Another Kenyan busted

I don't expect to make friends here. You can think what you like about me. But I also know when I am encountering intelligence. Regrettably, you haven't persuaded me of that.

A rarity on these threads. Someone with a sense of humour. You need to take yourself more seriously, as the others do.

The thread. Everything he posts.

Since I know about your deep lack of reading comprehension and because you are well known to be the boards worst liar, this post is meaningless.
You just can't be trusted after so many lies over the years. Post the concrete sequence of his posts to the subject you are mentioning, than others can build some opinion to what you have said.

You don't understand the two words.

Thanks. But I meant what I said about apologism. I won't apologize for that.

Always good to know you won't be disappointed ;)

I am not hoaty.

I don't always agree with what rekrunner says but I like it that he bases his opinions on facts, which he provides, in a clear way.

You, on the other hand, lie all the time. The antipodean bully is clearly a very ignorant man with awful reading comprehension, who resorts to insults and shifting the goal posts every time his ignorance is exposed. Which happens daily.

Why did you only chose white English speaking ones? That's an odd selection on your part. Especially in a thread about Kenyans. Did you forget I also "apologize" for Kenyans too, i.e. by saying things like Wilson Kipsang only violated whereabouts rules, and Kiprop got slower in in 2016 and 2017?

I think the problem here is a limited vocabulary that is unable to chose the right term, so a few center on "apologism", I guess because they heard it before and thought it sounded clever. But it is clearly the wrong choice.

What usually happens is that someone will say something exagerrated, or baseless, or non-factual, and I will attempt to challenge it, or ask for evidence, or correct it. Then a small few cannot comprehend the challenge or request or admit their error, especially when it cannot be explained in more words than small soundbites, presuming they read it all.

For example, Decker is an interesting case. It looks like she was convicted by a combination of both bad science and bad law. She was technically never found with high Testosterone, but a high T/E ratio, which can also be triggered by low Epitestorone. She initially won based on challenging the validity of the test, especially for women in their mid-30s on birth control whose hormones can fluctuate. Then she was tried independently "de novo" by an unsatisfied IAAF, becoming a victim of double-jeopardy, and forced to challenge the test again, and this time she lost (after nearly three years of an unreasonably long process, I think she finally gave up and didn't even attend her final hearing). Shortly after Mary was convicted by the T/E test, the IOC changed the test because it was no longer considered valid enough for convictions. This was before the formation of WADA and USADA. Today trial by double-jeopardy could not happen, and Decker would not be convicted by a high T/E ratio test alone.

But if it is true that Mary took Testosterone, at the age of 37, intentionally for performance enhancement, or unintentionally through non-medicinal supplements, or negligent medication, I cannot apologize for her intent or negligence. The question remains though, did she take exogenous testosterone at all?

Hard to summarize all these elements in simple soundbites like "convicted doper", "doping apologist", or "doping denier", whatever that means.

Coe? and Radcliffe? As far as I know, they were never charged with doping. In any case, I have not apologized for their doping. I see from time to time stories about Coe and toxoplasmosis, but never participate in those discussions. Radcliffe is an unusual case of mass public hysteria, or tabloid gullibility, as it doesn't look like she was ever really accused -- not even by the Australian scientists -- and at no time was there ever any case for her to answer. And yet conspiracy fans desparately want to believe otherwise based on "suspicious samples" collected under conditions known to be prone to false positives, ironically in papers by the same Australian scientists. In total, Paula's samples were evaluated by the IAAF at the time, and cleared, by the IAAF again after her samples became public, and cleared, by her own independent expert, by UKAD, who said 'no case to answer', and indirectly by the WADA IC's silence in their reports. At each stage, WADA retained the right to appeal, but never exercised it. There are no more anti-doping bodies left with any authority to charge her.

Since Coe and Radcliffe were never charged or convicted of doping, I don't see any doping that I cannot apologize for.

And Houlihan -- I don't want to rehash anything about her in a Kenyan thread, but all I really know is that her positive test was recorded as an AAF, resulting in an ADRV, and then she failed to establish the source of nandrolone to a panel of arbitrators, and therefore failed to qualify for a reduction in her ban. I have a lot of lingering questions about the evidence presented, the evidence not presented, and some of the decisions made, but the presumptions in the Code do most of the work, bringing her to a rule violation and a 4-year ban. Some people draw stronger conclusions from the CAS decision than I think is justified based on the evidence before the CAS.

But like Mary Decker, if it is really true that she took an exogenous oral nandrolone precursor, as suggested by WADA Lab director Prof. Ayotte as "plausible" and "consistent", I cannot apologize for that intentional violation of the anti-doping rules.

I do. The first applies to your head. The second applies to your posts. Taken together they say you're another moron.

I never am. And you don't disappoint. You're the usual here.

Rekrunner doesn't base his posts on facts. His arguments are selective, factually incorrect, dishonest and fail basic logic and language comprehension. But I see why so many of you are easily taken in by that.

You wrecked your own thread, derailing it at least three times in the first two pages, going out of your way to attack me, purely unprovoked.

As I explained earlier in this thread, I did not defend Beyer/Straub/Herold's coach, but clarified at that time that he was punished in court with a fine for breaking German law -- a punishment which I thought was just.

What happened initially is that you also said the drugs were "potentially lethal", and that they he was "doping" children. Simple fact-checking by just clicking and reading the very article you linked proved both points were factually wrong.

I only did that in one post. Then you repeated the same lies 100 times, and in 100 posts, I corrected you many times with the same information found in the first post.

And I'm not sure what I said wrong about the Ethiopian/Eritrean. I think I said at the time that the death was tragic. But it is characteristic of you that you made at least 7 errors in the facts, and one poster corrected you, and then I corrected you again, and then you still repeated the 6 errors, getting the 7th one half right.

Is this what you call nitpicking? This is not a one time thing. You have a seriously problem with factual accuracy in virtually every post, and a serious inability to see or correct your mistakes, even when they are pointed out and corrected for you.

I had to burst out laughing when you said you "didn't want to rehash anything about Houlihan" - which you then proceeded to do and which you have never stopped doing since her conviction.

Lol.

I just gave a summary conclusion here -- I can go much deeper if that is what you are asking me for, but not in the small sound bites that you are able to digest. In another thread, I gave a much longer summary, where I enumerated my many doubts.

I think this is the most pertinent quote in this discussion.

On the face of it, this seems like a very reasonable stance to take, but the problems start when we start looking at your threshold for what is enough evidence to show doping.

The vast majority of doping cases don't meet your threshold, you'll be defending people with positive tests saying they didn't even dope.

And the small number of cases that are irrefutable, i.e. the athlete themselves have admitted to doping, you claim there's zero evidence the doping actually helped.

So basically your standpoint is that hardly anyone dopes and those that do, don't benefit.

But when called on this, you go back to this quote again, saying your view on the subject is purely evidence based. But given the long history of doping in sport, if you don't accept anything you've seen so far as 'evidence' then nothing new that happens will be enough.

Because those are the cases I have seen you discuss the most. Your self-chosen Kenyan examples are interestingly different: here you don't throw any doubt onto the correctness of their judgments, f.ex arguing that their ridiculous excuses are actually the truth or that you have "lingering questions about..." lol.

What a wild contrast to Decker ("bad science and bad law"; "IF it is true that Mary took Testosterone) and Houlihan") ("I have a lot of lingering questions about the evidence presented, the evidence not presented, and some of the decisions made"; "IF it is really" lol lol lol)...

But yes, that "Kiprop got slower in 2016 and 2017" is also a good example for your doping apologism, trying to decrease his guilt (as if doping didn't help him lol) and furthermore completely irrelevant and obfuscating because you have no idea when he started doping.

Just to recap, Coe and Radcliffe didn't dope, so it's hard to see how I can be a doping apologist for these two examples. That's just two out of four examples that were instant fails.

And you must not have been paying close attention when I talked about Kiprop. I'm not all that sure that Kiprop ever took EPO at all, given the difficulty of the WADA Labs to interpret this EPO test result correctly, and the history of mistakes and the difficulty for the athletes to challenge the raw test results of the WADA Labs. This is based on detailed investigations done and written up by Prof. Erik Boye, and the details of the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, and Benedikt Karus. I would need to see an unretouched photo of the WADA Lab results to see if there wasn't obvious bleeding from the next lanes coming from EPO controls rather than Kiprop's sample.

What's even more strange is that if Kiprop were a seasoned EPO taker since 2008 Olympics or before, as alleged, he would have easily avoided testing positive for EPO in his urine, given the fact that he had about 5 days notice that he would be tested, and EPO clears overnight. Instead, for some it is preferable to believe that given 5 days notice, he was so surprised by the tester that he was "glowing" when the tester arrived, and that he needed to pay "tea money" to avoid the positive which in fact did not avoid the positive. You can't make this stuff up.

Or how about when I point out that Kenyans do not routinely castrate their pigs, which might explain the many Kenyan nandrolone positives. Again, I recall Prof. Ross Tucker estimates that it would take 6 months and low to mid 6 figures to defend against such charges. Which Kenyan can afford that? Do they even have a way to trace back pigs purchased from the market? Imagine having to defend yourself against a seasoned AIU team with its experts without speaking English or French.

I don't see discussions about doping related performance, or lack thereof, as attempting to "decrease his guilt", or as "a good example of doping apologism". For me, like WADA, guilt is the same regardless of whether the athlete runs faster, slower, or doesn't even race. How do you think OOC positives (like Houlihan's) work?

If these are your best examples, then that only underscores that "doping apologism" is simply the wrong description. But it sure triggers a lot of emotion.

To be frank, nothing in my posts can be honestly or intellectually construed as defending or apologizing for intentional acts of doping, attempting to gain some performance advantage either directly or indirectly, against the WADA rules. It has to be one of the dumbest baseless myths among all the other myths, among those who struggle to support their own strongly and longly held beliefs with arguments and factual support.