liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Who are “ they “?
Any of the hard line supporters of Wada care to respond ?
Question asked 17 hours ago.
Why no response?
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Who are “ they “?
Any of the hard line supporters of Wada care to respond ?
Question asked 17 hours ago.
Why no response?
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Any of the hard line supporters of Wada care to respond ?
Question asked 17 hours ago.
Why no response?
Still nothing.
Put up or shut up.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Question asked 17 hours ago.
Why no response?
Still nothing.
Put up or shut up.
Why no response?
Are the Wada apologist being exposed as child like fools.
Dew wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
She "crushingly reminds us" that a doped woman is now as fast as Abebe Bikila and far faster than Emil Zatopek. Such is "progress".
The planet will be a better place when you are no longer on it.
... and when the sport is entirely given over to dopers.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In your cherry-picking from a different discussion none of that says what you claim it says, which is that it is "impossible" to tell a doped from a clean performance. You are trying to tell me what I think - as though it somehow conforms to your unending denial of doping in running.
My position is that doping is endemic in professional sports, and especially elite running - which you refuse to see - and that the very best performances today -and certainly the world records - will be doped. It is only in the middle of the pack and with lower level runners, about whom we have less career information, that it will be difficult to determine whether or not they dope. That is largely because the athletes faster than them will probably be doped. But when expert estimates suggest up to 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 championship athletes dope, none of this conjecture about who is doping and who isn't really makes any difference - the sport of professional running is effectively no cleaner than professional wrestling. I have no doubt that performances like Gidey's are doped. And yet you still deny that an athlete who has committed a confirmed doping violation (Shelby Houlihan) can be described as a "doper". You are a religious crank in drag.
You mean “it becomes impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level” does not say what I claim it says, that it is impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level? By “the highest level”, did you really mean, not the fastest runners, but the middle of the pack and lower level runners?
It hardly matters what you you think or say now about what you thought and said then, unless you can find an intelligent way to support it rather than resorting to false arrogance. I found a source to support what you said then, and now deny you meant. This allows me to disregard your unsupported contradictions now. Your doubts about “performances like Gidey’s” don’t matter, when you’ve already told us that experts give it a 50%-80% chance of not being doped. You can have your doubts about as many as 20%-50% of performances “like Gidey’s”, and be no wiser about Gidey’s performance.
I have already described Houlihan’s violations, the same way the AIU, WADA, and the CAS described them. It brings no positive value to attempt to redescribe it in words that are not mine, and terms not used, nor defined, by the AIU, WADA, and the CAS.
If someone is described as failing to meet the most basic standards required of intellectual discourse it isn't necessary to say they are a moron - but it means that. Just as it follows that a person who has committed an intentional doping violation is a doper. Once the fact of their violation is established their being a "doper" doesn't depend on whether the sporting bodies choose to use that term. However, I don't expect a moron to grasp that.
Nor do I expect a moron to be able to tell me what I think about doping. You speak only for yourself.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Still nothing.
Put up or shut up.
Why no response?
Are the Wada apologist being exposed as child like fools.
I see that the Wada supporters still avoid the question.
Sorry it was a throwaway account. Who are "they"? Almost every professional runner who are smashing world records - Gidey, Kipchoge etc. It's known as the dirtiest sport for a reason.
tight pants 2 wrote:
Sorry it was a throwaway account. Who are "they"? Almost every professional runner who are smashing world records - Gidey, Kipchoge etc. It's known as the dirtiest sport for a reason.
So; only some/most of those breaking world records.
Which ones exactly.
And…. Where on earth is known as the dirtiest sport?
Can you back that up with published evidence from WADA ?
Are you her lesbian lover or something?
tight pants 2 wrote:
Are you her lesbian lover or something?
Well that takes things onward to a new intellectual depth and a very poor attempt at avoiding the question.
Armstronglivs wrote:
If someone is described as failing to meet the most basic standards required of intellectual discourse it isn't necessary to say they are a moron - but it means that. Just as it follows that a person who has committed an intentional doping violation is a doper. Once the fact of their violation is established their being a "doper" doesn't depend on whether the sporting bodies choose to use that term. However, I don't expect a moron to grasp that.
Nor do I expect a moron to be able to tell me what I think about doping. You speak only for yourself.
If it goes without saying, why do you feel so strongly about saying it?
And why do you seek my approval and my conformity?
What can "intentional doping violation" mean when WADA redefines two of the terms "intentional" and "doping"?
By WADA's broader definitions, someone can become an "intentional doper" for merely sending an email, or jumping out a window, or not missing a plane, or going Xmas shopping, or taking WADA-approved painkillers, or eating a USDA-approved meal.
I find it more accurate speaking in terms of "anti-doping rule violations", while understanding intent is "presumed" and not "established".
rekrunner wrote:
What can "intentional doping violation" mean when WADA redefines two of the terms "intentional" and "doping"?
Source?
And how does WADA define "intentional" and "doping"?
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
What can "intentional doping violation" mean when WADA redefines two of the terms "intentional" and "doping"?
Source?
And how does WADA define "intentional" and "doping"?
It’s in the WADA Code which you can find published at the WADA website.
You can find your answers there.
Nice try.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Source?
And how does WADA define "intentional" and "doping"?
It’s in the WADA Code which you can find published at the WADA website.
You can find your answers there.
Key to all this is that Wada Code does not evaluate intent as being in the body is the basis for an offence and conviction.
liar soorer wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It’s in the WADA Code which you can find published at the WADA website.
You can find your answers there.
Key to all this is that Wada Code does not evaluate intent as being in the body is the basis for an offence and conviction.
2.1.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1.
Correct - but rekrunner claimed that "WADA redefines two of the terms "intentional" and "doping"". Without evidence so far...
casual obsever wrote:
Correct - but rekrunner claimed that "WADA redefines two of the terms "intentional" and "doping"". Without evidence so far...
Good point.
I expect clarity from rek
liar soorer wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Correct - but rekrunner claimed that "WADA redefines two of the terms "intentional" and "doping"". Without evidence so far...
Good point.
I expect clarity from rek
You are the only one.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Key to all this is that Wada Code does not evaluate intent as being in the body is the basis for an offence and conviction.
2.1.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1.
Intent doesn't have to be demonstrated for there to be a violation; it is presumed when accidental doping cannot be shown by the athlete. If there is nandrolone in your body that doesn't get there by accident only one person put it there. Hence, the penalty. Hard for you to understand, I know.