Your complaints are rebutted by the fact that no one heeds anything you have to say. You are completely ignored at any level that matters - by WADA and those who prosecute the dopers, and by those in the sport, like athletes and coaches. That is because you are wrong. If it were not so the system would change to reflect your concerns. But it hasn't - and it won't. Those in charge of antidoping clearly do not think the system is "unjust to innocent athletes". Antidoping catches the guilty. But not enough of them. If you had your way, it wouldn't catch any of them.
I know the previous response will be too many words for you, and you will make up some lame excuse and insult to hide your inability to read more than two sentences.
TLDR; Essentially none of this matters, because this is not my goal in posting. Also you are wrong, as WADA has changed already, setting a precedent.
Also forgot one more counter example which proves you wrong, again: Tygart is someone "in charge of antidoping (who) clearly (thinks) the system is "unjust to innocent athletes"".
Your goal in posting is immaterial. It is what you say that is both irrelevant and wrong. The reality of how antidoping works simply demonstrates that your views are not reflected in any of their processes - and nor will they be. So objective reality - not anyone's opinion on this message board - shows your views are wrong. I don't respond to your meandering posts in depth because that would be a descent into the fundamental confusion that is the way you think.
No reason to take rek seriously. The dynamic on this board is that there are a handful of diehards who obstinately try to deny the massive doping problem in distance running. That paints them into the corner of having to defend every dope cheat, even the ones who test positive like Houlihan, the ones whose doping progressions are laughably obvious (eg, Chemusto), and anyone else under a reasonable cloud of suspicion. Because if they have to admit that Shelby had to dope to run the times she achieved, then they have to admit that the East African runners they unconditionally support are doping also, which they are. That is rek's motivation. And he is hardly the only one. So they will defend every doper because to do otherwise admits the problem.
No reason to take rek seriously. The dynamic on this board is that there are a handful of diehards who obstinately try to deny the massive doping problem in distance running. That paints them into the corner of having to defend every dope cheat, even the ones who test positive like Houlihan, the ones whose doping progressions are laughably obvious (eg, Chemusto), and anyone else under a reasonable cloud of suspicion. Because if they have to admit that Shelby had to dope to run the times she achieved, then they have to admit that the East African runners they unconditionally support are doping also, which they are. That is rek's motivation. And he is hardly the only one. So they will defend every doper because to do otherwise admits the problem.
I actually think Rek is more like the election deniers in Georgia. He sees results he doesn't like, looks at the information that backs up the result, and doesn't understand it, so he misinterprets the information and decides he's correct.
Every argument he makes cascades from that initial misinterpretation, which is why he never backs down - he fundamentally misunderstands an issue from the absolute beginning, and can't process information that proves him wrong.
It's also why he repeats the same talking points over and over - he can't separate a concept from the first couple of points he misinterpreted.
Yeah or like that one annoying juror who is incapable of grasping that circumstantial evidence is in fact evidence. If you take one piece of circumstantial evidence it does not necessarily mean much, but if you have a heaping pile of circumstantial evidence and look at it in totality, a reasonable person can draw a logical conclusion. Unfortunately, he lacks this capability.
Your goal in posting is immaterial. It is what you say that is both irrelevant and wrong. The reality of how antidoping works simply demonstrates that your views are not reflected in any of their processes - and nor will they be. So objective reality - not anyone's opinion on this message board - shows your views are wrong. I don't respond to your meandering posts in depth because that would be a descent into the fundamental confusion that is the way you think.
If you thought it was irrelevant, you would ignore it, but you cannot.
If it was wrong, you could disprove it with contrary facts, but you cannot.
I know the reality of how anti-doping works. It just cannot guarantee justice for innocent athletes by design, as its rulings are based on a set of presumptions.
I actually think Rek is more like the election deniers in Georgia. He sees results he doesn't like, looks at the information that backs up the result, and doesn't understand it, so he misinterprets the information and decides he's correct.
Every argument he makes cascades from that initial misinterpretation, which is why he never backs down - he fundamentally misunderstands an issue from the absolute beginning, and can't process information that proves him wrong.
It's also why he repeats the same talking points over and over - he can't separate a concept from the first couple of points he misinterpreted.
Which initial information do you think I'm misinterpreting? I would like to correct my misinterpretations.
Your election denial analogy fails.
In elections, you collect data in a controlled way, from authenticated registered voters, and you count the votes. There are no presumptions not backed by data.
On the contrary, it is the election deniers who presume Trump won without basis.
Quite unlike elections, the anti-doping process, for certain cases of possible unknowing ingestion from USDA approved food, cannot work without a set of baseless presumptions.
Only with these presumptions, can anti-doping decide that rule violations took place, and then deem it intentional. Consequently, it is presumptuous for fans to call Houlihan an intentional cheat -- something neither the AIU nor the CAS did, nor found -- on the strength of a CAS conviction.
What makes you think I care the slightest about being taken seriously by you? Mr. "Steroids are not performance enhancing"?
Similarly, I post here to express my thoughts and findings without giving anyone else's cares any consideration.
Sure steroids are performance enhancing when injected in larger quantities. Especially for women in events requiring muscular strength.
I just thought you could tell me if there were any reasons behind your belief that oral ingestion of low amounts of steroids can have a measurable performance effect in any endurance running events.
I learned in biology that when low amounts of steroids are ingested, most of it is processed in the liver, and excreted in urine, never making it into the blood stream. This is a process called "first pass". That's why oral ingestion in low amounts is considered so ineffective.
Your goal in posting is immaterial. It is what you say that is both irrelevant and wrong. The reality of how antidoping works simply demonstrates that your views are not reflected in any of their processes - and nor will they be. So objective reality - not anyone's opinion on this message board - shows your views are wrong. I don't respond to your meandering posts in depth because that would be a descent into the fundamental confusion that is the way you think.
If you thought it was irrelevant, you would ignore it, but you cannot.
If it was wrong, you could disprove it with contrary facts, but you cannot.
I know the reality of how anti-doping works. It just cannot guarantee justice for innocent athletes by design, as its rulings are based on a set of presumptions.
I don't have to ignore you for you to be irrelevant. All it requires is for the anti-doping authorities to ignore what you say to establish the irrelevance of your opinions. I simply point out that objective irrelevance because you are so departed from reality as to think your fantasies are meaningful. They aren't.
I don't debate the laboured arguments you purport to make because that would be like trying to engage in rational discourse with an unswerving fanatic. You are the only one who thinks he has won an argument here. Such is deluded fanaticism. Clearly, I won't deter you from that false belief - no one can - but there is at least the satisfaction of also knowing that the antidoping processes will incorporate none of the misguided views that you hold in your own private asylum.
What makes you think I care the slightest about being taken seriously by you? Mr. "Steroids are not performance enhancing"?
Similarly, I post here to express my thoughts and findings without giving anyone else's cares any consideration.
Sure steroids are performance enhancing when injected in larger quantities. Especially for women in events requiring muscular strength.
I just thought you could tell me if there were any reasons behind your belief that oral ingestion of low amounts of steroids can have a measurable performance effect in any endurance running events.
I learned in biology that when low amounts of steroids are ingested, most of it is processed in the liver, and excreted in urine, never making it into the blood stream. This is a process called "first pass". That's why oral ingestion in low amounts is considered so ineffective.
Nothing you say is anything other than a denial of the realities of doping. Since that's where all your arguments begin - and end - there is absolutely nothing to be gained from discussing them with you. On sports doping, you are like a Trumper who claims the election was stolen regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.
This post was edited 34 seconds after it was posted.
I actually think Rek is more like the election deniers in Georgia. He sees results he doesn't like, looks at the information that backs up the result, and doesn't understand it, so he misinterprets the information and decides he's correct.
Every argument he makes cascades from that initial misinterpretation, which is why he never backs down - he fundamentally misunderstands an issue from the absolute beginning, and can't process information that proves him wrong.
It's also why he repeats the same talking points over and over - he can't separate a concept from the first couple of points he misinterpreted.
Which initial information do you think I'm misinterpreting? I would like to correct my misinterpretations.
Your election denial analogy fails.
In elections, you collect data in a controlled way, from authenticated registered voters, and you count the votes. There are no presumptions not backed by data.
On the contrary, it is the election deniers who presume Trump won without basis.
Quite unlike elections, the anti-doping process, for certain cases of possible unknowing ingestion from USDA approved food, cannot work without a set of baseless presumptions.
Only with these presumptions, can anti-doping decide that rule violations took place, and then deem it intentional. Consequently, it is presumptuous for fans to call Houlihan an intentional cheat -- something neither the AIU nor the CAS did, nor found -- on the strength of a CAS conviction.
He was right. You have just proved it. An election-denier in doping-denial 'drag'.
If you thought it was irrelevant, you would ignore it, but you cannot.
If it was wrong, you could disprove it with contrary facts, but you cannot.
I know the reality of how anti-doping works. It just cannot guarantee justice for innocent athletes by design, as its rulings are based on a set of presumptions.
I don't have to ignore you for you to be irrelevant. All it requires is for the anti-doping authorities to ignore what you say to establish the irrelevance of your opinions. I simply point out that objective irrelevance because you are so departed from reality as to think your fantasies are meaningful. They aren't.
I don't debate the laboured arguments you purport to make because that would be like trying to engage in rational discourse with an unswerving fanatic. You are the only one who thinks he has won an argument here. Such is deluded fanaticism. Clearly, I won't deter you from that false belief - no one can - but there is at least the satisfaction of also knowing that the antidoping processes will incorporate none of the misguided views that you hold in your own private asylum.
You don't have a choice -- you don't debate because you simply cannot.
Since you believe you are coupled with reality, the only thing I would find relevant are facts and evidence drawn from reality. But you have not and cannot provide any.
On the contrary, I can, and I have.
As you didn't read anything I wrote above, you are still ignorant that WADA has made recent changes regarding doping by meat ingestion -- there is a precedent.
I don't have to ignore you for you to be irrelevant. All it requires is for the anti-doping authorities to ignore what you say to establish the irrelevance of your opinions. I simply point out that objective irrelevance because you are so departed from reality as to think your fantasies are meaningful. They aren't.
I don't debate the laboured arguments you purport to make because that would be like trying to engage in rational discourse with an unswerving fanatic. You are the only one who thinks he has won an argument here. Such is deluded fanaticism. Clearly, I won't deter you from that false belief - no one can - but there is at least the satisfaction of also knowing that the antidoping processes will incorporate none of the misguided views that you hold in your own private asylum.
You don't have a choice -- you don't debate because you simply cannot.
Since you believe you are coupled with reality, the only thing I would find relevant are facts and evidence drawn from reality. But you have not and cannot provide any.
On the contrary, I can, and I have.
As you didn't read anything I wrote above, you are still ignorant that WADA has made recent changes regarding doping by meat ingestion -- there is a precedent.
I don't debate with you because that would be like debating with "AdultinaPaddedCell" on the Trump threads. WADA has implemented nothing you urge and will not - because it simply does not think the antidoping process is "unfair to innocent athletes".
You don't have a choice -- you don't debate because you simply cannot.
Since you believe you are coupled with reality, the only thing I would find relevant are facts and evidence drawn from reality. But you have not and cannot provide any.
On the contrary, I can, and I have.
As you didn't read anything I wrote above, you are still ignorant that WADA has made recent changes regarding doping by meat ingestion -- there is a precedent.
I don't debate with you because that would be like debating with "AdultinaPaddedCell" on the Trump threads. WADA has implemented nothing you urge and will not - because it simply does not think the antidoping process is "unfair to innocent athletes".
That is why you lose this, and every, argument.
But you are only lying to yourself because you are not credible. The more important reason is that you lack the minimum knowledge and awareness to construct an informed debate -- that's why you resort so quickly to personal attacks in virtually every thread you participate in to hide this fundamental lacking.
And you wouldn't be debating just me, but important names in anti-doping like Tygart, and WADA's public statements announcing such a workgroup and recommended changes, and in this case Richard McClaren who said: "I think the system is perhaps more loaded against the athlete", in a sports integrity article that explains: "those who govern anti-doping are aware that despite anti-doping being billed as protecting athletes, it sometimes doesn’t fulfil this noble aim".
As you won't/can't debate, you have already "lost" this argument, not just to me, but to Tygart and WADA and McClaren and long time sports governance journalist Andy Brown. You defacto cannot "win" an argument if you "chose" not to raise any arguments, and instead give just baseless opinions and conclusions which are demonstrably wrong with only 5 minutes of fact-checking.
If you thought it was irrelevant, you would ignore it, but you cannot.
If it was wrong, you could disprove it with contrary facts, but you cannot.
I know the reality of how anti-doping works. It just cannot guarantee justice for innocent athletes by design, as its rulings are based on a set of presumptions.
I don't have to ignore you for you to be irrelevant.
Methinks Armstrong has a crush on Rekrunner. He is actually flirting with him.
I don't debate with you because that would be like debating with "AdultinaPaddedCell" on the Trump threads. WADA has implemented nothing you urge and will not - because it simply does not think the antidoping process is "unfair to innocent athletes".
That is why you lose this, and every, argument.
But you are only lying to yourself because you are not credible. The more important reason is that you lack the minimum knowledge and awareness to construct an informed debate -- that's why you resort so quickly to personal attacks in virtually every thread you participate in to hide this fundamental lacking.
And you wouldn't be debating just me, but important names in anti-doping like Tygart, and WADA's public statements announcing such a workgroup and recommended changes, and in this case Richard McClaren who said: "I think the system is perhaps more loaded against the athlete", in a sports integrity article that explains: "those who govern anti-doping are aware that despite anti-doping being billed as protecting athletes, it sometimes doesn’t fulfil this noble aim".
As you won't/can't debate, you have already "lost" this argument, not just to me, but to Tygart and WADA and McClaren and long time sports governance journalist Andy Brown. You defacto cannot "win" an argument if you "chose" not to raise any arguments, and instead give just baseless opinions and conclusions which are demonstrably wrong with only 5 minutes of fact-checking.
You've just shown again you have no debate; only your spluttering indignation. You simply do not address the fact that WADA and the antidoping authorities do not share your views about the process - or about Shelby Houlihan. You lose the debate because despite your complaints about the system nothing you say is heeded.
