Armstronglivs wrote:
Doping is cheating by definition, and she was convicted of doping. That she doped and sought to explain it away with a burrito story that wasn't believed also showed she lied. It doesn't require CAS to spell this out in as many words; it follows from its determinations that the doping was deemed intentional and not the result of eating a burrito.
By whose definition? Not WADA’s. WADA redefines “doping” and “intentional”, but does not define “cheating” and “lying”. WADA does not define “doping” in terms of “cheating”.
If they mean the same to you, why do you object so strongly to choosing the words that are (re)defined by WADA?
The CAS is bound to the WADA definitions, as that is the document that governs the parties.
With respect to the burrito story, the CAS’s “belief” (your word) is best summarized as “possibly, but probably not” (frequently appears in the CAS report).
It doesn’t rise to the certainty of “impossible”, such that they accused her of lying, either explicitly or implicitly.
What the CAS “believes” is “improbable”, based on the limited information before them, cannot transform unproven truths, however improbable, into lies.
Again, if it is the same to you, why object to using the phrasing that the CAS and WADA uses?
With respect to deeming the doping intentional, presuming “intent”, and failing to rebut “intent”, is not enough to prove “intent”.
Since we do not know exactly where the nandrolone came from, we are left wondering exactly which conduct we should consider as “intentional”?