GDS has left BTC, cites Houlihan explicitly

Armstronglivs wrote:

The denial here is endless, as it always is on the doper threads. Despite an appeal court finding of a doping violation that results in a 4-year ban the offender is a "victim of an unfair process" and should on no account be labelled a "doper" as understood by most users of the English language. It is like reading the President Putin is defending Russia against a Nazi invasion from Ukraine. It is beyond intelligible discourse.

Wafa code wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The denial here is endless, as it always is on the doper threads. Despite an appeal court finding of a doping violation that results in a 4-year ban the offender is a "victim of an unfair process" and should on no account be labelled a "doper" as understood by most users of the English language. It is like reading the President Putin is defending Russia against a Nazi invasion from Ukraine. It is beyond intelligible discourse.

What % of non cheaters being found guilty would you tolerate before you thought the rules need changing?

Thief caught in possession wrote:

3.1 of the wada code wrote:

You are mistaken; read 3.1 of the wada code and then apologise.

It is comfortable satisfaction. You have been told this many time and this you thus must be seen as a liar.

I do recall you saying you can’t be bothered reading the rules but that is no excuse for carrying on lying.

Is Armstronglies going to apologise for lying about the Wada code?

Jeramy Throuop wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

They aren't the only deniers. They have their usual Greek chorus here.

They fully accept there is doping in the sport so that they are not deniers.Why do you make things up to the point that you are a liar?

RunRaider wrote:

“The SFC emphasized that its competences in the case were limited to examine whether the CAS Award violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order, which, as it clarified, includes the prohibition of discrimination, certain personality rights of athletes and the notion of human dignity”

If that description doesn’t apply to Caster Semenya’s case, it certainly doesn’t bode well for Shelby Houlihan.

Rupp is a Carbon Cyborg wrote:

Burritogatorz wrote:

He has a wife and four kids… Houlihan literally peed hot at Centro’s place

How does it make sense that Centro never tested positive then?

You know they weren't sleeping in separate beds.

Jeramy Throuop wrote:

Reer wrote:

This thread really went off the rails. Aren't there other threads out there to debate the intricacies of the case?

not off the rails, central being is she a cheat; if not seen as such the BTC will be seen in a different light.

3.1 of the wada code wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your question shows the you do not understand the balance of probabilities, which was the test applied. It is not in any way "beyond reasonable doubt", the standard applied in criminal cases. That simple misunderstanding shows how you are essentially wrong about everything in this case.

You are mistaken; read 3.1 of the wada code and then apologise.

It is comfortable satisfaction. You have been told this many time and this you thus must be seen as a liar.

I do recall you saying you can’t be bothered reading the rules but that is no excuse for carrying on lying.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Jeramy Throuop wrote:

Yes they would still be found guilty; the problem would be the process would take longer.

No other justice system would accept strict liability in such life changing rules.

Intent has to be proved in nearly every court case.Think about the difference between murder or manslaughter.Or possession of stolen goods.

A billion people are expected to follow the Wada rules; how can they be fairly and evenly applied?

Doping is a breach of a sporting code; it is not a criminal offence. A simple though crucial distinction but, alas, beyond you, liar soorer. It is also applied by sports bodies around the world that accept the anti-doping rules. Another small point you have missed.

Iron Bars wrote:

The only deniers are Rojo and Gault. A vast majority of the posters here have no doubts regarding the verdict. Rojo seems to have a personal connection with the BTC coaches, which has clouded his judgement. Gault woks for Rojo.

Fred underpants wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Doping is a breach of a sporting code; it is not a criminal offence. A simple though crucial distinction but, alas, beyond you, liar soorer. It is also applied by sports bodies around the world that accept the anti-doping rules. Another small point you have missed.

It was never said to be a criminal offence; just comparing.

But is is all subject to Human Rights Law.

Any apology for lying about the Wada code?

Armstronglivs wrote:

3.1 of the wada code wrote:

You are mistaken; read 3.1 of the wada code and then apologise.

It is comfortable satisfaction. You have been told this many time and this you thus must be seen as a liar.

I do recall you saying you can’t be bothered reading the rules but that is no excuse for carrying on lying.

Yawn. Another liar soorer sock-puppet.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Fred underpants wrote:

It was never said to be a criminal offence; just comparing.

But is is all subject to Human Rights Law.

Any apology for lying about the Wada code?

So your comparison is irrelevant, liar soorer. Care to quote the "Human Rights Law" - statute, section and jurisdiction - that applies?

Thief caught in possession wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That isn't the core problem. The core problem would be having to prove intent for the presence of a banned drug. No one would ever be found guilty of a doping offence. The athlete is properly deemed responsible for what is in their body unless they can show it was without negligence or conduct in breach of the rules. Since the consequences of their failure to do this are - as you say - of some personal magnitude, it requires of them a high standard of both diligence and compliance. Without that spur we would see many more cases of "careless" doping. Houlihan is hardly a case to go into bat for, to argue the alleged injustice of the system.

Why is it deemed proper for the athlete to be responsible for what is in their body?

Fred underpants wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So your comparison is irrelevant, liar soorer. Care to quote the "Human Rights Law" - statute, section and jurisdiction - that applies?

Every single part.

Fred underpants wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yawn. Another liar soorer sock-puppet.

An other avoiding of the fact that you have lied when you could have apologised for lying.

You know what the code says so why lie.

Stop running away from your lies.