liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What a feeble - and false - argument. Your statement that an athlete cannot rebut the presumption of intention without "the primary piece of evidence" presumes - falsely - that they are innocent and that there is evidence that will prove that. The opposite may well be true - and is more likely. The true "primary piece of evidence" is the irrefutable fact that the athlete has committed a violation of the anti-doping rules. There may be no evidence to the contrary - because there is no evidence - that is, except in the mind of a doping denier such as yourself. Houlihan tried to find a "primary piece of evidence" in a pork burrito; it didn't work. If the athlete cannot show that they acted without fault or negligence then the violation stands - and it is logically confirmed as intentional. That is how the system works - and it works better than anti-doping having to presume the athlete is innocent and trying to find evidence of intent beyond a positive test when they are unable to investigate the athlete's actions in the way that law enforcement can do with alleged criminals. The reversal of the onus of proof would defeat every attempt to successfully hold a doper to account. But of course that would suit you.
Your arguments on these issues easily dissolve into irreconcilable contradictions. You are factually and logically required to accept that CAS imposed a 4-year penalty on Houlihan as incontrovertible, and that this was the result of CAS finding there was a violation of the anti-doping rules - a decision which is also an incontrovertible fact. Yet you cavil when CAS uses the word "intentional", as though it means the opposite of what we would understand it to mean, which is that an act is the result of a choice, when at the same time you cannot differ with what CAS meant when it imposed a 4-year ban for the violation. So CAS understood well what it was saying up to the point it used the word "intentional" - and then you think that word included by CAS means the opposite of what anyone would understand it to mean - including CAS. You are ludicrous. But on doping, you always are.
Says the man who has refused to read the rules and go into hiding when asked directly about them.If you had bothered to read them then you would not have said the above.It has all been explained to you.
You make the most alarmingly tautology.
You say that the primary piece of evidence is that is the irrefutable fact that the athlete has committed violation of the anti doping rules.
I can hear a barking sound.