LRC note. We added in to the title that she trained in Cheptegei's camp as this is much more newsworthy than your average run of the mill doping bust. the same thing was true last year when someone in Kipchoge's camp was banned.
As I said, I don't bother to engage with the case that a cultist like yourself thinks he has assembled - you don't have one - only to point out that they are the unending ramblings of a cultist. Nothing you say will change how anti-doping is exercised. Your opinions remain utterly irrelevant as well as deluded.
You do bother quite a lot, but you frankly cannot engage. You have repeatedly confirmed this post after post, year after year. You can only insult with false arrogance while you propogate your own naive beliefs without evidence -- much like the ramblings of a cultist.
If anti-doping does reform, it will surely not be because of me -- I have no delusions of grandeur -- but because of prominent critical voices like Tygart, or perhaps from the athletes themselves, or voices from sports media journalists like Seppelt or Andy Brown.
You are correct in only one thing: antidoping will not reform because of anything you say.
Nor will Tygart or your other hand-wringers change anything. The antidoping burden of proof is not going to be increased so that it will be easier for dopers to escape sanction. There is no political will in the sport to do that. Indeed, the arguments are moving towards criminalising doping. But they will all be "innocent victims of an unfair process" to you.
You do bother quite a lot, but you frankly cannot engage. You have repeatedly confirmed this post after post, year after year. You can only insult with false arrogance while you propogate your own naive beliefs without evidence -- much like the ramblings of a cultist.
If anti-doping does reform, it will surely not be because of me -- I have no delusions of grandeur -- but because of prominent critical voices like Tygart, or perhaps from the athletes themselves, or voices from sports media journalists like Seppelt or Andy Brown.
You are correct in only one thing: antidoping will not reform because of anything you say.
Nor will Tygart or your other hand-wringers change anything. The antidoping burden of proof is not going to be increased so that it will be easier for dopers to escape sanction. There is no political will in the sport to do that. Indeed, the arguments are moving towards criminalising doping. But they will all be "innocent victims of an unfair process" to you.
None of that makes the process more fair for the innocent athletes that WADA was created to protect.
WADA is generally against criminalizing for athletes, but if at all, limiting criminalization to suppliers. As you observed before, if ADAs and ADOs actually had to meet a criminal burden, the convictions would dry-up to nothing because their evidence is too weak. WADA prefers fast-tracking convictions with arbitration, where adjudicators are subservient to WADA created rules and guidelines.
You are correct in only one thing: antidoping will not reform because of anything you say.
Nor will Tygart or your other hand-wringers change anything. The antidoping burden of proof is not going to be increased so that it will be easier for dopers to escape sanction. There is no political will in the sport to do that. Indeed, the arguments are moving towards criminalising doping. But they will all be "innocent victims of an unfair process" to you.
None of that makes the process more fair for the innocent athletes that WADA was created to protect.
WADA is generally against criminalizing for athletes, but if at all, limiting criminalization to suppliers. As you observed before, if ADAs and ADOs actually had to meet a criminal burden, the convictions would dry-up to nothing because their evidence is too weak. WADA prefers fast-tracking convictions with arbitration, where adjudicators are subservient to WADA created rules and guidelines.
WADA wasn't "created to protect innocent athletes" but to catch the guilty. That's why it tests athletes and bans them when they fail. Over the years it has toughened up its rules to make it harder for athletes to dope. It isn't the "innocent" who are being caught.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
None of that makes the process more fair for the innocent athletes that WADA was created to protect.
WADA is generally against criminalizing for athletes, but if at all, limiting criminalization to suppliers. As you observed before, if ADAs and ADOs actually had to meet a criminal burden, the convictions would dry-up to nothing because their evidence is too weak. WADA prefers fast-tracking convictions with arbitration, where adjudicators are subservient to WADA created rules and guidelines.
WADA wasn't "created to protect innocent athletes" but to catch the guilty. That's why it tests athletes and bans them when they fail. Over the years it has toughened up its rules to make it harder for athletes to dope. It isn't the "innocent" who are being caught.
I wonder what WADA says?
"WADA was established on 10 November 1999 to protect athletes ... "
Besides catching the guilty, "Our key activities include scientific and social science research; education; intelligence & investigations; development of anti-doping capacity; and monitoring of compliance ..."
WADA wasn't "created to protect innocent athletes" but to catch the guilty. That's why it tests athletes and bans them when they fail. Over the years it has toughened up its rules to make it harder for athletes to dope. It isn't the "innocent" who are being caught.
I wonder what WADA says?
"WADA was established on 10 November 1999 to protect athletes ... "
Besides catching the guilty, "Our key activities include scientific and social science research; education; intelligence & investigations; development of anti-doping capacity; and monitoring of compliance ..."
WADA doesn't protect those whom you call "innocent" athletes - those who have failed a doping test, returned whereabouts failures or shown clearly exaggerated blood values on the ABP. It aims to enable a clean sport by catching and holding your "innocent" athletes to account.
"WADA was established on 10 November 1999 to protect athletes ... "
Besides catching the guilty, "Our key activities include scientific and social science research; education; intelligence & investigations; development of anti-doping capacity; and monitoring of compliance ..."
WADA doesn't protect those whom you call "innocent" athletes - those who have failed a doping test, returned whereabouts failures or shown clearly exaggerated blood values on the ABP. It aims to enable a clean sport by catching and holding your "innocent" athletes to account.
Exactly. They were established to protect all athletes, not persecute innocent ones. The sport is not cleaner by holding innocent athletes to account. WADA aims to protect all athletes, but in certain cases, their aim is off, and they need to improve their aim.
BTW, you are wrong, again, about "whom" I call "innocent". I make general statements about all "innocent" athletes. If some athletes are not "innocent", my general statements would simply not apply to them. It cannot be wrong for me to select all athletes who are innocent by using the term "innocent".
Tygart calls athletes "innocent" in certain cases involving ingestion of low amounts of a few substances.
The article about "whereabouts" was just to show there are various issues surrounding that -- I did not call these athletes "innocent", but I do say that "whereabouts" violations are not violations that involve banned substances or methods, per se. These athletes are guilty of adminstrative errors and/or not being where and when their filing says they should be.
No one has talked about ABP athletes being "innocent". Not sure where that comes from.
WADA doesn't protect those whom you call "innocent" athletes - those who have failed a doping test, returned whereabouts failures or shown clearly exaggerated blood values on the ABP. It aims to enable a clean sport by catching and holding your "innocent" athletes to account.
Exactly. They were established to protect all athletes, not persecute innocent ones. The sport is not cleaner by holding innocent athletes to account. WADA aims to protect all athletes, but in certain cases, their aim is off, and they need to improve their aim.
BTW, you are wrong, again, about "whom" I call "innocent". I make general statements about all "innocent" athletes. If some athletes are not "innocent", my general statements would simply not apply to them. It cannot be wrong for me to select all athletes who are innocent by using the term "innocent".
Tygart calls athletes "innocent" in certain cases involving ingestion of low amounts of a few substances.
The article about "whereabouts" was just to show there are various issues surrounding that -- I did not call these athletes "innocent", but I do say that "whereabouts" violations are not violations that involve banned substances or methods, per se. These athletes are guilty of adminstrative errors and/or not being where and when their filing says they should be.
No one has talked about ABP athletes being "innocent". Not sure where that comes from.
More discursive rubbish. Innocent athletes are those who don't test positive, commit whereabouts failures or show serious irregularities in their ABP. No one needs defend them. You have made it your life's work to declare those in violation of the rules - cheating - "innocent victims of an unfair system". Of course they are. To a doping denier.
More discursive rubbish. Innocent athletes are those who don't test positive, commit whereabouts failures or show serious irregularities in their ABP. No one needs defend them. You have made it your life's work to declare those in violation of the rules - cheating - "innocent victims of an unfair system". Of course they are. To a doping denier.
You have too much faith in a process that is intentionally flawed by design, not always able to discriminate the innocent from the intentional doping cheat.
Innocent athletes often test positive through no fault or negligence of their own, without intent or knowledge, despite the best due diligence. Simon Getzmann tested positive, yet proved his innocence. 27 USADA athletes tested positive and proved their innocence. According to WADA reports, about 1/3 of athletes who test positive are not sanctioned for a variety of reasons. Nandrolone ingestion can be an ATF (no violation) or an AAF (case to answer).
Whereabouts failures are purely administrative and organizational -- I don't find them interesting in the slightest.
More discursive rubbish. Innocent athletes are those who don't test positive, commit whereabouts failures or show serious irregularities in their ABP. No one needs defend them. You have made it your life's work to declare those in violation of the rules - cheating - "innocent victims of an unfair system". Of course they are. To a doping denier.
You have too much faith in a process that is intentionally flawed by design, not always able to discriminate the innocent from the intentional doping cheat.
Innocent athletes often test positive through no fault or negligence of their own, without intent or knowledge, despite the best due diligence. Simon Getzmann tested positive, yet proved his innocence. 27 USADA athletes tested positive and proved their innocence. According to WADA reports, about 1/3 of athletes who test positive are not sanctioned for a variety of reasons. Nandrolone ingestion can be an ATF (no violation) or an AAF (case to answer).
Whereabouts failures are purely administrative and organizational -- I don't find them interesting in the slightest.
No one is talking about ABP.
If athletes can't produce evidence of their innocence they aren't "innocent". Since they have tested positive for a banned substance, and it's been confirmed, that you think they are "innocent" is mere supposition on your part, with the only relevant evidence establishing their guilt.
This post was edited 12 minutes after it was posted.