sanootage wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Good find, but that “definition” is now outdated, and has been revised in the latest version of the Code, by removing “cheat” as well as “the term … requires”:
“the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct …”
Apparently WADA found the word “cheat” inappropriate too, and therefore redefined “intention” so it no longer means “CHEATED by definition”.
Either definition raises the question I’ve asked many times: did the AIU or the CAS identify which conduct was “intentional”? If not, is the “requirement” in the outdated wording met?
Not just outdated but subject to comment 59.
Good point: WADA’s “special definition” of “intention” “is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.” — i.e. solely for determining “ineligibility” — in this case whether it is 4 years, or less, or more.