Armstronglivs wrote:
CAS didn't need to apportion a label when convicting and sentencing Houlihan. Courts don't. But a Court decision makes it implicit that someone found guilty of an offence in the criminal code is a "criminal", and so someone who intentionally violates the anti-doping rules by using a banned substance is a "doper". If you don't accept the latter you can't accept the former. But only a person in denial of the Court's decision would argue that patent absurdity. That is you.
CAS dismissed Houlihan's attempted excuse as being too improbable, even though you cavil with equivalent expressions such as "implausible" or "not credible". So if those terms are incorrect why was her excuse rejected - especially since you point out she was seen as a "credible" witness? Her story was plausible and credible - and yet not believed? Surely that is a contradiction? The only way to resolve the contradiction is too understand her excuse wasn't plausible or credible. That wasn't simply because she couldn't produce the "contaminated burrito"; it was because the evidence before the Court suggested such hypothetical contamination was improbable.
You are wasting your efforts here. You need to start a thread proving Earth is only 10,000 years old - against everything science tells us today. Defying fact, logic and truth like a religious fanatic is your specialty.
I don’t need to apportion labels either. I find the language of the CAS and WADA rich enough to describe the verdict, and introducing any deviation risks distorting the meaning of the verdict in context.
“Doper” must be understood according to WADA’s definition of “doping”, which explicitly does not require “intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use” to violate the rules on “Presence” and “Use”.
That is a significant deviation from the common English definition that can be found in Merriam-Webster.
“Intentional” must be understood as something that the CAS “presumed” and “deemed” rather than something demonstrated and established as fact.
Besides “intentional”, we still have the unestablished elements of “fault, negligence, or knowing use”.
The CAS report clearly explains the reasons for their ruling , in the same paragraph they called her credible, and her character witnesses evidence compelling (see 139 and also 140)— I thought you and everyone else read and understood the ruling. It appears that you didn’t. They did not use the terms “believe” or “plausible” or “credible” (except to describe Houlihan). Why would you then claim “and yet not believed”? For example, it’s highly improbable that someone will be struck by lightning (around 1 in 500,000 according to the CDC), yet it is is highly believable that people are killed by lightning (43 fatalities per year in the US). Any contradiction is purely one of your own making, presumably so you could “resolve the contradiction” the way you want to believe. You may be unaware that that is what you’ve done.