Just compare the first page of this thread to this one. That celebration and "I told you so" relief that the most obvious doper ever had been suspended has turned into the usual Rekbot walls of text. Successfully baiting others into a pointless and ridiculous discussion about whether whereabout cheats are dopers, and even if they are suspicious. And now it seems he has a growing army of Rekbot clones to assist him.
Nobody "told me so" that Katir would be done for whereabouts failures, or that whereabouts failures can possibly turn someone into a 3:28 runner.
You see this suspension as confirmation of doping, but I see these different violations as a false equivalence.
Just compare the first page of this thread to this one. That celebration and "I told you so" relief that the most obvious doper ever had been suspended has turned into the usual Rekbot walls of text. Successfully baiting others into a pointless and ridiculous discussion about whether whereabout cheats are dopers, and even if they are suspicious. And now it seems he has a growing army of Rekbot clones to assist him.
Nobody "told me so" that Katir would be done for whereabouts failures, or that whereabouts failures can possibly turn someone into a 3:28 runner.
You see this suspension as confirmation of doping, but I see these different violations as a false equivalence.
A whereabouts failure means nothing to you and it certainly has nothing to do with doping, does it?
No, it isn't. How many athletes are convicted of a whereabouts failure because they were simply careless or too stupid to understand their obligations? None argue that - they always try to look for a legitimate excuse. Most fail.
Yeah, it is. You just don't realize it or want to admit it.
You ask the right question -- how many? Maybe all of them. Maybe none of them. Maybe some split. Impossible to even guess. When you can give me that answer, only then you can start all this talk about likelihoods and reasonable inferences. Until then, you are arguing from your own baseless and uninformed intuition and prejudgement.
Many do argue thing like they were there the whole time, and the tester failed to find them, or that flights were delayed and they neglected to update their whereabouts (or to think of it), or a last minute decision to sleep at a friend's house instead of going home, again neglecting to update their whereabouts, or that they were in the airport on a way to a parade in their hometown in their honor for winning an Oympic medal, etc.
Once again, there is an allowance of three missed tests, because life happens, even for professionals -- especially in the off-season.
Of course none argue careless or stupid, because careless or stupid as a defense is DOA -- it is stripped as a defense by the WADA Code assigning responsibility to the athlete. Even if they did, as a written explanation, it is no excuse. They simply accept it without contest. For example, apparently Katir only disputes #2, and accepts #1 and #3 without contest. These could both be ducked tests while glowing, or they could be unexcusable negligence and carelessness on his part. No way to tell really from where you are sitting.
Part of the problem is that your beliefs are only possible with the false dichotomies you create, artificially limiting choices to things like "either doping or stupidity", in order to confirm the outcome you want to believe. These choices are not mutually exclusive, nor exhaustive.
You have no grasp of the "real world" in sport. There must be an inference that an athlete is likely doping for a whereabouts failure to be an antidoping offence. Three missed tests enables the drawing of that inference. WADA has laid down a line at three missed tests because one failure may be explainable - and even two - but three shows a pattern and a pattern that cannot be justified. It is therefore an antidoping offence, not for meaningless and arbitrary reasons imposed by WADA but because in the real world WADA knows athletes who dope will try to avoid testers. So three missed tests are deemed deliberate avoidance of the testers and there is only one reason why an athlete will do that. So it is an antidoping offence. WADA cannot prove the athlete has doped for the reason the athlete couldn't be tested but the presumption of doping falls on the athlete for that failure without WADA having to prove it. WADA doesn't have to say "X athlete doped"; it just clobbers them with an antidoping offence. It effectively means the same thing - except to someone who lives in an alternate reality, as you do.
The athletes who are convicted of whereabouts failures are publicised; we often see them discussed here. Consequently we also see when any of them successfully appeal their suspension. Very few do. So the presumption they were doping remains.
Whereabouts failures and failed tests aren't treated exactly the same because the evidence for doping isn't the same. However, in a general sense, to be convicted of any antidoping violation raises a reasonable likelihood of doping - it is almost certainly the case they doped with a confirmed failed test. In either instance, whether it is a failed test or a whereabouts violation, they have lost their reputation for being "clean". It is ultimately irrelevant to ask how dirty are they when they have a violation; the line has been crossed.
On your last question about 3.30 runners, I don't recall saying anyone faster than that must be doping but I estimate it is around the limit for a clean athlete. Some might possibly run 3.29 but I doubt anything faster could be clean. I'm am speculating on this as it can't be proven either way.
You just keep telling yourself that. It may in fact become truth.
+1
We all saw this bust - one way or the other - coming; see my 285 upvotes on page 1, rekrunner. You can troll as much as you want with your endless repetitions and your five throwaway handles... that doesn't change anything.
You just keep telling yourself that. It may in fact become truth.
+1
We all saw this bust - one way or the other - coming; see my 285 upvotes on page 1, rekrunner. You can troll as much as you want with your endless repetitions and your five throwaway handles... that doesn't change anything.
Argumentum ad populum?
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so.
You have no grasp of the "real world" in sport. There must be an inference that an athlete is likely doping for a whereabouts failure to be an antidoping offence. Three missed tests enables the drawing of that inference. WADA has laid down a line at three missed tests because one failure may be explainable - and even two - but three shows a pattern and a pattern that cannot be justified. It is therefore an antidoping offence, not for meaningless and arbitrary reasons imposed by WADA but because in the real world WADA knows athletes who dope will try to avoid testers. So three missed tests are deemed deliberate avoidance of the testers and there is only one reason why an athlete will do that. So it is an antidoping offence. WADA cannot prove the athlete has doped for the reason the athlete couldn't be tested but the presumption of doping falls on the athlete for that failure without WADA having to prove it. WADA doesn't have to say "X athlete doped"; it just clobbers them with an antidoping offence. It effectively means the same thing - except to someone who lives in an alternate reality, as you do.
The athletes who are convicted of whereabouts failures are publicised; we often see them discussed here. Consequently we also see when any of them successfully appeal their suspension. Very few do. So the presumption they were doping remains.
You have no grasp of the WADA Code. There is no need to infer doping with a banned substance/method to penalize athletes for other actions, or non-actions that violate antidoping rules. It is an "antidoping offence", but there is no such required presumption of doping with a banned substance/method.
For example Salazar was convicted of three ADRVs, and there is no reasonable inference that Salazar doped with a banned substance/method from these ADRVs. Indeed the "dopers" related to Salazar's ADRVs were not convicted with their own ADRVs.
Just compare the first page of this thread to this one. That celebration and "I told you so" relief that the most obvious doper ever had been suspended has turned into the usual Rekbot walls of text. Successfully baiting others into a pointless and ridiculous discussion about whether whereabout cheats are dopers, and even if they are suspicious. And now it seems he has a growing army of Rekbot clones to assist him.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so.
Says the guy who cites a LetsRun poll 15 years ago as proof that El G was clean.
We all saw this bust - one way or the other - coming; see my 285 upvotes on page 1, rekrunner. You can troll as much as you want with your endless repetitions and your five throwaway handles... that doesn't change anything.
I am not saying that what I am going to say in the following applies to you, but it could have if we only count upvotes: Trump, Putin and Hitler all were elected by an impressive amount of upvotes..!
We all saw this bust - one way or the other - coming; see my 285 upvotes on page 1, rekrunner. You can troll as much as you want with your endless repetitions and your five throwaway handles... that doesn't change anything.
Argumentum ad populum?
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so.
But you denied that anyone saw it coming. A lot did - so the argument is correct that it was a widely-held view that Katir was going to be busted at some point. As his offence shows, it is also likely that he was in fact doping. Only a successful appeal could dispel that. Don't hold your breath.
You have no grasp of the "real world" in sport. There must be an inference that an athlete is likely doping for a whereabouts failure to be an antidoping offence. Three missed tests enables the drawing of that inference. WADA has laid down a line at three missed tests because one failure may be explainable - and even two - but three shows a pattern and a pattern that cannot be justified. It is therefore an antidoping offence, not for meaningless and arbitrary reasons imposed by WADA but because in the real world WADA knows athletes who dope will try to avoid testers. So three missed tests are deemed deliberate avoidance of the testers and there is only one reason why an athlete will do that. So it is an antidoping offence. WADA cannot prove the athlete has doped for the reason the athlete couldn't be tested but the presumption of doping falls on the athlete for that failure without WADA having to prove it. WADA doesn't have to say "X athlete doped"; it just clobbers them with an antidoping offence. It effectively means the same thing - except to someone who lives in an alternate reality, as you do.
The athletes who are convicted of whereabouts failures are publicised; we often see them discussed here. Consequently we also see when any of them successfully appeal their suspension. Very few do. So the presumption they were doping remains.
You have no grasp of the WADA Code. There is no need to infer doping with a banned substance/method to penalize athletes for other actions, or non-actions that violate antidoping rules. It is an "antidoping offence", but there is no such required presumption of doping with a banned substance/method.
For example Salazar was convicted of three ADRVs, and there is no reasonable inference that Salazar doped with a banned substance/method from these ADRVs. Indeed the "dopers" related to Salazar's ADRVs were not convicted with their own ADRVs.
There is no need for doping to be proven with a whereabouts offence, but it can be inferred from the offence. The whereabouts rule wouldn't exist unless there was a view that an athlete who misses three tests in the prescribed period was likely doping. It doesn't require proving; the inference stands from the definition of the offence. If it were not so the rule would be seen as unjust and unjustifiable. It isn't. It is an accepted part of the sport. It is intended to both catch and deter dopers.
You have no grasp of the "real world" in sport. There must be an inference that an athlete is likely doping for a whereabouts failure to be an antidoping offence. Three missed tests enables the drawing of that inference. WADA has laid down a line at three missed tests because one failure may be explainable - and even two - but three shows a pattern and a pattern that cannot be justified. It is therefore an antidoping offence, not for meaningless and arbitrary reasons imposed by WADA but because in the real world WADA knows athletes who dope will try to avoid testers. So three missed tests are deemed deliberate avoidance of the testers and there is only one reason why an athlete will do that. So it is an antidoping offence. WADA cannot prove the athlete has doped for the reason the athlete couldn't be tested but the presumption of doping falls on the athlete for that failure without WADA having to prove it. WADA doesn't have to say "X athlete doped"; it just clobbers them with an antidoping offence. It effectively means the same thing - except to someone who lives in an alternate reality, as you do.
The athletes who are convicted of whereabouts failures are publicised; we often see them discussed here. Consequently we also see when any of them successfully appeal their suspension. Very few do. So the presumption they were doping remains.
You have no grasp of the WADA Code. There is no need to infer doping with a banned substance/method to penalize athletes for other actions, or non-actions that violate antidoping rules. It is an "antidoping offence", but there is no such required presumption of doping with a banned substance/method.
For example Salazar was convicted of three ADRVs, and there is no reasonable inference that Salazar doped with a banned substance/method from these ADRVs. Indeed the "dopers" related to Salazar's ADRVs were not convicted with their own ADRVs.
Your distinction is irrelevant pedantry. Salazar was involved in the practice of doping, which involved breaking the antidoping rules. It doesn't require that he took any banned substances for himself. It would be the same for any coach that procured banned substances to be used by others or even advised them about how to do it. Your definition of "doping" - which is itself purely arbitrary - is that doping can only be when an athlete has intentionally taken a banned substance. It is much wider than that. It is a practice that typically involves pharmacists, doctors, coaches, trainers, and physios as well as athletes. You, as ever, remain wilfully blind to the reality of the practice.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.