I have consistently presumed "innocent until proven guilty".
Then you are on the wrong site, since doping violations are not cases in a criminal court held to a criminal standard of proof. What you presume is therefore completely irrelevant. It always is.
I have consistently presumed "innocent until proven guilty".
Then you are on the wrong site, since doping violations are not cases in a criminal court held to a criminal standard of proof. What you presume is therefore completely irrelevant. It always is.
You may be right that it is this site that is wrong, for actively encouraging discussions based on such low standards.
The low standard is precisely why some findings are uncompelling.
The documentary on that guy in Florida giving out prescriptions to MLB players using his dads legal Dr prescription pad talked about how he had parents lining up to dope their kids in hopes they make it to the majors and also talked about University of Miami athletes.
As easy as it is to buy online or in Mexico, I wouldnt be surprised if many kids are on it including peptides.
Also gel and patches really dont do much, unless injecting it, you only absorb a small percentage. Also, yes it can cause infertility but you can take other meds to restart your system if you have been on it and want to get off. Bodybuilders have kids after being on TRT for years.
Topical routes like gels and patches do occasionally have problems with skin absorption, depending on the person but it's rare. They usually offer the most even and consistent levels of testosterone.
You can't always "restart" your system. External hormones shuts down your pituitary and may not restart. If on T long enough, your testicle atrophy so they can't be kickstarted again.
Yes, some guys aren't juiced long enough to cause infertility but plenty of them are.
This post was edited 35 seconds after it was posted.
Then you are on the wrong site, since doping violations are not cases in a criminal court held to a criminal standard of proof. What you presume is therefore completely irrelevant. It always is.
You may be right that it is this site that is wrong, for actively encouraging discussions based on such low standards.
The low standard is precisely why some findings are uncompelling.
The balance of probabilities is an acceptable standard both in public debate and in civil courts. You merely seek a standard that cannot be properly applied to doping discussions because it will enable the conclusion you prefer.
You may be right that it is this site that is wrong, for actively encouraging discussions based on such low standards.
The low standard is precisely why some findings are uncompelling.
The balance of probabilities is an acceptable standard both in public debate and in civil courts. You merely seek a standard that cannot be properly applied to doping discussions because it will enable the conclusion you prefer.
In public debate, a subjective determination based on incomplete evidence on the "balance of probability" remains ambiguous. It is not a compelling argument, but a decision with ambiguity.
The conclusions I prefer are the ones that have survived rigorous scrutiny and can be supported with compelling evidence.
In any case, even if it were so, that is not relevant or applicable for arguments not even established to the lower standard of balance of probability, i.e. presumptions of guilt.
And it is not relevant here, in the case of the father/son accepting their sanction without dispute for the father applying his prescription testosterone to his 16-year old son.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Michael Vowell used to be a drug dealer, then he became a Christian, went to seminary, and became a missionary here in Canada. He moved back to Texas taking a pastoral post at Houston’s Congregation Beth Messiah before leaving that church. Seth was 2 when I first met him. I don’t believe he and his (ex?)wife Lauren are together anymore, and I wonder how this is effecting Ora and Hazel his two daughters (Hazel was born here in Canada). This whole thing is such a tragedy.
The balance of probabilities is an acceptable standard both in public debate and in civil courts. You merely seek a standard that cannot be properly applied to doping discussions because it will enable the conclusion you prefer.
In public debate, a subjective determination based on incomplete evidence on the "balance of probability" remains ambiguous. It is not a compelling argument, but a decision with ambiguity.
The conclusions I prefer are the ones that have survived rigorous scrutiny and can be supported with compelling evidence.
In any case, even if it were so, that is not relevant or applicable for arguments not even established to the lower standard of balance of probability, i.e. presumptions of guilt.
And it is not relevant here, in the case of the father/son accepting their sanction without dispute for the father applying his prescription testosterone to his 16-year old son.
The balance of probability is not a subjective test but is empirically based on the available facts. It is the measure you would have applied in the case in question involving the father and his son. It is a necessary conclusion arrived at on the basis of the totality of that evidence. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It could easily be as high a standard as beyond reasonable doubt even when that test wasn't applied. An example is the expert assessment that Houlihan's defence was of "near zero likelihood". Or, as CAS said, "a series of cascading improbabilities". That is clearly guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
The balance of probability is not a subjective test but is empirically based on the available facts. It is the measure you would have applied in the case in question involving the father and his son. It is a necessary conclusion arrived at on the basis of the totality of that evidence. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It could easily be as high a standard as beyond reasonable doubt even when that test wasn't applied. An example is the expert assessment that Houlihan's defence was of "near zero likelihood". Or, as CAS said, "a series of cascading improbabilities". That is clearly guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the father/son case, the "measure (I) would have applied" is "comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel" -- a burden "greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
I understand "balance of probability" as having to weigh (e.g. on a balance) "probably" against "probably not". This best illustrates the quality of the findings that are able to meet such a low standard. There is even greater uncertainty when the available facts and totality of the evidence are incomplete.
We can see confirmation of the subjectivity and ambiguity every time there is a majority/minority split in a decision.
It is telling that your only example is one that failed to meet the balance of probability. This only makes my point that your post is not relevant to the important questions.
The dad had a prescription for testosterone and also happened to be competing in local races. He wasn't particularly fast, but he did pick up some age group awards. Not a good look.
Doping through prescription is rampant in masters racing.
The balance of probability is not a subjective test but is empirically based on the available facts. It is the measure you would have applied in the case in question involving the father and his son. It is a necessary conclusion arrived at on the basis of the totality of that evidence. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It could easily be as high a standard as beyond reasonable doubt even when that test wasn't applied. An example is the expert assessment that Houlihan's defence was of "near zero likelihood". Or, as CAS said, "a series of cascading improbabilities". That is clearly guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the father/son case, the "measure (I) would have applied" is "comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel" -- a burden "greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
I understand "balance of probability" as having to weigh (e.g. on a balance) "probably" against "probably not". This best illustrates the quality of the findings that are able to meet such a low standard. There is even greater uncertainty when the available facts and totality of the evidence are incomplete.
We can see confirmation of the subjectivity and ambiguity every time there is a majority/minority split in a decision.
It is telling that your only example is one that failed to meet the balance of probability. This only makes my point that your post is not relevant to the important questions.
The balance of probability is a measure used by civil courts as well as those who need to make decisions based on the evidence they have before them. To come to a view that a given conclusion is more probable than not, based on the available evidence, is clearly the best conclusion in the circumstances. That is, to those who are rational. That apparently doesn't include you.
"It is telling that your only example is one that failed to meet the balance of probability. This only makes my point that your post is not relevant to the important questions."
The example I gave of Houlihan's conviction met the balance of probability, because that was the test expressly applied to her defence by CAS. Accordingly, her defence failed. Like your arguments always do.
Michael Vowell has a younger daughter Hazel who was born here in Canada when the family was up he as missionaries, the oldest (a daughter named Ora) was 5 when they moved up here. Prior to Michael becoming a Christian he was a drug dealer. If he is also drugging Hazel, that is absolutely diabolical! It’s bad enough he’s drugging Seth Even.
The balance of probability is a measure used by civil courts as well as those who need to make decisions based on the evidence they have before them. To come to a view that a given conclusion is more probable than not, based on the available evidence, is clearly the best conclusion in the circumstances. That is, to those who are rational. That apparently doesn't include you.
We are not in a civil court and we do not need to make a decision. In some cases, the available evidence is incomplete, and therefore inconclusive, leading to a best conclusion that remains uncompelling. The only path to a compelling conclusion is better evidence that would eliminate the ambiguity.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
"It is telling that your only example is one that failed to meet the balance of probability. This only makes my point that your post is not relevant to the important questions."
The example I gave of Houlihan's conviction met the balance of probability, because that was the test expressly applied to her defence by CAS. Accordingly, her defence failed. Like your arguments always do.
Leaving all of your serial misunderstandings unaddressed, you are missing the point, that when the "offence" is not held to any standard, I find it uncompelling.
And you keep missing the point that this is a thread about a father giving his son testosterone, where there is no dispute.
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
The balance of probability is a measure used by civil courts as well as those who need to make decisions based on the evidence they have before them. To come to a view that a given conclusion is more probable than not, based on the available evidence, is clearly the best conclusion in the circumstances. That is, to those who are rational. That apparently doesn't include you.
We are not in a civil court and we do not need to make a decision. In some cases, the available evidence is incomplete, and therefore inconclusive, leading to a best conclusion that remains uncompelling. The only path to a compelling conclusion is better evidence that would eliminate the ambiguity.
That only applies to your speculations, not to the bodies that make decisions about these things. It also shows you cannot follow basic inductive reasoning, because you have no idea what "probable based on the evidence" means. It does not mean "ambiguous", because the evidence suggests a conclusion based on what is shown to be probable. If it was ambiguous it would not pass that test; it would be unresolved. It is only unresolved to a doping denier.