Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

Armstronglivs wrote:

sanootage wrote:

You are marvellous, thank you.

You have dug an even bigger hole for your limited foolish self.

Read the Dry case and you will see what an utter and complete fool you have made of yourself.

But you refuse to read, so yippee, you will will continue to be a delight with your lies and bile.

Because you are a complete stranger to truth that does make you in one sense an expert in lying. I am not interested in any case except the Houlihan case and that is the one where you cannot accept the truth. She lied - there was no contaminated burrito - and so she doped. As you are also a defender of Trump it shows you are at least consistent in your defence of liars.

The SH revolves around previous case law and the details of the rules; these you won’t read.

You read nothing that has the risk of making you have to reevaluate.

You lie and cheat in your posting and then engage in foul mouthed posts.

I am no defender of Trump; why do you lie.

You lie and cheat yourself throughout your posting.

Lance tested positive 4x in July 1999 for cortisone.

If you count the 2004 tests on remaining 1999 urine samples, he tested positive 6 more times.

Not one of these tests was confirmed - unlike Houlihan's. On the other hand, he does have something in common with her; they are both dopers/liars.

Actually the positive tests for cortisone were confirmed, and eventually the six positive tests for EPO were also confirmed by Lance's confession.

Did Houlihan lie? It's possible but unlikely. Unlike the principle of "strict liability", proving this allegation is a burden on the accuser that has yet to be met.

You highlight the fundamental problem with the WADA Code's inability to consistently deliver justice. As Tygart puts it: "the Code in certain cases, ... where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong ... (treats athletes) like intentional cheats."

The Code has stripped away the need to distinguish between intentional serial doping with express intent to enhance performance, and a one-time unknowing accidental ingestion of a small quantity of a substance from USDA approved meat.

Lance was not busted for those tests. His excuses were accepted at the time. Confirmation came after his later confession. The more relevant point from this is that many known dopers were not caught by tests, because in the early 2000's drugs could be masked. This included Marion Jones and Barry Bonds. The problem remains today, that doping is ahead of testing. We see this when some dopers are only caught years later with restrospective testing. It is reliably estimated that drug use far exceeds the numbers caught.

On the question of whether Houlihan lied, it is more likely than not when her excuse was not accepted, even though whether she lied was not argued and did not require to be proven. However to maintain she likely didn't lie is to attach a degree of probability to her excuse that was not accepted by the Panel. Her excuse was seen as merely "possible", which means that it was less than probable - and significantly so. So she also in all probability lied.

If the Code is "unable to consistently deliver justice", by what measure? What proportion of cases are known - not guessed - to have delivered a clearly erroneous outcome? I would suggest if more dopers got off than not your claim would then be correct. But of the thousands prosecuted, how many were known for a fact to be unfairly penalised? A handful of cases - if they occurred - are not a "consistent failure to deliver justice". It's a pretty high success rate.

"The Code has stripped away the need to distinguish between intentional serial doping with express intent to enhance performance, and a one-time unknowing accidental ingestion of a small quantity of a substance from USDA approved meat."(quote) --------

The Code hasn't stripped away that requirement. In all cases it relies on evidence to establish whether an offence has been committed. When it is clear an offence has been committed, which doesn't need to be "intentional serial doping" - any act of doping is an offence - the onus shifts to the athlete to show legitimate cause, and particularly that they were not in breach of the Code (such as by their having a TUE) or that they were not negligent in their responsibility to avoid breaching it.

"The accidental unknowing ingestion of a small quantity of a USADA approved meat" begs the question of whether it was in fact accidental and unknowing, which the athlete would need to plausibly show. You assume that which requires evidence - from the athlete.

The original claim, now deleted, was that Lance never tested positive. This is demonstrably false, as I have demonstrated. Try as hard as you can, you cannot turn falsehood into fact.

Houlihan being unable to gather evidence to convince a panel is not the same as lying. We can't say she lied if no one has established the truth. We can't say she cheated. We can't say her rule violation was intentional. All we can say is she couldn't produce enough evidence and arguments to convince a panel.

How can you say "pretty high success rate" without any success rate data? What proportion of cases are known -- not guessed -- to have delivered a just outcome, and known for a fact to be fairly penalized?

Rules 2.1 and 2.2 violations do not require establishing fault, intent, negligence of knowledge, in order to establish a violation. This cannot ensure consistent justice.

Then "strict liability" means the athlete must establish that which may not be possible to establish, particularly if the primary evidence is long gone, in order to qualify for their fair penalty. How would that have been possible for Simon Getzmann without that last pain-killer? Even then, he was suspended for more than 1 year, at a cost of 10,000 Euros, not counting income and sponsors, and it is still a guilty verdict -- is that fair? Without that pain-killer, he boards the train with Houlihan to a 4-year ban.

Just looking at the facts we've learned from the cases of Simon Getzmann,Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, Benedikt Karus raises serious questions. See also Tygart's frequent criticisms regarding 27 USADA cases since 2015 changes to the Code.

Do you understand what I wrote? You start by insisting the Code still requires to distinguish between the serial doper and the accidental meat eater, then immediately proceed to argue my point that "in all cases ..." "any act of doping is an offence".

Both 2.1 and 2.2 strips the need to demonstrate "intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use ... in order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation".

Then, both the serial doper with intent to cheat, and the one time accidental meat eater, have the same burden to establish that which may or may not be possible to establish, especially long after the primary evidence has been long eaten or discarded.

I am essentially pointing out your distinction is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the evidence establishes doping. Your hypothetical examples presume facts that require evidence if not proof. Where the evidence exists and is accepted they are treated differently, according to either degrees of fault or even whether innocence is established. The system allows for that; it doesn't deny it, as you appear to suggest.

"Houlihan being unable to gather evidence to convince a panel is not the same as lying. We can't say she lied if no one has established the truth. We can't say she cheated. We can't say her rule violation was intentional. All we can say is she couldn't produce enough evidence and arguments to convince a panel."(quote).

-That isn't all we can say. By her failure to produce convincing evidence of her innocence she is guilty of a doping offence on the compelling and irrefutable evidence of a positive test for nandrolone in her system. On the grounds of lack of probability her attempted excuse wasn't accepted.

- A doping violation is a form of cheating, otherwise no wrong is committed.

- Because she could show no innocent cause the fault was therefore hers and deemed intentional by the elimination of her only proposed alternative.

- The Panel did not need to ascertain whether she lied and so did not seek to establish that. But as she proposed an excuse that was not accepted on the grounds of probability the inference - similarly on the grounds of probability - is that she was not telling the truth. We call that lying. It doesn't matter that the Panel wasn't concerned to establish that, as it only need to confirm a violation had occurred without legitimate excuse - which it did on the evidence before it.

"How can you say "pretty high success rate" without any success rate data? What proportion of cases are known -- not guessed -- to have delivered a just outcome, and known for a fact to be fairly penalized?"(quote)

A high success rate is to be presumed from the fact that you cannot point to a percentage of cases that result in a wrongful conviction. The examples you have given are clearly statistical exceptions, which means most cases produce the right outcome. That is a high success rate.

"Rules 2.1 and 2.2 violations do not require establishing fault, intent, negligence of knowledge, in order to establish a violation. This cannot ensure consistent justice".(quote).

- Justice is consistent, on the basis that the same rules apply to all. Fault is inferred from testing positive for a banned substance, which in almost all instances, bar very few, will result from an athlete choosing to dope. Intent is not necessary to prove. The athletes have a defence available if they are permitted to take the drug or can show they were not negligent. A repeated failure to be available for tests allows for an inference that they are doping or that they are negligent of their obligations. Most athletes can comply with these obligations. The few who don't have earned their penalty. That looks like a fair and thus just system. No system will be perfect but good enough is still good enough.

"Then "strict liability" means the athlete must establish that which may not be possible to establish, particularly if the primary evidence is long gone, in order to qualify for their fair penalty". (quote).

The standard imposes obligations of care upon the athlete. If they observe these the chances of accidental doping are slim. The cases that you refer to that have resulted in the wrong outcome appear to be very much in the exception. No system of justice produces fault-free results. That does not mean the system is flawed, only that it is as fair as it can be made to be. The alternatives may not be better but worse. Strict liability is so far the best we have to try to control doping in sport; to try to impose criminal standards of proof and process would fail to do that. The dopers could defeat anti-doping at every turn.

No inference by panel that she lied: said an excellent reliable witness or those sort of words… credible .

What % of convictions with no intent would you accept.?

Your well set of argument would have been fine 25 yrs ago when we knew so little about food enhancers and the orders of magnitude improvements in detection levels.
When you have such as IOC /Wada advising against eating meet in various countries then this points to major problems in the drug testing system.

Why should multi millions of people in each country have standards of care imposed upon them that would be deemed intolerable by non sports people..

This is the greatest tautology ( circular argument) seen of recent times.

Back to your constant use of the word doper without saying what you mean.

Doping rules will catch people who break the doping rules But the problem is that the doping rules are not intended nor stated to catch cheating people who are found to have banned substances of the most utterly minute parts in them.

Come what may ALL get convicted… no fault or fault.Leaving aside the very narrow corridor to prove no fault.

I know for a fact that Colleen Quigley was behind this.

You are getting half the point -- it is the Code that renders the distinctions irrelevant by removing important elements from consideration when determining rule violations, and by presuming intent without requiring evidence when determining the length of the sanction.

Without these artificial shortcuts enabled by the WADA Code, the evidence cannot establish doping or intent. Your only thing that matters would be inconclusive.

It is also important to note that under the WADA code, athletes like Ajee Wilson, Jarrod Lawson, and Simon Getzmann, whose "excuses" have been accepted, are still considered guilty of WADA rule violations. Proving themselves innocent only reduced their sanction, and/or ended their suspension, while leaving the guilty verdict intact. This is not justice.

Hypothetical examples don't ever require evidence or proof.

Maybe the system allows for it, but it doesn't ensure consistent justice every time for every athlete in every circumstance, because certain guardrails have been removed.