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.
Nandrolone in her body is evidence of an AAF, or an ATF, and not evidence of intent.
To be "intentional" requires that she knew that the conduct was a violation, or risky. Like WA/AIU and the CAS, you failed to identify the conduct, and failed to show that she knew the conduct (e.g. eating a greasy burrito) was a rule violation, or was risky.
I don’t care how many apologists there are for WADA out there, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out WADA was wrong from the very beginning.
Nandrolone in a person’s body does not mean they were using it as a performance enhancing substance.
No one has proved that the nandrolone was there in her body for the sake of enhancing performance. So some arbitrary, United States hating committee decides they have jurisdiction to ban an American athlete. That doesn’t mean she cheated. It just means they made a choice to ban her because someone else would “gain from it.”
If you’re not a hobby jogger or lazy finger pointer stop talking trash about Shelby and move on with your life.
Alberto Salazar doped athletes. Jerry Schumacher did not and NO, Shelby wasn’t some rogue one off. Use common sense and see that WADA is not an unbiased organization…it has motives and interests, just like any other body.
Use a little imagination in how you see Shelby’s case and don’t just assume that she cheated because WADA told you that she did.
WADA 100% gets some cases wrong, just as it gets some right. In this case they were wrong, but they will never admit as much, just like all political organizations and major figures…blame someone else for your own error.
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 can be inferred from actions; it isn't an attempt at mind reading. In an antidoping case intent can be inferred from the evidence of a confirmed positive test and a failure by the athlete to show any legitimate, i.e. accidental, cause. The latter, too, is an evidential test but one that the athlete fails to meet on the balance of probabilities.
You do not understand what proof of intent means - quite apart from the fact that it is not required in antidoping cases like these. There is no inquiry into what the athlete was thinking and no evidence required as to their state of mind when the offence was committed. There would be no way of acquiring such "evidence" beyond asking the athlete did they intend to dope. Guess what their answer would be?
But intent can be adduced from actions. To have a banned substance in one's body can only be the result of an intentional act by the athlete or it was the result accidental contamination (rejected in this case), or sabotage (not argued, as there were no facts to support it).
Your waffling about "proof of intent" is a mere red herring. Intent was demonstrated by her testing positive for a drug that could only have been through the actions of the athlete once she showed there was no other cause that met the test of the balance of probabilities. The dog didn't eat her homework.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
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..
You can't follow an argument, except for what is in your own mind.
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 am saying a presumption in law, such as intent inferred in criminal cases, follows from the facts, whereas you effectively argue here that it is a mere empty formalism, and there are no facts to support it. There are. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I have never seen another poster move the goalposts as much as Armstronglivs..
You can't follow an argument, except for what is in your own mind.
Nah, he is right. You do that all the time. That, hurling insults, and belittling others, is your MO when you, so often, are faced with your ignorance.
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.
Wrong again. Athletes are required to know what is on the banned list. Ignorance is not an excuse. Intent is inferred from choosing to take the drug.
You can't follow an argument, except for what is in your own mind.
Nah, he is right. You do that all the time. That, hurling insults, and belittling others, is your MO when you, so often, are faced with your ignorance.
And you wonder why responses like yours are belittled.