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.
The day will come when the corruption at WADA will finally be revealed. May take 15 years, but that day will come.
I would like to find one person who knows Shelby Houlihan personally who believes she cheated. With other dopers, there are MANY people who would not hesitate to tell you the person cheated. You see this through and through in our sport.
So, why has no one who knows Shelby personally given testimony to why she cheated? Because they all know she didn’t.
She did cheat and used . We all know it and so does the other Olympic medalists who did it with her
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.
You are just kicking the can down the road. There was no evidence before the CAS supporting any such alleged action. You are inferring the action. All you have is inference and presumption, and again, repeating your reliance on the false choice fallacy.
You are the one who said "proof of intent", and once again, you fail to stand by your own claim.
I didn't know that you blindly accept the decisions of every and every official body in the world.
Court got it right by not permitting Harvard to discriminate. Court got it right by sending abortion back to tge states. Court really got it right that Rittenhouse was not guilty.
I will pay more attention to your posts in the future. Glad that you are on the right side with us.
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.
So now this is a criminal case?
Presumption was established in 2015, and does not follow from any facts in 2020.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but the CAS findings and the WADA documents make it clear that the rules permit the CAS deeming intent based solely on presumption.
If there were supporting facts, simply enumerate them. The best way to rebut "no facts" is to provide a counter-example.
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.
Ignorance seems to be your most likely excuse. WADA speaks of intent requiring athlete knowledge that athlete conduct violates a rule, or risks doing so. Athletes are not required to know which banned substances may be in USDA approved foods. Now you fabricate a new goalpost: did Houlihan choose to take the drug?
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.
Ignorance seems to be your most likely excuse. WADA speaks of intent requiring athlete knowledge that athlete conduct violates a rule, or risks doing so. Athletes are not required to know which banned substances may be in USDA approved foods. Now you fabricate a new goalpost: did Houlihan choose to take the drug?
You are basing your whole argument on the fahkking tainted burrito excuse. The probability of the beef burrito having pork in it, and specifically wild boar pork, is so so so very tiny that it has to, had to, be dismissed as a defense.
If i buy shorts at PacSun next door to GNC, get popped for roids the next morning, show you my receipt for shorts, but say i really bought creatine at GNC, you should accept that as unintended contamination, right? case closed!
It's comical. Insane. There.Is.Just.No.Way.
I have a friend with a glass eye. He is sometimes asked if he can see anything out of his glass eye. His reply is, "Can you see anything out of your elbow?" After about a tenth of a second, anyone who asked that question realizes how ridiculous it was. Your tenth of a second is far gone, rekrunnr. Cut bait.
Ignorance seems to be your most likely excuse. WADA speaks of intent requiring athlete knowledge that athlete conduct violates a rule, or risks doing so. Athletes are not required to know which banned substances may be in USDA approved foods. Now you fabricate a new goalpost: did Houlihan choose to take the drug?
You are basing your whole argument on the fahkking tainted burrito excuse. The probability of the beef burrito having pork in it, and specifically wild boar pork, is so so so very tiny that it has to, had to, be dismissed as a defense.
If i buy shorts at PacSun next door to GNC, get popped for roids the next morning, show you my receipt for shorts, but say i really bought creatine at GNC, you should accept that as unintended contamination, right? case closed!
It's comical. Insane. There.Is.Just.No.Way.
I have a friend with a glass eye. He is sometimes asked if he can see anything out of his glass eye. His reply is, "Can you see anything out of your elbow?" After about a tenth of a second, anyone who asked that question realizes how ridiculous it was. Your tenth of a second is far gone, rekrunnr. Cut bait.
Not at all. When I say there was no evidence of athlete intent to violate the rules before the CAS, this has nothing to do with the "burrito excuse", and everything to do with the lack of evidence before the CAS of any athlete intent, or the required conduct with knowledge, or the alleged choice.
Armstronglivs keeps coming up with all these synonyms for presumption to avoid reluctantly admitting it is only a presumption, even after unwittingly conceding that it has been presumption all along.
The relevant rule (2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method) is quoted on page 25-26 of the CAS decision. Specifically: “it is not necessary that intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method” (weird capitalization in original). Rekrunner’s claims about intent are not relevant, legally speaking.
But it wasn't intentional. You should be more forgiving of an innocent person.
I don’t think that’s true. It’s not required in the rules to establish intent. But, in my official capacity as some guy on the internet, I think she did intentionally dope. I don’t have hard evidence, but I think it’s true.
She will back racing very soon. Everyone may as well just enjoy it. Some people are holding a grudge because she will run over their favorite runners. She can't help that she was born with more talent.
But it wasn't intentional. You should be more forgiving of an innocent person.
I don’t think that’s true. It’s not required in the rules to establish intent. But, in my official capacity as some guy on the internet, I think she did intentionally dope. I don’t have hard evidence, but I think it’s true.
+1
The evidence is fourfold though:
1) She had nandrolone in her body (over 5 ng/ml in her urine).
2) Her burrito excuse is nonsense.
3) She had no other excuse.
4) Nandrolone does not randomly appear in coffee, orange juice, or fruitcake etc.
Based on the above evidence, CAS "presumed" intent - it is false to claim there was no evidence.
To me too, that is sufficient evidence to conclude that she put the nandrolone intentionally and knowingly into her body. I have yet to hear a plausible alternative.
She will back racing very soon. Everyone may as well just enjoy it. Some people are holding a grudge because she will run over their favorite runners. She can't help that she was born with more talent.
Well, I am still holding a grudge because of her doping, but sure, go ahead and enjoy her coming races.