rekrunner wrote:
Regarding intent, what the CAS said or wrote is insubstantial, if they don't support their finding with substance.
Good one, rekrunner.
rekrunner wrote:
Whatever you wish to believe about Houlihan and the burrito
I "wish to believe"? LOL. I just go with what WADA/AIU/WA/CAS figured out.
But keep pretending you are the logical one.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Regarding intent, what the CAS said or wrote is insubstantial, if they don't support their finding with substance.
Good one, rekrunner.
rekrunner wrote:
Whatever you wish to believe about Houlihan and the burrito
I "wish to believe"? LOL. I just go with what WADA/AIU/WA/CAS figured out.
But keep pretending you are the logical one.
We agree; there was no consideration of cheating.
Such is explicitly excluded by the rules which I resent earlier. Did you bother to read them?
[quote]original liar soorer wrote:
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2021_wada_code.pdf
This should be the Wada code.
Read 2.1.1 and comment 7.
Utterly clear that intent is not adjudicated.
Re posted in case such has not been read.
If they aren't banned it isn't doping.[/quote]
But then your last sentence is a howling tautology 😂😅[/quote]
A "howling tautology" is to say "if they aren't banned they aren't prohibited". Yet doping is defined by that which is prohibited/proscribed. If it is permitted it isn't doping - it is the taking of approved medicines, supplements and pain-killers.
The only howling you would understand suggests you would be at home in a kennel.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Doping is by definition dishonest and unfair. Hence it is banned and the doper penalized. As Houlihan was. So when is doping honest and fair?
That is not WADA's definition of doping.
Cheating requires dishonesty or unfairness, in order to gain an advantage.
WADA does not.
You are wrong by definition.
When is doping honest and fair?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, it doesn't. Doping is by its nature cheating. There isn't any legitimate doping.
WADA does not consider an ATF doping.
You are wrong by definition.
What does WADA consider to be "legitimate doping"?
rekrunner wrote:
say it again. wrote:
I don't recall you ever being this defensive about other people who have been banned before?
Link to where you have defended an African runner? Or is it just white chick's you defend?
In 2018, WADA published a report on Kenyan anti-doping, showing 49 (or 50) Kenyan busts, or 35%, for nandrolone.
Kenyan farmers don't routinely castrate their male pigs, like in the USA.
Perhaps as many as all 49 (or 50) of them were victims of nandrolone ingestion by pork, and would be unable to fund a legal or scientific defense, or be able to trace back the source of the nandrolone in order to convince a panel (in a process conducted in English or possibly French) on the balance of probability.
"Perhaps" the moon is also made of green cheese. Your speculation is pure fancy. What is much more probable is that they doped, which we would expect in a country that WADA has identified has a doping problem.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
In 2018, WADA published a report on Kenyan anti-doping, showing 49 (or 50) Kenyan busts, or 35%, for nandrolone.
Kenyan farmers don't routinely castrate their male pigs, like in the USA.
Perhaps as many as all 49 (or 50) of them were victims of nandrolone ingestion by pork, and would be unable to fund a legal or scientific defense, or be able to trace back the source of the nandrolone in order to convince a panel (in a process conducted in English or possibly French) on the balance of probability.
"Perhaps" the moon is also made of green cheese. Your speculation is pure fancy. What is much more probable is that they doped, which we would expect in a country that WADA has identified has a doping problem.
Has it occurred to you that it may have a doping problem because of boar meat.
You do fall for tautological errors don’t you.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
WADA does not consider an ATF doping.
You are wrong by definition.
What does WADA consider to be "legitimate doping"?
I would have thought about a 100,000 doping products.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That is not WADA's definition of doping.
Cheating requires dishonesty or unfairness, in order to gain an advantage.
WADA does not.
You are wrong by definition.
When is doping honest and fair?
When it is allowed and even encouraged.
Armstronglivs wrote:
When is doping honest and fair?
Doping is honest when there is no fault, no negligence, and no knowing use.
Doping is fair when no competition result was impacted or altered.
You forgot motivation: "in order to gain an advantage".
casual obsever wrote:
I "wish to believe"? LOL. I just go with what WADA/AIU/WA/CAS figured out.
But keep pretending you are the logical one.
You often go quite a bit beyond. They didn't call her a cheat.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
WADA does not consider an ATF doping.
You are wrong by definition.
What does WADA consider to be "legitimate doping"?
You moved the goalpost.
A positive test result that is considered an ATF is not considered doping.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
In 2018, WADA published a report on Kenyan anti-doping, showing 49 (or 50) Kenyan busts, or 35%, for nandrolone.
Kenyan farmers don't routinely castrate their male pigs, like in the USA.
Perhaps as many as all 49 (or 50) of them were victims of nandrolone ingestion by pork, and would be unable to fund a legal or scientific defense, or be able to trace back the source of the nandrolone in order to convince a panel (in a process conducted in English or possibly French) on the balance of probability.
"Perhaps" the moon is also made of green cheese. Your speculation is pure fancy. What is much more probable is that they doped, which we would expect in a country that WADA has identified has a doping problem.
My speculation is backed by data, while yours is not.
4:03 1500 is way worse than 14:23. Maybe she’s clean now. Someone who is a sub 14:30 5k runner should easily run sub 3:55 for 1500.
DougC wrote:
4:03 1500 is way worse than 14:23. Maybe she’s clean now. Someone who is a sub 14:30 5k runner should easily run sub 3:55 for 1500.
If you were banned for 4 years how hard would you train for a 1500m TT? Any time she runs during her ban doesn’t count for anything and she couldn’t possibly be as motivated to train she was as for her 5000m AR attempt. She is not currently a sub-14;30 5000m runner and a 4:03 is not bad at all.
original liar soorer wrote:
[quote]original liar soorer wrote:
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2021_wada_code.pdfThis should be the Wada code.
Read 2.1.1 and comment 7.
Utterly clear that intent is not adjudicated.
Re posted in case such has not been read.
Here is the core document,again, but there are still those who opinion on the rules but won’t read them.
DougC wrote:
4:03 1500 is way worse than 14:23. Maybe she’s clean now. Someone who is a sub 14:30 5k runner should easily run sub 3:55 for 1500.
Maybe she was clean then.
4:03 is pretty good for February.
She has run 3:55 for 1500m.
Rekrunner,
If she didn't dope why is she serving a ban? It's very simple. I understand that you don't think doping is as big a problem as others, but cmon man. She is literally serving a doping ban and you're saying she isn't in the wrong?
She claimed she got Nadro in her system from eating a pork burrito.
She showed up at her hearing with a receipt for a beef burrito.
Then, the scientists said she’d need to eat 2.5 pork oral burritos to get a minimum nadro reading in her system. And, that the burrito stand only served non ofal pork.
The committee determined she cheated and lied and slapped her with the maximum penalty if a four year ban.
Stop trying to sugar coat the truth.