How is it possible to tell, just by watching someone race, that said person is doping?

Easy. If they're not American, they're doping

No, I need not give anyone the benefit of the doubt. We are not a sanctioning body. Athletes suffer no harm from being wrongfully convicted in our opinions.

Thus, we can afford to consider all the evidence. A good performance is evidence of doping. Performing much better than everyone else is more likely if the performance is aided by doping than if it is not. Thus, it is evidence. Strong evidence? Yes. Strong enough to sanction? No.

Hard work, brains and talent all make a performance greater, as does doping. No one doubts Dibaba is working hard and talented. Just like her competitors.

If you need to delude yourself into thinking athletes are clean to enjoy the sport, that's unfortunate. But it is a delusion. It is a delusion because history has shown time and time again, that athletes can dope with impunity without triggering tests. It has also shown that they are willing to do anything to improve.

Dibaba is absolutely doped to the gills. If that means you cannot enjoy her performance, sport isn't for you.

The 5000 or 10000 have become a Farahrce.

It's not possible to tell if an individual is cheating based on one performance. It is possible to tell beyond a reasonable doubt if at least 1/3 of medalists are doping based on their blood tests.

That should lower your confidence in the purity of all outstanding performances.

It is possible to identify them.

1) If someone can do a windmill after 1500m race, (s)he is doper.

2) if someone do a push-up after a winning, (s)he is a doper.

3) If some one collapses after winning a fast 400m, obviously a doper.

4) If someone pee in the middle of a marathon, well,.. a super doper

5)Even doing a M sign over your head after winning... must be doped..

Who is left?

The accuracy is about the same as having a gait analysis done at your local shoe store.

Upstanding Citizen wrote:

No, I need not give anyone the benefit of the doubt. We are not a sanctioning body. Athletes suffer no harm from being wrongfully convicted in our opinions.

Reputations suffer from being wrongfully accused of cheating.

That this is harmful is a well established legal principle and is actionable in defamation.

In practice it's very seldom worth pursuing anonymous message board libels through the courts.

Why not abolish all the expense of a legal system and courts and simply lock up people on the basis of an anonymous allegation on an internet forum ?

You could carefully weigh up the evidence, for example the more angry the poster was and the more they used words like "obviously guilty", the more heinous the crime and the longer the sentence should be.

Its obvious.

pr100 wrote:

Upstanding Citizen wrote:

No, I need not give anyone the benefit of the doubt. We are not a sanctioning body. Athletes suffer no harm from being wrongfully convicted in our opinions.

Reputations suffer from being wrongfully accused of cheating.

That this is harmful is a well established legal principle and is actionable in defamation.

In practice it's very seldom worth pursuing anonymous message board libels through the courts.

Blah, blah, blah, you must be one of those ambulance cashing civil right defending lawyer who advertise during the Jerry Springer show.

pr100 wrote:

Upstanding Citizen wrote:

No, I need not give anyone the benefit of the doubt. We are not a sanctioning body. Athletes suffer no harm from being wrongfully convicted in our opinions.

Reputations suffer from being wrongfully accused of cheating.

That this is harmful is a well established legal principle and is actionable in defamation.

In practice it's very seldom worth pursuing anonymous message board libels through the courts.

You either work for the IAAF like Alan "Give Gatlin a Break" Abrahamson, or a sports agent posting this nonsense.

I'm posting from Ireland, or am I? You go ahead and pursue that libel claim. The world is waiting for the sport to be shamed, again.

Maybe get in touch with Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong. Those two knew how to litigate relatively poor anonymous viewers.

megaranation wrote:

The way people on here talk, you'd think the use of illegal substances among athletes is clear as day.

1.Have you ever seen, with your own eyes, Dibaba injecting EPO?

2.Has she ever failed a drug test?

3.Has anyone close to her made accusations, with clear, concrete evidence, of her doping?

If the answer to those questions is no, you must give her the benefit of the doubt! Same goes with any professional athlete. Since when is a good performance evidence of doping? That would be like saying, Bill Gates is so rich and successful, he must've made the money illegally, no other explanation.

There is another explanation. Hard work, brains, and talent. The very things that make this sport enjoyable to watch and compete in.

Dear Dumba$$,

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which means, athletes can, and have, pass a drug test while juicing.

And no one HAS to give anyone the benefit of the doubt because you say so, or because you're too scared to admit to yourself that someone you admire very well may be a pharmaceutically enhanced human being.

FACT: steroids have been used by Olympic athletes since the 1960s. Dibaba is most likely doping and if she is, she's being protected by the highest echelons of the sport. Why?

Because it's good business.

megaranation wrote:

The way people on here talk, you'd think the use of illegal substances among athletes is clear as day.

1.Have you ever seen, with your own eyes, Dibaba injecting EPO?

2.Has she ever failed a drug test?

3.Has anyone close to her made accusations, with clear, concrete evidence, of her doping?

If the answer to those questions is no, you must give her the benefit of the doubt! Same goes with any professional athlete. Since when is a good performance evidence of doping? That would be like saying, Bill Gates is so rich and successful, he must've made the money illegally, no other explanation.

There is another explanation. Hard work, brains, and talent. The very things that make this sport enjoyable to watch and compete in.

You don't have to watch someones race, just watch the start list. No USA = doper. As simple as that.

Sometimes I think that if the athlete is dominant for a very long time, then maybe it's doping. After Armstrong won his fifth Tour de France, I thought it was just absurd and I stopped caring. But I don't know. Maybe the best are just very good.

You being ex-collegiate who now can barely win a local 5K + them being world-class = they must be doping

How is it possible to tell, just by watching someone race, that said person is doping?

Easy. If they're not American, they're doping

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spot on. Americans seem to think that they have an inherent right to win and when they don't they scream "doper". What hypocrites.

You cannot simply tell by watching. You have to taste their urine. Preferably right from the spicket

A number of USA athletes have tested positve over the years, and a number in this WCs are suspect. So it's not that simple.

Parkonian wrote:

How is it possible to tell, just by watching someone race, that said person is doping?

Easy. If they're not American, they're doping

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spot on. Americans seem to think that they have an inherent right to win and when they don't they scream "doper". What hypocrites.

Upstanding Citizen wrote:

No, I need not give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Athletes suffer no harm from being wrongfully convicted in our opinions.

Thus, we can afford to consider all the evidence. A good performance is evidence of doping. . Thus, it is evidence. Strong evidence? Yes.

.

This sounds like you are writing the talking points for the justification of social media rumoring.

I like the self righteous tone too.

(But wouldn't it be awful if you won something on hard work and talent and everyone thought you cheated)

Conundrum wrote:

Upstanding Citizen wrote:

No, I need not give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Athletes suffer no harm from being wrongfully convicted in our opinions.

Thus, we can afford to consider all the evidence. A good performance is evidence of doping. . Thus, it is evidence. Strong evidence? Yes.

.

This sounds like you are writing the talking points for the justification of social media rumoring.

I like the self righteous tone too.

(But wouldn't it be awful if you won something on hard work and talent and everyone thought you cheated)

You are under the misapprehension that doping replaces hard work and talent. No one believes that. But many observers of elite athletics don't have any trouble connecting performance with the use of drugs while acknowledging that the users of these drugs must also work very very hard. No one believes that an elite performance can be had by ONLY taking drugs and your inference of that is just silly. But the the fact is that now the use of these drugs has become the norm, so much so that to even enter the elite world an athlete has to take these drugs. Take a look at Tyler Hamilton's many interviews surrounding his decision to drug. He knew if he didn't he would never compete at the highest levels of cycling. He knew that to even enter that elite world he would have to take drugs. This is true of every sport at the elite level.