"I love the pain of a hard long run": Shelby Houlihan is moving up to the Half/Full Marathon in her return.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

CAS didn't need to apportion a label when convicting and sentencing Houlihan. Courts don't. But a Court decision makes it implicit that someone found guilty of an offence in the criminal code is a "criminal", and so someone who intentionally violates the anti-doping rules by using a banned substance is a "doper". If you don't accept the latter you can't accept the former. But only a person in denial of the Court's decision would argue that patent absurdity. That is you.

CAS dismissed Houlihan's attempted excuse as being too improbable, even though you cavil with equivalent expressions such as "implausible" or "not credible". So if those terms are incorrect why was her excuse rejected - especially since you point out she was seen as a "credible" witness? Her story was plausible and credible - and yet not believed? Surely that is a contradiction? The only way to resolve the contradiction is too understand her excuse wasn't plausible or credible. That wasn't simply because she couldn't produce the "contaminated burrito"; it was because the evidence before the Court suggested such hypothetical contamination was improbable.

You are wasting your efforts here. You need to start a thread proving Earth is only 10,000 years old - against everything science tells us today. Defying fact, logic and truth like a religious fanatic is your specialty.

I don’t need to apportion labels either. I find the language of the CAS and WADA rich enough to describe the verdict, and introducing any deviation risks distorting the meaning of the verdict in context.

“Doper” must be understood according to WADA’s definition of “doping”, which explicitly does not require “intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use” to violate the rules on “Presence” and “Use”.

That is a significant deviation from the common English definition that can be found in Merriam-Webster.

“Intentional” must be understood as something that the CAS “presumed” and “deemed” rather than something demonstrated and established as fact.

Besides “intentional”, we still have the unestablished elements of “fault, negligence, or knowing use”.

The CAS report clearly explains the reasons for their ruling , in the same paragraph they called her credible, and her character witnesses evidence compelling (see 139 and also 140)— I thought you and everyone else read and understood the ruling. It appears that you didn’t. They did not use the terms “believe” or “plausible” or “credible” (except to describe Houlihan). Why would you then claim “and yet not believed”? For example, it’s highly improbable that someone will be struck by lightning (around 1 in 500,000 according to the CDC), yet it is is highly believable that people are killed by lightning (43 fatalities per year in the US). Any contradiction is purely one of your own making, presumably so you could “resolve the contradiction” the way you want to believe. You may be unaware that that is what you’ve done.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I don’t need to apportion labels either. I find the language of the CAS and WADA rich enough to describe the verdict, and introducing any deviation risks distorting the meaning of the verdict in context.

“Doper” must be understood according to WADA’s definition of “doping”, which explicitly does not require “intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use” to violate the rules on “Presence” and “Use”.

That is a significant deviation from the common English definition that can be found in Merriam-Webster.

“Intentional” must be understood as something that the CAS “presumed” and “deemed” rather than something demonstrated and established as fact.

Besides “intentional”, we still have the unestablished elements of “fault, negligence, or knowing use”.

The CAS report clearly explains the reasons for their ruling , in the same paragraph they called her credible, and her character witnesses evidence compelling (see 139 and also 140)— I thought you and everyone else read and understood the ruling. It appears that you didn’t. They did not use the terms “believe” or “plausible” or “credible” (except to describe Houlihan). Why would you then claim “and yet not believed”? For example, it’s highly improbable that someone will be struck by lightning (around 1 in 500,000 according to the CDC), yet it is is highly believable that people are killed by lightning (43 fatalities per year in the US). Any contradiction is purely one of your own making, presumably so you could “resolve the contradiction” the way you want to believe. You may be unaware that that is what you’ve done.

This is truly comical. Behind that elaborate verbal smokescreen we see that someone who was "found to have committed an intentional ADRV" is nevertheless not a doper and that she is not even at fault; that even though the offence is determined to be "intentional" she didn't commit it - which is what "intentional" requires; and that despite her excuse of accidental contamination not being accepted by the court it was still somehow believed and seen by the Court as credible and plausible. If we follow you down your rabbit hole we see that Houlihan was not at fault - even though she committed a violation - and was not a doper despite using a banned substance, and she did not commit the offence herself - despite the Court saying it was "intentional", and she presented a story that the Court believed and found credible - and yet rejected. Everything you argue is the opposite of what the Court decided and why. By your reasoning - I use that term advisedly - it is unfathomable that she is serving a 4 year ban for a doping offence. Yet she is.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I don’t need to apportion labels either. I find the language of the CAS and WADA rich enough to describe the verdict, and introducing any deviation risks distorting the meaning of the verdict in context.

“Doper” must be understood according to WADA’s definition of “doping”, which explicitly does not require “intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use” to violate the rules on “Presence” and “Use”.

That is a significant deviation from the common English definition that can be found in Merriam-Webster.

“Intentional” must be understood as something that the CAS “presumed” and “deemed” rather than something demonstrated and established as fact.

Besides “intentional”, we still have the unestablished elements of “fault, negligence, or knowing use”.

The CAS report clearly explains the reasons for their ruling , in the same paragraph they called her credible, and her character witnesses evidence compelling (see 139 and also 140)— I thought you and everyone else read and understood the ruling. It appears that you didn’t. They did not use the terms “believe” or “plausible” or “credible” (except to describe Houlihan). Why would you then claim “and yet not believed”? For example, it’s highly improbable that someone will be struck by lightning (around 1 in 500,000 according to the CDC), yet it is is highly believable that people are killed by lightning (43 fatalities per year in the US). Any contradiction is purely one of your own making, presumably so you could “resolve the contradiction” the way you want to believe. You may be unaware that that is what you’ve done.

This is truly comical. Behind that elaborate verbal smokescreen we see that someone who was "found to have committed an intentional ADRV" is nevertheless not a doper and that she is not even at fault; that even though the offence is determined to be "intentional" she didn't commit it - which is what "intentional" requires; and that despite her excuse of accidental contamination not being accepted by the court it was still somehow believed and seen by the Court as credible and plausible. If we follow you down your rabbit hole we see that Houlihan was not at fault - even though she committed a violation - and was not a doper despite using a banned substance, and she did not commit the offence herself - despite the Court saying it was "intentional", and she presented a story that the Court believed and found credible - and yet rejected. Everything you argue is the opposite of what the Court decided and why. By your reasoning - I use that term advisedly - it is unfathomable that she is serving a 4 year ban for a doping offence. Yet she is.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

This is truly comical. Behind that elaborate verbal smokescreen we see that someone who was "found to have committed an intentional ADRV" is nevertheless not a doper and that she is not even at fault; that even though the offence is determined to be "intentional" she didn't commit it - which is what "intentional" requires; and that despite her excuse of accidental contamination not being accepted by the court it was still somehow believed and seen by the Court as credible and plausible. If we follow you down your rabbit hole we see that Houlihan was not at fault - even though she committed a violation - and was not a doper despite using a banned substance, and she did not commit the offence herself - despite the Court saying it was "intentional", and she presented a story that the Court believed and found credible - and yet rejected. Everything you argue is the opposite of what the Court decided and why. By your reasoning - I use that term advisedly - it is unfathomable that she is serving a 4 year ban for a doping offence. Yet she is.

You said you understood the CAS report, but with each post you prove otherwise.

This is not *my* "elaborate verbal smokescreen". The parts you mock, and "everything I argue" can be found in plain English in the CAS report and the WADA Code with quotes and references. The definitions, and requirements, and non-essential elements, and applicability, and limitations are clearly spelled out, and easy to understand, especially for one who claims mastery of English, and a law qualification. It cannot be intelligently laughed away. The only elements I find outside of the CAS report were introduced by you, neither addressed nor resolved by the CAS.

If you find it comical, it is WADA and the CAS who wrote the scripts, and it is you who embellish them with simpleton faithful conclusions that cannot be found in the CAS reports and the WADA Code.

I find it a tragedy that any athlete can be railroaded into a 4-year sanction without demonstrating intent, fault, negligence or knowing use, but instead placing the difficult, if not impossible, burden on the athlete, one month after the event, well after the opportunity to secure vital evidence has long passed, to become detective, scientist, lawyer, and pork industry expert in a few short months, in order to convince a panel, and a non-expert public, against a group of seasoned veterans.

This doesn't look like a system that can ensure justice for all athletes. I think Tygart is right. The WADA Code is broken and needs reform.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Wada laws and codes introduced about 20 years ago were a remarkable achievement.

Central to them was the idea that they are sports rules and not subject to criminal or civil standards.Such still appears within the opening paragraphs of the Code.

If you examine the way hearing are run and case law built up and big lawyer firms having sport law departments then the idea that the Code is “ just sports rules” looks out of date.

Thus the Code has to reflect real law or will have to eventually.

Doping in sports is not a criminal offence so the principles and processes of the criminal law do not apply. Nor should they. There are indeed many areas of law other than the criminal law, and quite a lot of it in sports will involve contract law and civil liability. These, too, do not apply the processes of the criminal law. So tell us - what exactly are your legal qualifications?

another perspective wrote:

For everyone's information, it is totally normal for judges in both civil and criminal courts to describe complainants, defendants, witnesses etc. as "credible" or "compelling" even when they are on the "losing" side. It basically means that the person's account more or less adds up and they seemed believable, though not that a judge actually believes it to be true. It is in contrast to someone who a judge would describe as not credible, basically meaning that for whatever reason, the judge isn't taking oral evidence supplied from the non credible source into consideration during their deliberations.

In Houlihan terms - the CAS found Houlihan's testimony and delivery believable and coherent enough such that they felt comfortable weighing it at face value against the evidence and testimony supplied by WADA/AIU. However clearly it didn't weigh very favourably. They ultimately found it less probable than the explanation outlined by the AIU, hence the 3-0 ruling. If Houlihan had not presented a credible argument, yes it would still have been a 3-0 ruling, but an easier decision to come to, and likely a shorter decision.

So in summary, it is not legally redundant that CAS found Houlihan credible or any such synonym, but it also doesn't mean the judges actually believe the explanation given by Houlihan's team.

rekrunner wrote:

another perspective wrote:

For everyone's information, it is totally normal for judges in both civil and criminal courts to describe complainants, defendants, witnesses etc. as "credible" or "compelling" even when they are on the "losing" side. It basically means that the person's account more or less adds up and they seemed believable, though not that a judge actually believes it to be true. It is in contrast to someone who a judge would describe as not credible, basically meaning that for whatever reason, the judge isn't taking oral evidence supplied from the non credible source into consideration during their deliberations.

In Houlihan terms - the CAS found Houlihan's testimony and delivery believable and coherent enough such that they felt comfortable weighing it at face value against the evidence and testimony supplied by WADA/AIU. However clearly it didn't weigh very favourably. They ultimately found it less probable than the explanation outlined by the AIU, hence the 3-0 ruling. If Houlihan had not presented a credible argument, yes it would still have been a 3-0 ruling, but an easier decision to come to, and likely a shorter decision.

So in summary, it is not legally redundant that CAS found Houlihan credible or any such synonym, but it also doesn't mean the judges actually believe the explanation given by Houlihan's team.

Of course, but the point is, why are we talking at all about "credibility" or "plausibility" or "believing her story" when the CAS did not?

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

In addition; the many many of the principles of criminal law do apply.

Strict liability is a criminal law concept but it is recognised as having limitations.As applied in sport is is well outside those limitations.

This means the unfairness and unreasonableness is systemic in sports rules/laws.

Why should sport suffer when criminals don’t?

It isn't unfair. The athlete is found to have a banned substance in their body. They need to account for it or they have committed a violation. It isn't for anti-doping to prove how it got there. The athlete is responsible for what is found in their body. It is similar to a drink-driving offence, when a person is over the limit. There only one way that can happen. The prosecution doesn't have to prove they were drinking; the test says they were. Same with a dope test. It says the athlete doped - unless they can show otherwise. Most can't - because they doped.