Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
According to Article 2.1, “presence” is not evidence of “intent”.
The CAS did not say her “excuse” was not “legitimate”.
1. A violation presumes intent, unless shown otherwise. The banned substance has to find its way into the athlete's body and in the absence of an innocent explanation it is through the actions of the athlete, which are accordingly deemed intentional.
2. Her excuse was seen as "implausible" and so rejected. You can look that up in a dictionary too if you like, but the popular expression for that is that it is "bullsh*t".
So when you say "CAS did not say her 'excuse' was not 'legitimate'", what were they saying - that it was in fact legitimate? Your mealy-mouthed semantics are only a thinly disguised refusal to accept she is a doper. Her ban and violation to you is merely a technical application of arcane and rather pointless rules in a system you claim is "broken". Happily, your doping-denial opinions count for nothing. A Court verdict tells us exactly what Houlihan is and the price she has to pay.
The CAS found said her story was possible but improbable. The CAS said Houlihan was credible.
All this other nonsense comes from you. I’m not a doping-denier, but an Armstronglivs fantasy denier.