That's amusing. So you can't support any of your claims with facts or evidence.
I'll go with CAS on this. You haven't read or understood any of the Houlihan threads. But, like rekrunner, you recite the same garbage again and again as though that will show she is a victim of an unfair process. Nah - just another doper who has been caught.
I guess the biggest intellectual challenge is understanding the assignment. It's not about rejustifiying CAS decisions based on presumptions, but about recognizing whether the accumulated evidence of "intentional doping" is "conclusive", without first presuming "intentional doping". Your post failed to specify any evidence.
...With respect to "doping", the CAS panel was of two minds whether the AAF was properly reported and the ADRV properly managed -- because the evidence before the CAS Panel was "inconclusive".
You failed to read to the end where I referred to the evidence. As expected. Troll.
And now, against your own instructions, you don't want to discuss the evidence - because it's too damning - but keep bringing up the TD and the Wada Code and this one lone fringe opinion of a CAS panelist. Haven't you noticed by now that that wasn't about the evidence but the procedure? As expected, you are not interested in looking at the evidence.
This is about the 4001st time you have blathered on with saying essentially the same wrong thing.
I want to reform. What was in that post that was wrong? Can you be specific? Can you support what is "right" with facts or evidence? Thanks in advance for exposing the outer limits of your knowledge.
I want to reform. What was in that post that was wrong? Can you be specific? Can you support what is "right" with facts or evidence? Thanks in advance for exposing the outer limits of your knowledge.
He has no facts, just baseless attacks.
How about the CAS decision that heard the issue and considered the evidence and consequently found she intentionally doped and imposed a ban for 4 years.
You failed to read to the end where I referred to the evidence. As expected. Troll.
And now, against your own instructions, you don't want to discuss the evidence - because it's too damning - but keep bringing up the TD and the Wada Code and this one lone fringe opinion of a CAS panelist. Haven't you noticed by now that that wasn't about the evidence but the procedure? As expected, you are not interested in looking at the evidence.
The failure is all yours. The evidence you referred to (about pork meat?) is neither evidence of "doping", nor of "intent". All of the evidence, and resulting sub-decisions, combined does not permit anyone to conclude "intentional doping" without presuming it first.
And you are sadly mistaken -- by all means, let's discuss all of the known evidence, and whether it can be considered "conclusive" of "intentional doping". The fact remains that the CAS Panel couldn't agree that the evidence of the lab results were "conclusive" of "doping", and the CAS Panel simply heard no evidence of "intent".
That's amusing. So you can't support any of your claims with facts or evidence.
I'll go with CAS on this. You haven't read or understood any of the Houlihan threads. But, like rekrunner, you recite the same garbage again and again as though that will show she is a victim of an unfair process. Nah - just another doper who has been caught.
Then it is agreed -- it was the CAS who said their decisions were based on presumptions found in the WADA Code.
I want to reform. What was in that post that was wrong? Can you be specific? Can you support what is "right" with facts or evidence? Thanks in advance for exposing the outer limits of your knowledge.
He has no facts, just baseless attacks.
Several times he asked me to go away and do my own investigation of historical facts.
I did as he recommended and he doesn't seem to agree with my findings.
I'll go with CAS on this. You haven't read or understood any of the Houlihan threads. But, like rekrunner, you recite the same garbage again and again as though that will show she is a victim of an unfair process. Nah - just another doper who has been caught.
Then it is agreed -- it was the CAS who said their decisions were based on presumptions found in the WADA Code.
No, it didn't. She tested positive for a banned substance that she couldn't show legitimate cause for. That only leaves intentional doping. Your inability to accept this is a form of derangement.
Then it is agreed -- it was the CAS who said their decisions were based on presumptions found in the WADA Code.
No, it didn't. She tested positive for a banned substance that she couldn't show legitimate cause for. That only leaves intentional doping. Your inability to accept this is a form of derangement.
Conviction by presumed false dichotomies? What's not to accept?
It does not show intention. A test cannot show *intention.* Nevertheless the burden is on the athlete to demonstrate they are clean, which she was unable to do.
No, it didn't. She tested positive for a banned substance that she couldn't show legitimate cause for. That only leaves intentional doping. Your inability to accept this is a form of derangement.
Conviction by presumed false dichotomies? What's not to accept?
A positive test for which she had no acceptable excuse is a "false dichotomy"? Blah blah. Reality is a finding of intentional doping with a penalty of a 4 year ban. That renders your doping-apologist excuses irrelevant.
It does not show intention. A test cannot show *intention.* Nevertheless the burden is on the athlete to demonstrate they are clean, which she was unable to do.
It shows intention when the athlete is unable to show any other cause.
Conviction by presumed false dichotomies? What's not to accept?
A positive test for which she had no acceptable excuse is a "false dichotomy"? Blah blah. Reality is a finding of intentional doping with a penalty of a 4 year ban. That renders your doping-apologist excuses irrelevant.
False dichotomy is any argument that starts and ends with "That only leaves ...". Maybe you prefer "false equivalence"? The CAS told us that intent was presumed and deemed, and not proven. That is not my excuse, but comes from the CAS.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.