I don't care who or how many posters find my arguments credible. But what is obvious is that many posters don't find rekrunner's defence of dopers to be credible. That is why he spends every post trying to justify his arguments.
I don't care who or how many posters find my arguments credible. But what is obvious is that many posters don't find you to be credible. That is why you spend every post trying to justify your arguments.
Actually I spend most of my posts deriding the rubbish you come out with. And so do most other posters here.
I don't care who or how many posters find my arguments credible. But what is obvious is that many posters don't find you to be credible. That is why you spend every post trying to justify your arguments.
Actually I spend most of my posts deriding the rubbish you come out with. And so do most other posters here.
You spend most of your posts saying the same exact things, day in, day out. And most other posters here can't stand your presence.
I though I just explained no one is concerned about your arguments - including me. You are simply a tedious propagandist for doped athletes.
Thanks again. I really appreciate your concern.
Regardless of what I find or argue, WADA also finds evasion far more serious than whereabouts failures. We can see this in the length of the default ban. By default, a finding of intentional evasion will result in a 4-year ban, while the first whereabouts failure has no consequence. A second whereabouts failure still has no consequence. It is only the third failure within 12-months that results in a default 2-year ban.
Simple math suggests that evasion is at least 6x more serious.
This ignores the rolling 12-month period which decreases the whereabouts failure counter, as well as most athletes not subject to whereabouts requirements.
The only evasion here is yours, in your risible efforts to escape fact and reason. Missing either one or two tests is not a doping infringement. No one - including WADA - says that it is. Missing three is a violation. It is irrelevant to that violation whether missing any of the tests was intentional or not; the offence is in missing three, with no legitimate excuse. Intentional evasion is extremely difficult to prove and so a rarity. But that suits you, as you strive not to find any intentional dopers combined with your insistence that a whereabouts violation does not suggest doping. Your dishonesty runs as a thread through every argument you make. It is like a slime trail.
You spend most of your posts saying the same exact things, day in, day out. And most other posters here can't stand your presence.
You need to qualify that: most other posters who excuse or deny doping. And morons - who are often the same.
Just check your history of downvotes. Only a moron (that's you, in case you fail to grasp it) thinks they are always right and everyone else is consistently wrong.
I don't care who or how many posters find my arguments credible. But what is obvious is that many posters don't find you to be credible. That is why you spend every post trying to justify your arguments.
Actually I spend most of my posts deriding the rubbish you come out with. And so do most other posters here.
That sounds like you are extremely concerned with what I find, as apparently are most other posters.
The only evasion here is yours, in your risible efforts to escape fact and reason. Missing either one or two tests is not a doping infringement. No one - including WADA - says that it is. Missing three is a violation. It is irrelevant to that violation whether missing any of the tests was intentional or not; the offence is in missing three, with no legitimate excuse. Intentional evasion is extremely difficult to prove and so a rarity. But that suits you, as you strive not to find any intentional dopers combined with your insistence that a whereabouts violation does not suggest doping. Your dishonesty runs as a thread through every argument you make. It is like a slime trail.
What dishonesty? This all comes straight from the Code.
Despite your mismash of words and concepts, I agree with WADA that evasion is considered a far more serious violation than whereabouts failures, assuming WADA's length of bans are a relative indication of seriousness. Intent doesn't play any role when comparing these two independent articles. I compared the two intentional violations with each other, but I can also compare the two unintentional violations with each other: One instance of unintentional evasion is still minimum 2 years, while three unintentional whereabouts failures is minimum 1 year. There is still a factor of 6x difference. Having a "legitimate excuse" would serve to nullify one of the whereabouts failures, and then there would simply be no charged violation to sanction.
Oh Gawd, please don't make it even easier on the cheats.
Constructive points:
- serious criminalization of doping everywhere
- harsher punishments of the dopers
- parallel punishments of the dopers' coaches
- removal of all dopers from the records, including times and titles and medals
- cancellation of all NADOs, with the money and resources going to the AIU
The idea is to make it more fair for innocent athletes.
I think that rather having these things debated by anonymous nobodies with no skin in the game, it makes the most sense for an athletes association, who also speak for clean athletes, to define what that means, and identify which parts of the Code are imbalanced and unjust for athletes, and in need of reform.
Criminalization won't work the way you hope, as the bar to conviction will have to be raised to higher burdens of proof by the anti-doping prosecutors, and it will be much more costly to prosecute and take longer to get a binding result, and it will tie up the criminal courts to the detriment of other crimes. Look at how the criminal process in Spain played out for Jama Aden -- that took 7 years for the court to determine the evidence against him was not sufficient to meet a criminal standard. It is not by accident that WADA selected arbitration as the mechanism for enforcement.
Cancelling all NADOs and giving the money and the resources to the AIU hardly makes sense, given that NADOs represent all Olympic Sports, as well as non-international athletes.
If an athletes association, whatever that may be exactly, led the reform, one problem would be that such would be as full of dopers as the sport, so you'd let the fox guard the hen house. Even clean athletes may be tempted to make for example the whereabouts system more forgiving, just in case they screw up.
You are also wrong about the criminalization. There is no reason to wait for the criminal process - latest example here (first banned for doping, then start of the prosecution):
German prosecutors have brought criminal charges against track and field athlete Sara Benfares, who has been banned for five years for doping, on suspicion of unauthorized self-doping. The public prosecutor's office in Saarbr...
German prosecutors have brought criminal charges against track and field athlete Sara Benfares, who has been banned for five years for doping, on suspicion of unauthorized self-doping.
There was also Operation Aderlass, where the investigative power of the police helped catching and banning the cheaters. Their (suspended) prison times came after their doping bans, see for example (note the timing! 7 years in Spain, lol)
Operation Aderlass (English: Operation Bloodletting) was an investigation in Austria and Germany into doping practices carried out by Erfurt-based German physician Mark Schmidt. Athletes from various disciplines were named as...
The investigation was sparked following a confession by cross-country skier Johannes Dürr in early 2019, leading to arrests and raids in both Schmidt's Erfurt offices as well as during the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2019. Over the following months, prominent athletes such as cyclists Alessandro Petacchi and Danilo Hondo were charged with having used Schmidt's services for the purposes of doping. The investigations concluded with a prison sentence for main defendant Schmidt in January 2021.
...
Max Hauke received a suspended five-month sentence on 30 October 2019 from an Innsbruck court for doping violations reaching back to 2015.[10] Dominik Baldauf also received a suspended five-month sentence on 14 January 2020 from the same court.[11] Both athletes had received four-year bans from competition from the Austrian Anti-Doping Agency on 23 July 2019.[12]
Good point about the NADOs/AIU - resources would have to go to the other sports too. Clearly their built-in bias is hurting the sport (and the clean athletes), see e.g. Coleman's courtesy calls.
If an athletes association, whatever that may be exactly, led the reform, one problem would be that such would be as full of dopers as the sport, so you'd let the fox guard the hen house. Even clean athletes may be tempted to make for example the whereabouts system more forgiving, just in case they screw up.
You are also wrong about the criminalization. There is no reason to wait for the criminal process - latest example here (first banned for doping, then start of the prosecution):
German prosecutors have brought criminal charges against track and field athlete Sara Benfares, who has been banned for five years for doping, on suspicion of unauthorized self-doping.
There was also Operation Aderlass, where the investigative power of the police helped catching and banning the cheaters. Their (suspended) prison times came after their doping bans, see for example (note the timing! 7 years in Spain, lol)
The investigation was sparked following a confession by cross-country skier Johannes Dürr in early 2019, leading to arrests and raids in both Schmidt's Erfurt offices as well as during the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2019. Over the following months, prominent athletes such as cyclists Alessandro Petacchi and Danilo Hondo were charged with having used Schmidt's services for the purposes of doping. The investigations concluded with a prison sentence for main defendant Schmidt in January 2021.
...
Max Hauke received a suspended five-month sentence on 30 October 2019 from an Innsbruck court for doping violations reaching back to 2015.[10] Dominik Baldauf also received a suspended five-month sentence on 14 January 2020 from the same court.[11] Both athletes had received four-year bans from competition from the Austrian Anti-Doping Agency on 23 July 2019.[12]
Good point about the NADOs/AIU - resources would have to go to the other sports too. Clearly their built-in bias is hurting the sport (and the clean athletes), see e.g. Coleman's courtesy calls.
You shouldn't be so drug obsessed. It's not healthy. And it's a bad influence on the kids.
You might think you have good intentions, but your actions have consequences that will be detrimental to their development.
If an athletes association, whatever that may be exactly, led the reform, one problem would be that such would be as full of dopers as the sport, so you'd let the fox guard the hen house. Even clean athletes may be tempted to make for example the whereabouts system more forgiving, just in case they screw up.
You are also wrong about the criminalization. There is no reason to wait for the criminal process - latest example here (first banned for doping, then start of the prosecution):
German prosecutors have brought criminal charges against track and field athlete Sara Benfares, who has been banned for five years for doping, on suspicion of unauthorized self-doping.
There was also Operation Aderlass, where the investigative power of the police helped catching and banning the cheaters. Their (suspended) prison times came after their doping bans, see for example (note the timing! 7 years in Spain, lol)
The investigation was sparked following a confession by cross-country skier Johannes Dürr in early 2019, leading to arrests and raids in both Schmidt's Erfurt offices as well as during the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2019. Over the following months, prominent athletes such as cyclists Alessandro Petacchi and Danilo Hondo were charged with having used Schmidt's services for the purposes of doping. The investigations concluded with a prison sentence for main defendant Schmidt in January 2021.
...
Max Hauke received a suspended five-month sentence on 30 October 2019 from an Innsbruck court for doping violations reaching back to 2015.[10] Dominik Baldauf also received a suspended five-month sentence on 14 January 2020 from the same court.[11] Both athletes had received four-year bans from competition from the Austrian Anti-Doping Agency on 23 July 2019.[12]
Good point about the NADOs/AIU - resources would have to go to the other sports too. Clearly their built-in bias is hurting the sport (and the clean athletes), see e.g. Coleman's courtesy calls.
With respect to an "athletes association", I am talking about something like this to provide the athletes' concerns through representatives:
With regards to criminal investigations and prosecutions, I see a lot of value in an Operation Aderlass style of investigation that investigates and punishes suppliers and doctors and leads to multiple athlete sanctions, but I'm not so much in favor of generalizing criminal prosecutions of individual athletes like Benfares. It doesn't seem resource effective, and it reeks of double-jeopardy.
You need to qualify that: most other posters who excuse or deny doping. And morons - who are often the same.
Just check your history of downvotes. Only a moron (that's you, in case you fail to grasp it) thinks they are always right and everyone else is consistently wrong.
I don't think everyone is consistently wrong; only those who are in denial of what is happening in the sport.
Double-jeopardy, well, it is quite common to get punished by your profession and the state, e.g. for insider trading or malpractice. Why not get banned from the sport and pay a fine or go to jail for cheating in the sport like in Germany or Austria? Kiprop was also in favor of putting drug cheats into jail (well, not anymore though lol).
After all, that cheating can easily result in ill-gotten gains of over $100,000 (see e.g. what Houlihan wrote about her increased income after her "successes"), if not millions (see e.g. Llandis + Armstrong). Strange that for example American and British governments don't care about such offenses.
Well, at least there is RADA since 2020 that could bring "doping conspirators" into prison - but it appears to exclude the actual dopers:
The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, which gives United States officials the power to prosecute individuals for doping schemes at international sports comp...
Named after Russian whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov, it gives prosecutors the ability to seek fines of up to $1 million (£745,000/€825,000) and prison sentences of up to 10 years for doping conspirators at events involving US athletes, broadcasters and sponsors. While individual athletes who used performance-enhancing drugs would not be subject to criminal prosecution under the law, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has frequently objected to it.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
