Not much. No criminal jury would convict her on this evidence, but it's more than "preponderance of the evidence" needed in civil matters. Four years seems excessive. It would be nice if plea deals could be struck.
The dude who read the rules and Rekrunner probably also think Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real because “the evidence only proves nobody has ever seen them, but you can’t know for sure”
The dude who read the rules and Rekrunner probably also think Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real because “the evidence only proves nobody has ever seen them, but you can’t know for sure”
Maybe it would help you understand if you ask yourself "what is possible to conclude from the available evidence?", rather than "what do I want to believe?".
If you have "evidence" that proves intent, cheating, or lying, then I'd be happy if you share it. What I think to date about Houlihan is that anything beyond the unexplained "presence" and "use" is unsupported by any specific or concrete evidence.
Santa Claus can be traced back to a monk named St. Nicholas, known for his kindness and generosity.
The Easter Bunny is a bit further detached from existence, being more a symbol of the ancient god of fertility, Eostre, who is herself the symbol of rebirth associated with the spring equinox.
Regarding Santa and the Easter Bunny, I think anything more than that will require more evidence.
The dude who read the rules and Rekrunner probably also think Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real because “the evidence only proves nobody has ever seen them, but you can’t know for sure”
Hi Dude. Your tautology is remarkable and well beyond anything those who are not happy with WADA have ever come close to providing.
I would prefer to refer to the actual rules and to the actual CAS decision and follow the definitions they are following and not invent Santa Claus and Micky Mouse ones that suit my own preferences.
I would love to have definitive answers but the way the controls are created such is not possible.
Not much. No criminal jury would convict her on this evidence, but it's more than "preponderance of the evidence" needed in civil matters. Four years seems excessive. It would be nice if plea deals could be struck.
I am not so sure about your criminal jury comment, as the evidence is very convincing imho (and there are several (other) strict liability offenses...), but I agree with the overwhelming preponderance.
Just writing to say that she rejected the (standard) plea deal that would have made her eligible to compete in the 2024 Olympics.
Not much. No criminal jury would convict her on this evidence, but it's more than "preponderance of the evidence" needed in civil matters. Four years seems excessive. It would be nice if plea deals could be struck.
They did offer her a plea deal of three years iirc
Not much. No criminal jury would convict her on this evidence, but it's more than "preponderance of the evidence" needed in civil matters. Four years seems excessive. It would be nice if plea deals could be struck.
They did offer her a plea deal of three years iirc
That is built into the Code - if you don't contest the charges, you can qualify for a 1 year reduction.
That is built into the Code - if you don't contest the charges, you can qualify for a 1 year reduction.
Would her offence be “deemed intentional” under Rule 10 if she had accepted the plea deal?
I've said this before, but again, in the spirit of what I have learned, the whole topic of presuming, deeming or establishing "intent" is gratuitous and completely unnecessary:
- Under rules 2.2.1 (Presence) and 2.2.2 (Use), intent is not necessary to establish these rule violations.
- Under 10.2.1, establishing/deeming/presuming intent is not necessary to find that an athlete failed to establish "not intentional" on the balance of probability.
To answer your question, read 10.8. If you want to see how this works in a real case, you can read the AIU decision on Edward Kibet Kiprop:
- He admitted buying and injecting Deca-durabolin "to manage persistent pain and injury"
- He was found with greater than 15 ng/ml, from injection into the muscle
- Injection into the muscle resulting in greater than 15 ng/ml is objectively far worse than ingestion (mostly filtered out in first-pass) resulting in 5.2 or 5.8 ng/ml.
- It's not a plea deal as such offered by the AIU, but a reduction offered by WADA (see comment 70) always available to the athlete exercise unilaterally. It should be seen as an incentive to accept the charge and sanction within 20 days eliminating the need for a costly trial.
- To qualify, you must have a sanction of at least 4 years, and you will be disqualified from any further reductions.
- Ironically, this benefits intentional cheats who admit it right away, and penalizes innocent athletes who wish to naturally defend themselves and fight the charge in order to maintain their innocence, their name, and their reputation.
- Perversely, if the athlete cannot find the primary concrete and specific evidence required to prove "not intentional", the best path in the WADA Code for the innocent athlete is to accept the 3-year ban without further question.
Would her offence be “deemed intentional” under Rule 10 if she had accepted the plea deal?
I've said this before, but again, in the spirit of what I have learned, the whole topic of presuming, deeming or establishing "intent" is gratuitous and completely unnecessary:
- Under rules 2.2.1 (Presence) and 2.2.2 (Use), intent is not necessary to establish these rule violations.
- Under 10.2.1, establishing/deeming/presuming intent is not necessary to find that an athlete failed to establish "not intentional" on the balance of probability.
To answer your question, read 10.8. If you want to see how this works in a real case, you can read the AIU decision on Edward Kibet Kiprop:
- He admitted buying and injecting Deca-durabolin "to manage persistent pain and injury"
- He was found with greater than 15 ng/ml, from injection into the muscle
- Injection into the muscle resulting in greater than 15 ng/ml is objectively far worse than ingestion (mostly filtered out in first-pass) resulting in 5.2 or 5.8 ng/ml.
- It's not a plea deal as such offered by the AIU, but a reduction offered by WADA (see comment 70) always available to the athlete exercise unilaterally. It should be seen as an incentive to accept the charge and sanction within 20 days eliminating the need for a costly trial.
- To qualify, you must have a sanction of at least 4 years, and you will be disqualified from any further reductions.
- Ironically, this benefits intentional cheats who admit it right away, and penalizes innocent athletes who wish to naturally defend themselves and fight the charge in order to maintain their innocence, their name, and their reputation.
- Perversely, if the athlete cannot find the primary concrete and specific evidence required to prove "not intentional", the best path in the WADA Code for the innocent athlete is to accept the 3-year ban without further question.
Thanks but still not clear and this may be because there are several perverse elements to the Code.
I agree that intent actually has nothing to do with the offence but in the minds of those who can’t be bothered to read the rules it was the deemed intent applied to have or not have a reduced sentence that is the killer.
So if she had admitted the offence ie it was in her body, would any consideration then been given to rule ten and thus no comment about deemed intent would have been assumed.I rather think not.
Thanks but still not clear and this may be because there are several perverse elements to the Code.
I agree that intent actually has nothing to do with the offence but in the minds of those who can’t be bothered to read the rules it was the deemed intent applied to have or not have a reduced sentence that is the killer.
So if she had admitted the offence ie it was in her body, would any consideration then been given to rule ten and thus no comment about deemed intent would have been assumed.I rather think not.
To be honest, your question is not clear to me.
To be eligible for a 1-year reduction under 10.8.1, requires a sanction of four years or more.
Under 10.2.1, four years is the consequence of not establishing not intentional, i.e. "deeming" the violation as if it were intentional.
How that is expressed in Media Releases, or published decisions depends on who authors the publication.
I'll note here, that despite Edward Kibet Kiprop admitting he intentionally bought nandrolone and injected himself, the AIU did not express this as presumed or deemed intent, but rather more accurately wrote:
14. The period of Ineligibility to be imposed is therefore a period of four (4) years, unless the Athlete demonstrates that the Anti-Doping Rule Violations were not intentional. 15. The Athlete has not demonstrated that the Anti-Doping Rule Violations were not intentional. Therefore, the mandatory period of Ineligibility is a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years.
But in the case of Houlihan, lacking any such admission, and lacking any specific evidence establishing intent, the language from the AIU is more severe, accusatory and explicit (as told to us by the CAS) that "the Athlete has committed an intentional ADRV".
Thanks but still not clear and this may be because there are several perverse elements to the Code.
I agree that intent actually has nothing to do with the offence but in the minds of those who can’t be bothered to read the rules it was the deemed intent applied to have or not have a reduced sentence that is the killer.
So if she had admitted the offence ie it was in her body, would any consideration then been given to rule ten and thus no comment about deemed intent would have been assumed.I rather think not.
To be honest, your question is not clear to me.
To be eligible for a 1-year reduction under 10.8.1, requires a sanction of four years or more.
Under 10.2.1, four years is the consequence of not establishing not intentional, i.e. "deeming" the violation as if it were intentional.
How that is expressed in Media Releases, or published decisions depends on who authors the publication.
I'll note here, that despite Edward Kibet Kiprop admitting he intentionally bought nandrolone and injected himself, the AIU did not express this as presumed or deemed intent, but rather more accurately wrote:
14. The period of Ineligibility to be imposed is therefore a period of four (4) years, unless the Athlete demonstrates that the Anti-Doping Rule Violations were not intentional. 15. The Athlete has not demonstrated that the Anti-Doping Rule Violations were not intentional. Therefore, the mandatory period of Ineligibility is a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years.
But in the case of Houlihan, lacking any such admission, and lacking any specific evidence establishing intent, the language from the AIU is more severe, accusatory and explicit (as told to us by the CAS) that "the Athlete has committed an intentional ADRV".
Thanks; you have shed light on it.
It seems that it is impossible to avoid the intentional ADRV element. I should have made that clear to myself.
Thus on one want hand they say they are not judging intent but then the way the rules in Rule 10 are applied they are. But then they say that intent is only to be deemed for the limited purposes of Rule 10.
No one has learned anything in the last year that wasn't already known. But for those who cling to their delusions about her "possible" innocence or the "unfairness" of the system nothing can shake that.