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.
Of course you misstate the past, again. Back in the day, El G was "the most obvious doper", and the letsrun poll in 2014 served to show that public opinion among the more knowledgeable base of track fans wasn't too far away from 50-50 (I believe 57-43 IIRC). It wasn't all that extreme to suggest he was clean if 43% (4 out of 9 people) believed it.
The problem with "I told you so" is that when every athlete who wins, or runs fast, or otherwise surprises the public, is accused of doping, it loses its predictive value. Every bust will result in a chorus of "I told you so".
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.
What did I deny? I did see many accusations of doping, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone say Katir would be busted for "whereabouts failures".
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.
It can be inferred, but not reasonably, and it is not necessary. It doesn't require proving doping (with a banned substance/method) nor does it require any such inference.
The whereabouts rule would exist, and would be justifiable, as testing is an anti-doping tool for detection, and frequently missing testing renders this tool ineffective. So the 2-year ban punishes and deters both clean and dirty athletes for undermining anti-doping -- in the same way that "tampering" or "attempted tampering" does. Most all athletes accept that tradeoff.
Your "if it were not so" logic fails, again, as usual.
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.
In this context here, we are talking about three missed tests, with no evidence of any doping involving pharmacists, doctors, coaches, trainers, and physios as well as athletes.
There is just an inference where we disagree on whether it is reasonable, or baseless prejudgement in need of confirmation.
An athlete would probably rather get banned for missing tests so they could preserve some dignity rather than show up for a test glowing and test dirty. Either way you get banned.
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.
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.
The reason there isn't any need for WADA to infer doping from a whereabouts failure is that it makes 3 strikes a failure under the rules and procedurally there is no requirement to draw any other conclusions beyond finding there has been a breach of the rules. But the reason for imposing the rule in the first place is that 3 strikes gives rise to an inference of likely doping or there would be no logical reason or justification for the rule - and a rule that explicitly makes it a antidoping violation. The last part is impossible for you to get. Your "religion" of doping denial will not allow it.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
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.
What did I deny? I did see many accusations of doping, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone say Katir would be busted for "whereabouts failures".
Whereabouts failures are a doping violation. That is made explicitly clear under the rules. Doping is a practice that involves anything that breaches the antidoping rules - it isn't confined to injecting oneself with banned substances.
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.
It can be inferred, but not reasonably, and it is not necessary. It doesn't require proving doping (with a banned substance/method) nor does it require any such inference.
The whereabouts rule would exist, and would be justifiable, as testing is an anti-doping tool for detection, and frequently missing testing renders this tool ineffective. So the 2-year ban punishes and deters both clean and dirty athletes for undermining anti-doping -- in the same way that "tampering" or "attempted tampering" does. Most all athletes accept that tradeoff.
Your "if it were not so" logic fails, again, as usual.
It does not punish clean athletes. Clean athletes will be able to show they missed a test or series of tests for legitimate reasons. A clean athlete who misses three tests in the prescribed period is a unicorn.
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.
In this context here, we are talking about three missed tests, with no evidence of any doping involving pharmacists, doctors, coaches, trainers, and physios as well as athletes.
There is just an inference where we disagree on whether it is reasonable, or baseless prejudgement in need of confirmation.
In "this context here" - as you say - it was you who raised the example of Salazar. But you have nothing that can refute my response, only your usual slithering around to change the subject.
The whereabouts rule creates an inference of doping because it does not accept three missed tests are legitimate. Hence the violation. A clean athlete will not duck three tests in the prescribed period.
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.
It isn’t as easy as that -a lot also saw a pop of Nordås coming, and that hasn’t happened…
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.
Your two first sentences here are obviously correct. But then you hit a wall between suspicion and proof: Wada obviously doesn’t see 3 whereabouts as proof of being on illegal drugs. If they did they would as a rule give a 4 year ban. They don’t. (But that doesn’t of course mean that the athlete hasn’t been on drugs -we just don’t know for sure, that’s the problem of living in societies with a jurisdictional system).
Whereabouts failures are a doping violation. That is made explicitly clear under the rules. Doping is a practice that involves anything that breaches the antidoping rules - it isn't confined to injecting oneself with banned substances.
I don’t understand what you are doing here, because if you had only written a content like this (as in your three sentence here) we would agree a 100 percent.
Our problem is how to find out and deal with the “injecting oneself…” based on whereabouts and other indicators here. So I’m a little puzzled why you don’t call for an investigation of Katir to find out what might be behind his whereabouts. Or suggestions of how to improve the testing and the research. As I see it the doping research is very sparse, partly very flawed (source professor Jostein Hallen) and with bad founding .-What about forcing IOC /WA to spend a lot more on these things (forcing the shoe companies, politicians, the cities that have gotten the Olympics and Worlds to pay for research also all the years between the championships ++)… The standard then it comes to doping prevention work is IMO extremely bad! (And if the judiciary was better here we could even ban popped athletes for life and erase all of their pb’s and records!).
In "this context here" - as you say - it was you who raised the example of Salazar. But you have nothing that can refute my response, only your usual slithering around to change the subject.
The whereabouts rule creates an inference of doping because it does not accept three missed tests are legitimate. Hence the violation. A clean athlete will not duck three tests in the prescribed period.
I already refuted it. The whereabouts rule does not reasonably create any such inference, and it doesn't need to. The rule is not "ducking tests" but "missing tests". Clean athletes can miss three tests if they are not diligent or careful.
But to spell it out for you, your "inference of doping from all ADRVs" broke when looking at Salazar, so you tried to fix it by expanding both the practices and the players (e.g. to include Salazar sending an email considered as "attempted tampering").
If you keep expanding it to the extreme, you end up with WADA's expanded "definition" of "doping", and then it becomes trivial that any one of 11 enumerated violations can not only be inferred as "doping", but is by definition "doping".
Is that what you meant? Because others see this is confirmation that missing three tests (in 2023?) caused Katir to run 3:28 in 2021.
Getting back to Katir, if we don't apply WADA's broadest definition, he doesn't meet your expanded definition, because there was no practice with a banned substance or method -- the very thing you want to infer -- "involving pharmacists, doctors, coaches, trainers, and physios as well as athletes".
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.
It isn’t as easy as that -a lot also saw a pop of Nordås coming, and that hasn’t happened…
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.
Your two first sentences here are obviously correct. But then you hit a wall between suspicion and proof: Wada obviously doesn’t see 3 whereabouts as proof of being on illegal drugs. If they did they would as a rule give a 4 year ban. They don’t. (But that doesn’t of course mean that the athlete hasn’t been on drugs -we just don’t know for sure, that’s the problem of living in societies with a jurisdictional system).
I didn't say WADA sees three missed tests as proof of doping. The inference is one of likelihood or probability, otherwise three missed tests would not be considered a doping violation. A line has to be drawn somewhere for missing tests and WADA considers missing three isn't acceptable. Dopers will try to avoid being tested but a clean athlete could miss a single test or even two with reasonable cause but three missed tests shows a pattern of evasion. Evasion means only one thing but WADA isn't concerned with proving doping with whereabouts failures. The athlete automatically pays for their failure to meet their testing obligations.
Whereabouts failures are a doping violation. That is made explicitly clear under the rules. Doping is a practice that involves anything that breaches the antidoping rules - it isn't confined to injecting oneself with banned substances.
I don’t understand what you are doing here, because if you had only written a content like this (as in your three sentence here) we would agree a 100 percent.
Our problem is how to find out and deal with the “injecting oneself…” based on whereabouts and other indicators here. So I’m a little puzzled why you don’t call for an investigation of Katir to find out what might be behind his whereabouts. Or suggestions of how to improve the testing and the research. As I see it the doping research is very sparse, partly very flawed (source professor Jostein Hallen) and with bad founding .-What about forcing IOC /WA to spend a lot more on these things (forcing the shoe companies, politicians, the cities that have gotten the Olympics and Worlds to pay for research also all the years between the championships ++)… The standard then it comes to doping prevention work is IMO extremely bad! (And if the judiciary was better here we could even ban popped athletes for life and erase all of their pb’s and records!).
I don't need 100% proof Katir is doping. I don't care what he may or may not be injecting himself with. The fact that he has shown a pattern of evading tests - which is what a whereabouts failure is - shows a high probability of doping. Only he can dispel that by convincing WADA he had reasonable cause to miss any of those tests. I don't expect he can. On the balance of probabilities I would say he is therefore a doper and one who has been caught by a system that finds it extremely difficult to catch dopers.
In "this context here" - as you say - it was you who raised the example of Salazar. But you have nothing that can refute my response, only your usual slithering around to change the subject.
The whereabouts rule creates an inference of doping because it does not accept three missed tests are legitimate. Hence the violation. A clean athlete will not duck three tests in the prescribed period.
I already refuted it. The whereabouts rule does not reasonably create any such inference, and it doesn't need to. The rule is not "ducking tests" but "missing tests". Clean athletes can miss three tests if they are not diligent or careful.
But to spell it out for you, your "inference of doping from all ADRVs" broke when looking at Salazar, so you tried to fix it by expanding both the practices and the players (e.g. to include Salazar sending an email considered as "attempted tampering").
If you keep expanding it to the extreme, you end up with WADA's expanded "definition" of "doping", and then it becomes trivial that any one of 11 enumerated violations can not only be inferred as "doping", but is by definition "doping".
Is that what you meant? Because others see this is confirmation that missing three tests (in 2023?) caused Katir to run 3:28 in 2021.
Getting back to Katir, if we don't apply WADA's broadest definition, he doesn't meet your expanded definition, because there was no practice with a banned substance or method -- the very thing you want to infer -- "involving pharmacists, doctors, coaches, trainers, and physios as well as athletes".
Clean athletes don't miss three tests. That's why it's a doping violation.
Katir meets my definition of doping because he has shown a pattern of avoiding being tested, and "doping" doesn't have to tick every box of every option, which is how you have misconstrued what I said above.
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.