So you can't answer my question. Of course you can't. There are no facts that will help you.
You didn't actually ask any question.
Dear me. The quaint literalism that afflicts your thinking. Here we are (from a previous post):-
"Point me to the "evidence" that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions. CAS found no such evidence. Nor could she."
The question then is as follows:
-So what was the evidence that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions?
(Evidence, by the way, is not merely speculation or that which is supposed - like a "contaminated" burrito).
Dear me. The quaint literalism that afflicts your thinking. Here we are (from a previous post):-
"Point me to the "evidence" that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions. CAS found no such evidence. Nor could she."
The question then is as follows:
-So what was the evidence that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions?
(Evidence, by the way, is not merely speculation or that which is supposed - like a "contaminated" burrito).
I posted yesterday that to make sense of it all you have to read the rules.
The flip burden of the athlete having to prove where the drug came from is the central issue.
The rules say that the flip burden in only for consequences and thus is termed “ deemed intentional “.
It wrong then to automatically transfer those words and meanings as set out in the Code to common usage and perceived understanding.
The central rule and rationale of the rules is that strict liability determines all.
So for me I am content that she breeched the rules and is thus guilty of an anti doping violation but to then transfer that on to the common day use of the word doper and cheat is wrong.We just don’t know and the rules are designed to avoid those words.
I don't think I have read such contorted evasions of reality as you have just presented. Your avoidance has become comical. You have no understanding of the "smoking gun analogy", which is what a failed drug test equates to.
I'm sure there is much you don't think, nor have read.
Analogies are not reality.
But, contrary to your suggestion, it is my understanding of the "smoking gun analogy" that leads me to clearly see its failures. In that analogy, the smoking gun is the weapon that caused the "violation", and would be analogous to an open container of norsteroid products, seen by the sample collector on the bathroom counter, while the failed drug test would be analogous to the body with a gunshot wound.
My analogy fits all the nuances much better, but as you said, I don't think you have read it.
I don't think I have read such contorted evasions of reality as you have just presented. Your avoidance has become comical. You have no understanding of the "smoking gun analogy", which is what a failed drug test equates to.
I'm sure there is much you don't think, nor have read.
Analogies are not reality.
But, contrary to your suggestion, it is my understanding of the "smoking gun analogy" that leads me to clearly see its failures. In that analogy, the smoking gun is the weapon that caused the "violation", and would be analogous to an open container of norsteroid products, seen by the sample collector on the bathroom counter, while the failed drug test would be analogous to the body with a gunshot wound.
My analogy fits all the nuances much better, but as you said, I don't think you have read it.
Strict liability for the gun analogy would be that the holder of the gun had to prove he did not do it.
But the courts do not work like that and the prosecution has to prove their case.
I'm sure there is much you don't think, nor have read.
Analogies are not reality.
But, contrary to your suggestion, it is my understanding of the "smoking gun analogy" that leads me to clearly see its failures. In that analogy, the smoking gun is the weapon that caused the "violation", and would be analogous to an open container of norsteroid products, seen by the sample collector on the bathroom counter, while the failed drug test would be analogous to the body with a gunshot wound.
My analogy fits all the nuances much better, but as you said, I don't think you have read it.
Strict liability for the gun analogy would be that the holder of the gun had to prove he did not do it.
But the courts do not work like that and the prosecution has to prove their case.
In such a case the "smoking gun" evidence would be overwhelming tending to show guilt. That is what the analogy means. The onus would still fall on the accused to find a defence. Good luck to them. Or her.
I don't think I have read such contorted evasions of reality as you have just presented. Your avoidance has become comical. You have no understanding of the "smoking gun analogy", which is what a failed drug test equates to.
I'm sure there is much you don't think, nor have read.
Analogies are not reality.
But, contrary to your suggestion, it is my understanding of the "smoking gun analogy" that leads me to clearly see its failures. In that analogy, the smoking gun is the weapon that caused the "violation", and would be analogous to an open container of norsteroid products, seen by the sample collector on the bathroom counter, while the failed drug test would be analogous to the body with a gunshot wound.
My analogy fits all the nuances much better, but as you said, I don't think you have read it.
You say an analogy is not reality and then you attempt to use the same analogy to present your fanciful version of reality. Self-contradiction comes easily to you.
Dear me. The quaint literalism that afflicts your thinking. Here we are (from a previous post):-
"Point me to the "evidence" that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions. CAS found no such evidence. Nor could she."
The question then is as follows:
-So what was the evidence that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions?
(Evidence, by the way, is not merely speculation or that which is supposed - like a "contaminated" burrito).
I posted yesterday that to make sense of it all you have to read the rules.
The flip burden of the athlete having to prove where the drug came from is the central issue.
The rules say that the flip burden in only for consequences and thus is termed “ deemed intentional “.
It wrong then to automatically transfer those words and meanings as set out in the Code to common usage and perceived understanding.
The central rule and rationale of the rules is that strict liability determines all.
So for me I am content that she breeched the rules and is thus guilty of an anti doping violation but to then transfer that on to the common day use of the word doper and cheat is wrong.We just don’t know and the rules are designed to avoid those words.
"So what was the evidence that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions?"
Dear me. The quaint literalism that afflicts your thinking. Here we are (from a previous post):-
"Point me to the "evidence" that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions. CAS found no such evidence. Nor could she."
The question then is as follows:
-So what was the evidence that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions?
(Evidence, by the way, is not merely speculation or that which is supposed - like a "contaminated" burrito).
Dear me. The quaint literalism that afflicts your thinking. Here we are (from a previous post):-
"Point me to the "evidence" that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions. CAS found no such evidence. Nor could she."
The question then is as follows:
-So what was the evidence that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions?
(Evidence, by the way, is not merely speculation or that which is supposed - like a "contaminated" burrito).
To be crystal clear, you avoided answering my "question" by asking this "question", so it's rather hypocritical to accuse me of avoiding your question.
But this is one of several childish games you play, to avoid conceding that the CAS "finding" of "intent" is one they arrived at without any evidence, and by your own standard, must be considered pure fantasy.
Also, to be clear, you are asking me to point you to evidence of a claim I didn't make.
But for entertainment's sake, let's entertain your fantastic possibility:
In the context of a CAS hearing, the meaning of "intentional" is clarified in the WADA Code in 10.2.3 and Comment 59, as conduct that the athlete knew, or should have known, was risky, and would or could lead to a rule violation.
This highlights another problem -- the lack of instantiation. The CAS report does not identify any such athlete conduct, for any possibility, that meets the special meaning in the WADA Code. It is left to the fantasies of the readers. We could say that Houlihan's intentionally ordering, intentionally paying for, and intentionally eating a burrito is intentional athlete conduct, but this conduct does not reasonably constitute risky behavior that the athlete should have known could or would cause a rule violation.
What about other evidence outside of Houlihan's intentional conduct?
There was ample evidence before the CAS, that eating selected USDA inspected and approved pork offal, could/would lead to the same test results. Prof. McGlone gave testimony that, despite efforts from USDA inspectors, some intact boars regularly make it into the food supply undetected, and that during the pandemic pigs were fed more soy. From decades of research, including research from Prof. Ayotte, this is "consistent with" both the presence of the less than 10 ng/ml nandrolone and the depleted carbon isotope signature of -23. The improbability greatly increases with the 121,000,000 pigs that are slaughtered in the USA each year, creating many opportunities with up 12,100 intact boars per year slipping into the USA food supply undetected, according to Prof. McGlone's estimated intact boar penetration.
Any nandrolone in the urine of an athlete consuming such pork offal, would be the result of conduct from USDA inspectors, butchers, farmers, corn and soy suppliers, and several other parties in the chain. None of this can be described as the result of intentional conduct by Houlihan, until she ordered, paid for, and ate a greasy pork stomach burrito -- conduct not known to be risky.
Dear me. The quaint literalism that afflicts your thinking. Here we are (from a previous post):-
"Point me to the "evidence" that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions. CAS found no such evidence. Nor could she."
The question then is as follows:
-So what was the evidence that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions?
(Evidence, by the way, is not merely speculation or that which is supposed - like a "contaminated" burrito).
I'm sure there is much you don't think, nor have read.
Analogies are not reality.
But, contrary to your suggestion, it is my understanding of the "smoking gun analogy" that leads me to clearly see its failures. In that analogy, the smoking gun is the weapon that caused the "violation", and would be analogous to an open container of norsteroid products, seen by the sample collector on the bathroom counter, while the failed drug test would be analogous to the body with a gunshot wound.
My analogy fits all the nuances much better, but as you said, I don't think you have read it.
You say an analogy is not reality and then you attempt to use the same analogy to present your fanciful version of reality. Self-contradiction comes easily to you.
This went way over your head, but you said I was evading reality, while you create unreal analogies. Your analogies are always broken.
Strict liability for the gun analogy would be that the holder of the gun had to prove he did not do it.
But the courts do not work like that and the prosecution has to prove their case.
In such a case the "smoking gun" evidence would be overwhelming tending to show guilt. That is what the analogy means. The onus would still fall on the accused to find a defence. Good luck to them. Or her.
Still not grasped what strict liability is compared with usual law.
The prosecution have disprove the defence in the gun case and prove theirs as the onus is actually on the prosecution.