to produce a defence to that standard. Your endless whining that the onus of proof fell upon her to produce an acceptable defence is irrelevant - like all your arguments.
In other words, you agree that no bar teaches "guilty until proven innocent" is legally consistent.
I'm saying it was established by presumption, not by arguments with evidence and proof.
You are striking a tone of disagreement, but you only restate the same basic fact, often conceding that it was presumption, rather than established fact.
She was railroaded to a 4-year ban without any arguments with evidence and proof that she committed intentional doping, for failing to provide a proof which is known to be difficult to provide. The CAS makes all of this explicit in the report.
It's also not clear that the WA/AIU met their standard of establishing an ADRV in the first place. The CAS didn't explicitly rule on that point, but also shifted the burden to Houlihan to disprove.