Gidey just ran the single greatest female running performance ever... Give her the black page! Letesenbet MF Gidey 1:02:52

casual obsever wrote:

Correct - but rekrunner claimed that "WADA redefines two of the terms "intentional" and "doping"". Without evidence so far...

Seriously?

“Doping”:

Merriam-Webster “plain English” definition: “the use of a substance (such as an anabolic steroid or erythropoietin) or technique (such as blood doping) to illegally improve athletic performance”

WADA redefinition: “Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the antidoping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.”

The Merriam-Webster definition partly matches WADA’s Article 2.2 “Use”, but WADA adds “or Attempted Use”, and removes “improve athletic performance”.

In addition to this partial match, WADA’s definition includes 10 more Articles not found in Merriam-Webster’s definition.

“Intentional”:

Merriam-Webster “plain English” definition: “done by intention or design : INTENDED”

synonyms: “conscious, deliberate, intended, knowing, purposeful, purposive, set, voluntary, willed, willful (or wilful), witting”

WADA “special” definition: “As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.”

“Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.”

In the case of Houlihan, none of the elements of this “special” definition were demonstrated, as the Code doesn’t require demonstrating whether the definition was met in part or in whole.

So the question remains:

What can "intentional doping violation" mean when WADA redefines two of the terms "intentional" and "doping"?

Of course you don't get it. When doping is established intent is presumed. An athlete generally doesn't accidentally fall on a syringe.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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".

Of course you don't get it. When doping is established intent is presumed. An athlete generally doesn't accidentally fall on a syringe.

Presumed by intellectual non readers and liars.

Good old 10.2.3.

If this was Chess and played by non liars and non cheats and those that bothered to read the Chess rules then their king would now be horizontal.

Well done they fell into the trap.

But they are that limited they will continue lying.

A bit like the Monty Python Knight with not a limb left; poor poor souls of such foolish intent.

Armstronglivs 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.

You are confused about the burden of proof. Once an athlete tests positive for a banned substance the onus falls on the athlete to show that they didn't put it there. If they fail to do that, intent is presumed. It isn't necessary for the anti-doping authorities to prove it. But with a confirmed violation an innocent explanation is ruled out. As it should be.

What a mixed up convoluted set of lies and lack of reading of the rules.

You may assume intent but the laws and rules specify don’t.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

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.

You imply intent the rules as just presented don’t but you lie and won’t read them .

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Good point.

I expect clarity from rek

You are the only one.

And 10.2.3 provided this( but you have already been given this rule but lie and refuse to read)

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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".

Of course you don't get it. When doping is established intent is presumed. An athlete generally doesn't accidentally fall on a syringe.

What didn’t I get? Besides the imaginary syringe you want to inject into the conversation, that is precisely what I said, with the added understanding that WADA artificially redefined “doping” and “intent”, in the narrow context of rule interpretation.

Outside of that narrow context, say for example in intellectual discourse here in the real world, “intent” has a different meaning in everyday plain English, and any presumption not backed up with data and observations and arguments have no substantive or argumentative weight or value.

What I really don’t get are any answers to my questions:

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"?

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.

You confuse knowledge with belief.

According to the most pessimistic estimates, the majority of world class athletes are not doping.

Nothing shows that prevalence in distance running is more, or less, or the same as the global average among all athletic events, including sprints, field, and walking.

Nothing shows that prevalence among world record smashers is more, or less, or the same as the global average.

According to WADA ADRV reports, “athletics” is not dirtier, absolutely or proportionally, than cycling and bodybuilding, and proportionally not dirtier than boxing, wrestling, or weight lifting.

Well ok, they widened the umbrella to include attempted doping and tampering and avoiding testing as doping infractions. I actually told you that years ago, remember?

None of that applies to Houlihan, who was banned pursuant to "2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample" and "2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method". Specifically for 2.2, it was use, not "attempted" use, as she was found with roids (otherwise 2.1 wouldn't have applied).

Yes, exactly, "to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2", while Houlihan was banned for 2.1 and 2.2.

Also, "which they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation" sounds like the normal intentional.

An academic question in case of Houlihan, as demonstrated above.

Having said that, the answer would be that "intentional doping violation" means exactly that in the sense of the WADA code. Why does that upset you so much? Noting that you routinely tried to insist that everyone uses the proper wording, you should appreciate if the proper wording is used.

But ok, it would indeed help to specify whether e.g. 2.1 or 2.4 applies, e.g. by saying:

- banned for an intentional doping violation with PEDs (Houlihan, Kiprop)

- banned for an intentional doping violation with tampering (McNeal, Salazar)

And yes, intentional was "presumed", neither just "assumed" nor 100% "proven" in Houlihan's or Kiprop's case because that was not required.

rekrunner wrote:

According to the most pessimistic estimates, the majority of world class athletes are not doping.

Not quite. Recall Faiss et al.; Frontiers in Physiology 2020:

For example, doping (in all forms) prevalence is said to range between 39 and 62% based on anonymous questionnaires answered by athletes competing in two 2011 competitions of the World Athletics [WA, formerly International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)] (Ulrich et al., 2018).

So, "most pessimistic" according to that source would be that 38% "of world class athletes are not doping". There may be more pessimistic "estimates" too.

rekrunner wrote:

Nothing shows that prevalence among world record smashers is more, or less, or the same as the global average.

Not quite. Remember the Sunday Times 2015 review that showed that gold medals were more often won by athletes with suspicious blood values than silver medals, let alone bronze medals.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

According to the most pessimistic estimates, the majority of world class athletes are not doping.

Not quite. Recall Faiss et al.; Frontiers in Physiology 2020:

For example, doping (in all forms) prevalence is said to range between 39 and 62% based on anonymous questionnaires answered by athletes competing in two 2011 competitions of the World Athletics [WA, formerly International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)] (Ulrich et al., 2018).

So, "most pessimistic" according to that source would be that 38% "of world class athletes are not doping". There may be more pessimistic "estimates" too.

rekrunner wrote:

Nothing shows that prevalence among world record smashers is more, or less, or the same as the global average.

Not quite. Remember the Sunday Times 2015 review that showed that gold medals were more often won by athletes with suspicious blood values than silver medals, let alone bronze medals.

This has nowt to do with comparing with other sports.

Do catch up.

liar soorer wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Not quite. Recall Faiss et al.; Frontiers in Physiology 2020:

So, "most pessimistic" according to that source would be that 38% "of world class athletes are not doping". There may be more pessimistic "estimates" too.

Not quite. Remember the Sunday Times 2015 review that showed that gold medals were more often won by athletes with suspicious blood values than silver medals, let alone bronze medals.

This has nowt to do with comparing with other sports.

Do catch up.

I withdraw my last post.

casual obsever wrote:

Well ok, they widened the umbrella to include attempted doping and tampering and avoiding testing as doping infractions.

...

None of that applies to Houlihan

...

Yes, exactly, "to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2", while Houlihan was banned for 2.1 and 2.2.

...

Also, "which they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation" sounds like the normal intentional.

...

And yes, intentional was "presumed", neither just "assumed" nor 100% "proven" in Houlihan's or Kiprop's case because that was not required.

WADA also largely removed any reference or requirement of performance enhancement. WADA's umbrella definition of doping becomes anomalous, generally, out here in the real world, when bans not involving banned substances, e.g. violations like tampering, test refusal, and whereabouts violations, are presented as "evidence"/"proof" of doping with a banned substance, especially when trying to "prove by example" of a sanction that doping caused a faster performance. It's one thing to say Coleman/Kipsang/Manangoi committed a rule violation that WADA defines as doping, but another to say that doping by failing to fill out a website made them faster.

In the case of Houlihan, I have often acknowledged the rule violations. The only issue here, but not really my issue, seems to be that my acknowledging these violations falls short of Armstrongliv's expectations, who apparently seeks my approval for his rephrasing clearly stated findings in his own words, and my conformity for his approval. His reflexive response to my acknowledgement of the rule violations is to call me a doping denier.

If we are just discussing the appropriate length of the sanction, then WADA's meaning of "intent" is applicable. But that is usually not the case.

The issue with "intent", as meant by WADA in Article 10.2, is precisely that is presumed rather than established or shown. The referenced "conduct" is presumed but never instantiated. That the athlete "knew" the conduct was an ADRV or a significant risk of an ADRV, is presumed. That the athlete disregarded a significant risk is presumed. It sounds like the real definition, but fails to meet any element of the real world definition, as any evidence of the presumed "knowing intentional conduct" is completely lacking.

Imagine if we could simply "prove" reality by mutual contract, by clicking on "I agree" in a pop-up, rather than performing experiments and taking controlled measurements and making tangible observations, when no one has argued the contrary on the balance of probability.

I said "World Class" and "athletes" - meaning track and road athletes within World Athletics.

The 62% comes from the Pan Arab Games, which is not "athletics", but a collection of 27 sports, and with athletes not representative of world class athletics.

Contrary to your source, the Pan Arab Games is not a WA competition, but is organized by the Union of Arab National Olympic Committees.

Medals won is not the same as smashing world records.

It's not clear your medal count observation (55+47+45) is statistically significant, and it is not easy to compare medals won percentages with the global average, as the suspicious tests were not necessarily linked to the medals.

rekrunner wrote:

Medals won is not the same as smashing world records.

That's why I said "not quite", not "you are wrong".

"Nothing shows" is too strong for my taste, when global gold medals (more successful/faster athletes) are dirtier than silver medals by a factor of 55/47 = 1.17.

The figures and percentages that are being discussed are so subject to interpretation and were poorly created in the first place to make progress tortuous.

I don't seek your approval or conformity to anything I think. That shows how really obtuse you are. As does your grasp of English. We are at different poles of this argument, as you are an unvarying doping denier.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

You imply intent the rules as just presented don’t but you lie and won’t read them .

So how does the drug find it way into an athlete's body when an innocent explanation is ruled out? Intent by the athlete is the only alternative, genius. Hence it is presumed. Proof is not required.