I'll put it another way: Let's take Lance Armstrong. Do I belive he's a drug cheat? Yeah, probably. I "think" so. That's my opinion. But I would NEVER post something on the intenet like "Lance Armstrong is a drug cheat," because I simply DON'T KNOW FOR SURE."
Get it?
Have you ever taken a philosophy class? The things that you really know for sure are very, very limited ... "I think, therefore, I am" is about all you really know.
Even if you are on a jury, and you are presented with what seems to be overwhelming evidence - you simply don't know for sure. It could simply be some made up evidence.
If you do not have a reasonable suspicion about things in general, then you are naive. Look at ol' Marion Jones and Jacobs - people were sounding the alarm long before they were busted. Even the head of the IOC said to the press, paraphrase "Miss Jones would do well to choose her associates more wisely" - nice.
The Goucher's have forever tainted their reputation by associating with Salazar. What do you make of Galen Rupp, the hypothyroid asthmatic? What are the chances of that? Imagine how good he would be if he were not a hypothyroid asthmatic and didn't have to take all of those drugs.
Because anyone who knows anything about laboratory science knows that FALSE POSITIVES are a fact of life. That's why they have backup tests.
There's always a trade-off with tests; either you let a few false positives slip through so you get most of the real positives, or you set the threshold for a positive high enough that you don't get any, but you also miss a number of real positives.
This thread has gotten out of control. Some of you are too quick to attribute improvement to drugs, when it's usually hard work, different coaching, or just more time.
Next topic.
lay it out for us wrote:
orbitboy wrote:One positve (sic) sample, and one NEGATIVE, which negated the positive. But hey, why pay attention to facts when trying to prove your point point? You pimply faced high-schoolers are going to have to come up with better evidence if you want to convict some of these guys. You have every right to be suspicious of Lagat. Fine. But there's not enough evidence to convict him. Not for a reasonable adult, anyway. You can't convict a guy on suspicion alone.
So are you saying that you believe in false positives? WHY??
Because anyone who knows anything about laboratory science knows that FALSE POSITIVES are a fact of life. That's why they have backup tests.
There's always a trade-off with tests; either you let a few false positives slip through so you get most of the real positives, or you set the threshold for a positive high enough that you don't get any, but you also miss a number of real positives.
This thread has gotten out of control. Some of you are too quick to attribute improvement to drugs, when it's usually hard work, different coaching, or just more time.
Next topic.
orbitboy wrote:
Boy, I'm glad you "philosophy" majors set me straight! I now know that internet gossip, posted by anonymous teenagers, is actually better evidence than the findings of any sort of official governing body. Whew! That was easy!
Which reveals that you're at as prone to wild assumptions as anyone else. So, it was only "anonymous teenagers" who posted suspicions about Jacobs and Hellebuyck all those years before they got 'officially' busted? How incredibly naive you must be.
[Anybody know the best websites for me to get good info on where all those WMD's are hidden and the lowdown on how 9/11 was an inside job? I have a new lease on life!]
I think the best way to deal with all these flagrant drug cheats is to have a Let's Run poll on every individual who makes finals and Nationals [and at Worlds and the Olympics for that matter]. Every athlete who polls above 50% as being dirty, gets thrown out for life. Including any and all 5k fun runs. They're done, dammit! That'll show 'em! Let's Run RULES!!!
And now you're being even more ridiculous. I guess when you have nothing solid to stand on then you grasp at any random nonsense. For some people it apparently beats actual thinking and critical thought. Thanks for playing, clown.