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

You have not understood the limitations of strict liability.

Theft is not a strict liability offence and the burden stays with the prosecution.So actually mens rea is needed in all the situations you indicate.( not 100 % sure about the ticket one and if I am wrong the penalty is trivial compared with sports doping)

Do read about the limitations of strict liability.

Words do not simply mean whatever we want or they have no meaning. Without an agreed meaning they are merely noise or doggerel. There would indeed be no communication possible if we did not understand the commonly-accepted meanings of words - such as in these few sentences. But by playing with the meanings of words - effectively stripping them of what they commonly mean - you continue to reduce your arguments to vacuous nonsense. Meaningless rubbish.

An example above is how you claim that if something is "possible" it is both "plausible" and "credible". It is not. Any one of a dozen explanations may be offered for an event (such as a doping violation) and any of them may be "possible" if they do not conflict with the laws of physics or nature. A lie may be "possible". Indeed, that which is merely "possible" may also be quite untrue - as a lie is. It does not become "plausible" without actual evidence that suggests it may be likely or probable, and nor is it "credible" unless that evidence suggests it may also true. However you choose to play with words, that Houlihan's excuse might have been "possible" (as a lie or falsehood is also "possible") is immaterial to the argument; it did not pass the higher test of being probable let alone true. So it was not accepted. Any lie is "possible" - but a lie cannot be true. That the Court didn't accept Houlihan's explanation shows her excuse was therefore also possibly a lie.

Drink-driving over the defined limit does not require mens rea. There is only one way the alcohol got into your body. Once you are over the limit your intention does not need to be proven. So it is with doping - you put it there, unless you can show otherwise.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So what is the "real law" that the Code should reflect?

Limitations of strict liability and more discretion in the sanctions.

Proportionality is now mentioned in the Code but then there are so many requirements to give uniform sanctions.

It may well be the normal application of real law that we see in the real world is what I have in mind.

Each case judged and sanctioned on its merits.

What is the "real" law that needs to be applied? If not criminal law, is it torts, contract, administrative, equity - international law - what exactly?

You don't actually understand how the law works. When you say "each case should be judged and sanctioned in its own merits" that's what the law does - the facts of the case determine the outcome. However justice requires that like be treated alike, and so the law both defines the criteria for liability and the prescribed penalties when guilt is established. Courts cannot simply "make up laws" and impose whatever they feel like. That is how tryrannies operate; not Courts bound by the rule of law. But you don't know anything about that. You have no legal training or qualifications.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So what is the "real law" that the Code should reflect?

The Code is made up of rules, and disputes are settled by arbitration.

They can be seen like laws enforced in courts, but that is just pretend.

Rather like you are pretending to legal knowledge.

Courts impose settlements through arbitration all the time, in civil disputes. That is also how the law works. The application of a sporting code is also subject to the law; the parties are bound by principles of administrative law including natural justice, and decisions in disputes can be appealed and enforced. The parties are bound by them in law. The disputes are adjudicated in conformity with interpretation of the rules and the facts of the case supported by evidence. There is nothing "pretend" about any of it. You are an ignorant fathead.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The Code is made up of rules, and disputes are settled by arbitration.

They can be seen like laws enforced in courts, but that is just pretend.

Rather like you are pretending to legal knowledge.

Courts impose settlements through arbitration all the time, in civil disputes. That is also how the law works. The application of a sporting code is also subject to the law; the parties are bound by principles of administrative law including natural justice, and decisions in disputes can be appealed and enforced. The parties are bound by them in law. The disputes are adjudicated in conformity with interpretation of the rules and the facts of the case supported by evidence. There is nothing "pretend" about any of it. You are an ignorant fathead.

More insults.

The Wada Code says the Code is not bound by the norms of criminal or civil law as they are sporting rules.

Do read the rules as you are been directed to on many many many occasions.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

You have not understood the limitations of strict liability.

Theft is not a strict liability offence and the burden stays with the prosecution.So actually mens rea is needed in all the situations you indicate.( not 100 % sure about the ticket one and if I am wrong the penalty is trivial compared with sports doping)

Do read about the limitations of strict liability.

Drink-driving over the defined limit does not require mens rea. There is only one way the alcohol got into your body. Once you are over the limit your intention does not need to be proven. So it is with doping - you put it there, unless you can show otherwise.

You have not dealt with the limits of strict liability.

Why not?

And you have not bothered to deal with the defences against drunk driving.Why not?

And you have not responded to the 2.5pints allowable and the test result being immediately given. Have you?

By real law I refer to law other than sporting rules that state they are outside criminal and civil law.

Read the rules you have been directed to.

I have not said courts can make up laws (where on earth did you make that up from?)but they do have more freedom to apply a great variety of sanctions having evaluated each case on its merits; unlike the Wada Code.

A possible lie!

She was an absolute liar before.

And you again and again have not grasped that the buritto was not an explanation but on a possible reason.

Thus it was an opinion and you argued that giving an opinion that was not agreed with was lying.

Nil for logic Mr A.

Are you suggesting that maybe Baumann, Decker, Gatlin, Kiprop, and Jeptoo were also treated unfairly? You might be able to build a strong case for a few of them.

None of these examples you give are like the violations of “Presence” or “Use”. Getting caught with unpaid merchandise or heroine is more like the violation of 2.6 “Possession”, where fault, intent, negligence or knowledge are not at issue. Riding a train without a ticket is more like banditing a race, or competing in an official event without a license.

Another difference is the punishment fitting the severity of the crime. If I steal a banana, I do not get the same punishment as if I steal a car. If I speed 10 mph above the limit, I do not suffer the penalties of the one 100mph over the limit. If I drink and drive, the penalties increase with the alcohol content. Yet Houlihan’s ingested 5.2 ng/ml and 5.8 ng/ml is treated with the same sanction as CJ Hunter’s injected 2000 ng/ml, and in these forums, Houlihan is equated to Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis.

This is in part due to the 2015 changes, where the default sanction presumes intent, regardless of whether the offense was truly intentional, and places a high burden, if not impossible, on the athlete to secure evidence, without any special warrant or subpoena powers over third parties like restaurants or hospitals or pharmacies, in order to establish the source, or otherwise prove, no intent, on the balance of probability. What other violation in any domain dishes out the maximum penalty by default and requires the accused to successfully argue for lesser sanctions? The lengthy time difference between the event, and the charge makes it that much more difficult to meet the evidential burden. If you are charged 1 month after the offense, the opportunity to secure evidence to help your defense, or even to just work out what happened and how, is long passed. Think about this: if you had to, could you identify all the substances in all the ingredients of all the meals you ate around Halloween?

So maybe you are able to see why it is not just “semantic drivel”, but it is rather important to understand when parties agree to abide by special definitions of “doping” and “intent”, why we cannot call “intent” a fact when it was “presumed” or “must be deemed”, and why “credible”, “plausible”, and “believable” are “immaterial to the arguments” made by the CAS.

The CAS is experienced enough to chose the words they want to best convey their decisions and findings, and they did not say “doper”, “cheater”, “not credible”, “not plausible”. It doesn’t matter what you or I think of these terms, as the CAS did not argue them. I should also remind that Houlihan gave plenty of evidence suggesting the likelihood is greater than the AIU and their experts would have you believe.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The Code is made up of rules, and disputes are settled by arbitration.

They can be seen like laws enforced in courts, but that is just pretend.

Rather like you are pretending to legal knowledge.

Courts impose settlements through arbitration all the time, in civil disputes. That is also how the law works. The application of a sporting code is also subject to the law; the parties are bound by principles of administrative law including natural justice, and decisions in disputes can be appealed and enforced. The parties are bound by them in law. The disputes are adjudicated in conformity with interpretation of the rules and the facts of the case supported by evidence. There is nothing "pretend" about any of it. You are an ignorant fathead.

It’s uncanny how you project and see your faults in others. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black, but this kettle is really stainless steel and the pot just keeps seeing its own reflection.

We weren’t talking about legal knowledge and laws and courts, but you can pretend we were.

I very much support the above post.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The Code is made up of rules, and disputes are settled by arbitration.

They can be seen like laws enforced in courts, but that is just pretend.

Rather like you are pretending to legal knowledge.

Courts impose settlements through arbitration all the time, in civil disputes. That is also how the law works. The application of a sporting code is also subject to the law; the parties are bound by principles of administrative law including natural justice, and decisions in disputes can be appealed and enforced. The parties are bound by them in law. The disputes are adjudicated in conformity with interpretation of the rules and the facts of the case supported by evidence. There is nothing "pretend" about any of it. You are an ignorant fathead.

Principles of administration law!!

What when an entity goes bust.

You have got that one wrong.

What on earth does “ Courts impose settlements through arbitration all the time …..” mean?

Courts function as the arbitrator of a dispute.

You are really exposed as a non reader; even you must recognise this.

rekrunner wrote:

Are you suggesting that maybe Baumann, Decker, Gatlin, Kiprop, and Jeptoo were also treated unfairly?

LOL, you wrote "also"... None of them was treated unfairly, and neither was Houlihan. All of them were convicted by fair tribunals after testing positive and or having "suspicious" blood values, and the various tribunals didn't buy their in part creative excuses from toothpaste to menopause to sabotage to altitude to beef burrito. And that, ranging from the late 90s to 2021 has obviously nothing to do with pre-2015 and post-2015.

This whole "intent was deemed not proven" is just obfuscation that didn't help those dopers and won't help future dopers either. Fortunately.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Are you suggesting that maybe Baumann, Decker, Gatlin, Kiprop, and Jeptoo were also treated unfairly?

LOL, you wrote "also"... None of them was treated unfairly, and neither was Houlihan. All of them were convicted by fair tribunals after testing positive and or having "suspicious" blood values, and the various tribunals didn't buy their in part creative excuses from toothpaste to menopause to sabotage to altitude to beef burrito. And that, ranging from the late 90s to 2021 has obviously nothing to do with pre-2015 and post-2015.

This whole "intent was deemed not proven" is just obfuscation that didn't help those dopers and won't help future dopers either. Fortunately.

They may or may not have been treated fairly within the rules but that does not mean the rules themselves are fair.

Mens rea rules when the sanctions are as severe as in sports doping.

These rules, as you have seen, are in constant flux, getting optimized regularly. "Strict" (well not really that strict) liability is in there since ever, and will likely not change any time soon.

If rekrunner now wants a staggered punishment, such as one year if below 10 ng/ml and two years for 10 - 50 ng/ml etc., which I have suggested here months ago, sure, write to Wada.

casual obsever wrote:

These rules, as you have seen, are in constant flux, getting optimized regularly. "Strict" (well not really that strict) liability is in there since ever, and will likely not change any time soon.

If rekrunner now wants a staggered punishment, such as one year if below 10 ng/ml and two years for 10 - 50 ng/ml etc., which I have suggested here months ago, sure, write to Wada.

Strict liability as a concept won’t change.

It is its application to doping rules that should.

I would have staggered punishments based upon the degree of intent.

A bit like the the various classification of murders and manslaughter and then variety of sanctions.