Travis Tygart/USADA Supports Shelby Houlihan

What was claimed is that the "near-zero" assessment came from experts, and was part of the evidence before CAS, which the Panel did not refute.

But keep doubling down on your lies, as you do.

I thought I had just said that about you - "no value no intellect post". You are a little slow.

No, it isn't, because you base your claim that it is "broken" on an athlete you cannot show to be innocent.

I note you haven't disputed "no one can really say for sure".

It is no claim but a logical conclusion. The basis for my conclusion is no single athlete, but the WADA Code itself, where the rule violations of presence and use do not require establishing intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge, and a policy of "strict liability" which makes the athlete responsible for many things which they may be unaware of and are not in their control.

This allows athletes to be found of rule violations where the intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge is not known because it was not established.

The CAS only ruled on one of these four factors, on the strength of "not intentional not probably established", which still leaves room for a lot of doubt.

Once you start building your ideas on lies, you need to keep lying. After 5 decades of self-deception, you are probably completely unaware that you do it instinctively and reflexively, bypassing the higher order logic circuitry in your brain. This is the tangled web you have trapped yourself in.

Back to reality:

What was actually claimed was "media reports stating..." quotes like the one from the Guardian: e.g. "Cas says ‘close to zero’ probability burrito led to Shelby Houlihan’s failed drugs test" (Guardian).

The media lied to me and you, but you find some reflexive way to rationalize the lie. The Guardian explicitly attributes many direct quotes to the CAS, rather than the "Claimant". This is clearly a false attribution.

Note also that the "Claimant" here is "World Athletics", represented by Attorney Ross Wenzel. So the CAS themselves attributed this "near zero" assessment to "World Athletics", and not to the "experts". Your attributing this assessment to the "experts" is another false attribution.

And finally, note the CAS was asked to assess the weight of Houlihan's arguments, and not the claimant's.

You are correct.

It was a disgrace of the Guardian to misquote.

And then; if you can’t be bothered to read the rules you perpetuate the lie.

Did you think? This looks like an autonomous reflex requiring no thought.

Your game of resorting to personal insults is transparent, and doesn't accomplish what you want -- hiding your intellectual inability to participate in intelligent discussion.

What it demonstrates is your inability to rebut or dispute anything and everything here:

Have you ever seen “F For Fake” by Oregon Welles?

“Expert” means nothing, under many circumstances - particularly if the expert’s heart isn’t in the right place (Ayotte for example).

Decisions made by “experts” over the last number of years brought forth the VACCINE MANDATES and the allowance of INTERSEX athletes in events above the mile!

The major Nando’s have said the Code needs revising to ensure that the athlete has the same rights and expectations as in basic society. Innocent until proven guilty would be my expectations.As well a full application of Human Rights Law.