This RT interview with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Secretary-General Matthieu Reeb is a microcosm of how the globalists the world over treat Russia.
The specific exchange which epitomizes the entire conversation comes from around 4:42 in the video, when RT’s Ilya Petrenko asks a simple and valid question:
…Does that mean, that presumption of innnocence doesn’t work with CAS?
Reeb responds with the following quote:
Again, I repeat, the duty of the IOC was to show that the athletes involved in this case, were guilty of an anti doping rule violation. The fact that you can not establish the evidence of guilt doesnt mean you have established the innoncence of the athlete. You see what I mean?”
Yes, of course, we see what you mean. Guilty until proven innocent. Anyone who watches western news coverage of Russia already knows that – the same thing happens in Syria and Ukraine – according to the MSM, Russia is always to blame.
He didn’t frame it that way, but if you read between Reeb’s lines, how can it mean anything else?
He goes onto say:
If you have an athelte commiting a doping infraction, if we have a classic doping case, you have a positive test, then we have a presumtion of guilt with the athelte.
Well…yes…there is a presumption of guilt if a valid test came back positive…because that is a valid test. That implies there IS evidence, but he is specifically talking about cases without concrete evidence.
This is the other way around with Sochi, becasue the IOC had to show the athelte was gulity. But the fact that they were unable to show the guilt of an athelte, doesn’t mean the athlete has nothng to do with the case, and is totally inocent. This is a logical cosenquence and this is nothing bad by [sic] it.
While I concede that he did not state this articles headline verbatim, but is absolutely implied by his response, he said it in every other way he could have. If he truly believed in the common law principle of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the first words out of his mouth would have been, “Well, of course, all people are innocent until proven guilty.”
Instead, the deliberate attempt to restate his legalistic explanations as a matter of Olympic policy shows that he will not say that, because even he realizes that “guilty until proven innocent” is basically what it boils down to. That is how Russians are treated by the entirety of the globalists, and the western elite.
It doesn’t matter if we are talking about external issues like Syria, and Ukraine, where Russia does not cause the war, or internal matters ranging from Crimea, to the Russian elections, or any matter of conspiracy theories leveled against the Russian leadership.
It’s perfectly accepted in the western system for Russia haters to accuse her of anything without any evidence, but those same accusations are never permitted to be levied against the West, even if there is undeniable evidence. Even if they don’t deny their actions, like the mass slaughter in Iraq and Libya, but callously deny responsibility, there are seemingly no consequences.
This is how Russia is always treated. Whenever she is accused of anything, even events that occurred long ago, all the “experts” begin discussing how guilty Russia is with self-congratulatory glee that they are attacking their “nemesis”.
This single interview, as well as the entire doping scandal alone, is not alone the proof, or even the point of how Russia is treated. It’s just the Microcosm.
It’s just another example that must be thoroughly documented, and added to the endless archives of the ways Russia is unjustly persecuted. If you compare these events to…basically every other way the Globalists deal with Russia, an obvious pattern emerges. That is the evidence, not this case alone, but everything.
One can argue the saying:
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That brings us into the world of evidence of absence discussions.
There is also such a thing as an informal logical fallacy known as: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, also known as an appeal from ignorance, which states that just because someone is unable to prove something, they lack the sufficient knowledge or evidence, that doesn’t mean it can’t be proven. There are some grounds for this
For example, if you assert there is gold hidden beneath Bald Mountain, and I am unable or not permitted to excavate the old Slavic site, that doesn’t give me the right to say that I have disproved you. At the same t, me however, I can just as easily say: “How do you know there is gold there? Have you proved it.”
Essentially, this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. In most of the world, especially the west, the burden of proof is on the courts and officials to prove the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not complex legalism, this is a basic concept: Innocent until proven guilty.
Yet this microcosmic event is just another area where in the eyes of Russophobes, she will always be guilty until proven innocent.
It’s neither right, nor just.
Fun Fact: In the Old Slavic language, the words for “Right” “Just” and “Law” are essentially the same – a form of the word Pravda. Of course, there is also the word Zakons, specifically meaning the Law, but even the earliest Russian code of law was called Russkaya Pravda – meaning Russian Truth. For Slavs, it is difficult to detach the meaning of those three words. Anything false is considered to be both unlawful and based on lies, anything lawful is also considered true and right. Funny, how in the west, the Truth, the Law, Justice, and Righteousness can be so distant to one another…