You forgot your burden of supporting this baseless hypothetical allegation. The AIU did not charge him with obvious doping involving any banned substance or method.
How would they do that if he made sure he wasn't tested? Now, why would he do that ...
They cannot. And for the very same reasons, you cannot, and flying frog cannot.
Did he make sure he wasn't tested? That looks like your suggestion and innuendo. This suggests something about you.
All we can really say is that he had three whereabouts failures -- nothing more.
The repeated missed tests and filing failures do "suggest" doping or they would not be treated as a doping violation. It isn't called "athlete's clerical errors" or "dumb mistakes". Again, you fail to accept that the only alternative to Manangoi wishing to evade testing is that he is mentally incompetent. No one suggests that.
It is called "whereabouts failure", and more specifically "missed test" or "filing failure".
It is not treated as a doping violation, but is treated less severely. It is one of 11 enumerated anti-doping rule violations, that is notably distinct from "use or attempted use". If it suggested "use" they would then charge him with "use", and he would receive a 4-year ban, and not the lesser, punitive 2-year ban.
I do not fail to accept, but succeed to reject your 2D cartoon false dichotomies.
It is treated as a violation under the antidoping rules because avoiding the testers is one way of not getting caught. Of course an athlete can't be charged with "use" if they don't make themselves available for tests. What a ridiculous point.
Again, the question is, if he wasn't doping why did he miss 3 tests? Does he lack the mental acuity to understand what the result of these failures will be?
How would they do that if he made sure he wasn't tested? Now, why would he do that ...
They cannot. And for the very same reasons, you cannot, and flying frog cannot.
Did he make sure he wasn't tested? That looks like your suggestion and innuendo. This suggests something about you.
All we can really say is that he had three whereabouts failures -- nothing more.
Yes, we can. We can say it is a violation of the anti-doping rules and he missed the tests either because he was doping or he was too stupid to abide by obligations that most other athletes are able to do. I think we can rule out mentally impaired.
It is called "whereabouts failure", and more specifically "missed test" or "filing failure".
It is not treated as a doping violation, but is treated less severely. It is one of 11 enumerated anti-doping rule violations, that is notably distinct from "use or attempted use". If it suggested "use" they would then charge him with "use", and he would receive a 4-year ban, and not the lesser, punitive 2-year ban.
I do not fail to accept, but succeed to reject your 2D cartoon false dichotomies.
It is treated as a violation under the antidoping rules because avoiding the testers is one way of not getting caught. Of course an athlete can't be charged with "use" if they don't make themselves available for tests. What a ridiculous point.
Again, the question is, if he wasn't doping why did he miss 3 tests? Does he lack the mental acuity to understand what the result of these failures will be?
Remember, this ridiculous suggestion of "use" came from you.
You based this ridiculous suggestion on another lie you tell yourself, that whereabouts failures are treated like a doping violation. In fact, 3 failures within 12 months is treated like a half a doping violation. This is a punishment for repeated negligence to manage clerical obligations.
Your second question of why he missed the tests was also already answered, by the AIU. No alternative answer based on "alternative facts" is needed. They did not raise your 2D black and white cartoon "only alternative" as a possibility.
They cannot. And for the very same reasons, you cannot, and flying frog cannot.
Did he make sure he wasn't tested? That looks like your suggestion and innuendo. This suggests something about you.
All we can really say is that he had three whereabouts failures -- nothing more.
Yes, we can. We can say it is a violation of the anti-doping rules and he missed the tests either because he was doping or he was too stupid to abide by obligations that most other athletes are able to do. I think we can rule out mentally impaired.
Technically, anyone with the ability to type and click can string together random words in a box and click on the "Post" button, but you yourself just called it ridiculous. It's one of the few times you said something correct. Your ridiculous 2D cartoon fallacies only fools those who already want to believe.
It is treated as a violation under the antidoping rules because avoiding the testers is one way of not getting caught. Of course an athlete can't be charged with "use" if they don't make themselves available for tests. What a ridiculous point.
Again, the question is, if he wasn't doping why did he miss 3 tests? Does he lack the mental acuity to understand what the result of these failures will be?
Remember, this ridiculous suggestion of "use" came from you.
You based this ridiculous suggestion on another lie you tell yourself, that whereabouts failures are treated like a doping violation. In fact, 3 failures within 12 months is treated like a half a doping violation. This is a punishment for repeated negligence to manage clerical obligations.
Your second question of why he missed the tests was also already answered, by the AIU. No alternative answer based on "alternative facts" is needed. They did not raise your 2D black and white cartoon "only alternative" as a possibility.
Only "half a doping violation"? So it is a doping violation - if only "half" - and not a mere clerical error. The missing "half" of course is that the testers weren't able to find him and administer the tests he was avoiding, which would likely have shown why he wouldn't have wanted to be tested. Either that, or he is a simpleton - unlike most other athletes. Your silence on that suggests you don't think he is mentally incompetent, which leaves doping as the likely explanation for his breaches. Of course the authorities don't have to say that - they simply ban him for his breach of the antidoping rules.
Yes, we can. We can say it is a violation of the anti-doping rules and he missed the tests either because he was doping or he was too stupid to abide by obligations that most other athletes are able to do. I think we can rule out mentally impaired.
Technically, anyone with the ability to type and click can string together random words in a box and click on the "Post" button, but you yourself just called it ridiculous. It's one of the few times you said something correct. Your ridiculous 2D cartoon fallacies only fools those who already want to believe.
What I said was ridiculous was your statement that he wasn't convicted of "use" when I pointed out he could hardly have been convicted of "use" when he avoided the tests that could have shown that.
Yes - you have shown the technical ability to type random words in a box and hit "post" - but that's about it.
Remember, this ridiculous suggestion of "use" came from you.
You based this ridiculous suggestion on another lie you tell yourself, that whereabouts failures are treated like a doping violation. In fact, 3 failures within 12 months is treated like a half a doping violation. This is a punishment for repeated negligence to manage clerical obligations.
Your second question of why he missed the tests was also already answered, by the AIU. No alternative answer based on "alternative facts" is needed. They did not raise your 2D black and white cartoon "only alternative" as a possibility.
Only "half a doping violation"? So it is a doping violation - if only "half" - and not a mere clerical error. The missing "half" of course is that the testers weren't able to find him and administer the tests he was avoiding, which would likely have shown why he wouldn't have wanted to be tested. Either that, or he is a simpleton - unlike most other athletes. Your silence on that suggests you don't think he is mentally incompetent, which leaves doping as the likely explanation for his breaches. Of course the authorities don't have to say that - they simply ban him for his breach of the antidoping rules.
2/4 is "half".
So a rule violation is three clerical errors within a 12-month period that is "treated like half" of doping violations involving using a banned substance or method, as you suggest.
I was not silent -- on the question of incompetent versus doping, I said "none of the above", succeeding to reject such cartoon 2D black/white fallacies.
Like you said, he was simply banned for a breach of one of the anti-doping rules, and not for any other ones.
What I said was ridiculous was your statement that he wasn't convicted of "use" when I pointed out he could hardly have been convicted of "use" when he avoided the tests that could have shown that.
Yes - you have shown the technical ability to type random words in a box and hit "post" - but that's about it.
For the same reasons, it is equally ridiculous for you to suggest "use".
What I said was ridiculous was your statement that he wasn't convicted of "use" when I pointed out he could hardly have been convicted of "use" when he avoided the tests that could have shown that.
Yes - you have shown the technical ability to type random words in a box and hit "post" - but that's about it.
For the same reasons, it is equally ridiculous for you to suggest "use".
Avoiding tests easily suggest "use" - which is why it is a violation. It's just that WADA doesn't seek to prove "use" in that situation; the whereabouts offence stands on its own.
For the same reasons, it is equally ridiculous for you to suggest "use".
Avoiding tests easily suggest "use" - which is why it is a violation. It's just that WADA doesn't seek to prove "use" in that situation; the whereabouts offence stands on its own.
Maybe, but here we don't talk about avoiding tests either, as you suggest, but just missed tests and filing failures.
Avoiding tests would be again another rule violation: "2.3 Evading".
As you say, each offense stands indepedently on its own -- a violation of one rule is just a violation of one rule.
Avoiding tests easily suggest "use" - which is why it is a violation. It's just that WADA doesn't seek to prove "use" in that situation; the whereabouts offence stands on its own.
Maybe, but here we don't talk about avoiding tests either, as you suggest, but just missed tests and filing failures.
Avoiding tests would be again another rule violation: "2.3 Evading".
As you say, each offense stands indepedently on its own -- a violation of one rule is just a violation of one rule.
But interestingly, they all come within the ambit of anti-doping, the thing that they have in common.
You keep ducking the key point to his consecutive failures: why would a professional athlete, who would be aware of what these failures could mean to his career, incur them? These are not parking infringements or citations for jaywalking. He is either a dullard or doping. There arent any credible alternatives.
Maybe, but here we don't talk about avoiding tests either, as you suggest, but just missed tests and filing failures.
Avoiding tests would be again another rule violation: "2.3 Evading".
As you say, each offense stands indepedently on its own -- a violation of one rule is just a violation of one rule.
But interestingly, they all come within the ambit of anti-doping, the thing that they have in common.
You keep ducking the key point to his consecutive failures: why would a professional athlete, who would be aware of what these failures could mean to his career, incur them? These are not parking infringements or citations for jaywalking. He is either a dullard or doping. There arent any credible alternatives.
Yes, the anti-doping rules cover 11 different kinds of violations.
I didn't duck anything -- we already discussed the reasons for the missed tests (delayed flight and luggage, traffic, and a delegate error), and the either/or cartoon false dilemma you keep going back to. None of these reasons credibly suggest dullard or doping.
But interestingly, they all come within the ambit of anti-doping, the thing that they have in common.
You keep ducking the key point to his consecutive failures: why would a professional athlete, who would be aware of what these failures could mean to his career, incur them? These are not parking infringements or citations for jaywalking. He is either a dullard or doping. There arent any credible alternatives.
Yes, the anti-doping rules cover 11 different kinds of violations.
I didn't duck anything -- we already discussed the reasons for the missed tests (delayed flight and luggage, traffic, and a delegate error), and the either/or cartoon false dilemma you keep going back to. None of these reasons credibly suggest dullard or doping.
We didn't discuss it. You simply dismiss it as a "cartoon". So an athlete who you believe isn't doping throws away his career in a series of steps that he knows will produce a ban after his third failure. No, that isn't a dullard; that's something else, that you refuse to even consider.
Yes, the anti-doping rules cover 11 different kinds of violations.
I didn't duck anything -- we already discussed the reasons for the missed tests (delayed flight and luggage, traffic, and a delegate error), and the either/or cartoon false dilemma you keep going back to. None of these reasons credibly suggest dullard or doping.
We didn't discuss it. You simply dismiss it as a "cartoon". So an athlete who you believe isn't doping throws away his career in a series of steps that he knows will produce a ban after his third failure. No, that isn't a dullard; that's something else, that you refuse to even consider.
Maybe you didn't discuss it, but I discussed it. I gave you the reasons, and it was you who dismissed them, replacing them with a 2D black and white cartoon false dichotomy. What you need is to replace "dullard or doper" with a complete Ishikawa diagram.
We didn't discuss it. You simply dismiss it as a "cartoon". So an athlete who you believe isn't doping throws away his career in a series of steps that he knows will produce a ban after his third failure. No, that isn't a dullard; that's something else, that you refuse to even consider.
Maybe you didn't discuss it, but I discussed it. I gave you the reasons, and it was you who dismissed them, replacing them with a 2D black and white cartoon false dichotomy. What you need is to replace "dullard or doper" with a complete Ishikawa diagram.
You didn't give reasons; you gave excuses. They didn't convince because they resulted in a ban. But keep defending the cheats, as you do. Your life clearly depends on it.
Maybe you didn't discuss it, but I discussed it. I gave you the reasons, and it was you who dismissed them, replacing them with a 2D black and white cartoon false dichotomy. What you need is to replace "dullard or doper" with a complete Ishikawa diagram.
You didn't give reasons; you gave excuses. They didn't convince because they resulted in a ban. But keep defending the cheats, as you do. Your life clearly depends on it.
First you accuse me of ducking your "key point" of the missing explanations for his failures. Then, when that failed, you accuse me of dismissing them. Then, when that failed, you now quibble over semantics, make another false "if it were not so" argument, and for good measure, reach into your bag of your favorite hits to accuse me of "defending the cheats", just to distract our attention while you move the goalposts again.
None of this suggests that his whereabouts failures likely involved any banned substances. If it were so, they would have banned him for 4 years.
You didn't give reasons; you gave excuses. They didn't convince because they resulted in a ban. But keep defending the cheats, as you do. Your life clearly depends on it.
First you accuse me of ducking your "key point" of the missing explanations for his failures. Then, when that failed, you accuse me of dismissing them. Then, when that failed, you now quibble over semantics, make another false "if it were not so" argument, and for good measure, reach into your bag of your favorite hits to accuse me of "defending the cheats", just to distract our attention while you move the goalposts again.
None of this suggests that his whereabouts failures likely involved any banned substances. If it were so, they would have banned him for 4 years.
No, they wouldn't. Because it was "likely" they banned him for 2 and a half years. If it wasn't likely it wouldn't be an offence. If it was proven - by a positive test - he would get 4. But you don't - won't - get it. You should be defending Trump over Jan 6. "What insurrection?"
First you accuse me of ducking your "key point" of the missing explanations for his failures. Then, when that failed, you accuse me of dismissing them. Then, when that failed, you now quibble over semantics, make another false "if it were not so" argument, and for good measure, reach into your bag of your favorite hits to accuse me of "defending the cheats", just to distract our attention while you move the goalposts again.
None of this suggests that his whereabouts failures likely involved any banned substances. If it were so, they would have banned him for 4 years.
No, they wouldn't. Because it was "likely" they banned him for 2 and a half years. If it wasn't likely it wouldn't be an offence. If it was proven - by a positive test - he would get 4. But you don't - won't - get it.
2 and half years? You really are not gifted with numbers nor reading comprehension.
Back here in the real world, he was only given a period of Ineligibility of two (2) years.
What am I not getting, coming from someone who has trouble counting to 2?
To paraphrase an aging travelling preacher, I'll just go with the conclusions reached by the professionals whose business it is to conduct these cases, not a pretentious troll on a social media site.
No, they wouldn't. Because it was "likely" they banned him for 2 and a half years. If it wasn't likely it wouldn't be an offence. If it was proven - by a positive test - he would get 4. But you don't - won't - get it.
2 and half years? You really are not gifted with numbers nor reading comprehension.
Back here in the real world, he was only given a period of Ineligibility of two (2) years.
What am I not getting, coming from someone who has trouble counting to 2?
To paraphrase an aging travelling preacher, I'll just go with the conclusions reached by the professionals whose business it is to conduct these cases, not a pretentious troll on a social media site.
So on a point of pedantry, about the length of Manangoi's ban (whatever - he was banned), you avoid the fact that his failure was a doping offence. The reason is simple - avoiding tests enables doping to go undetected. No mentally competent professional athlete misses three tests unless they are avoiding being tested. WADA doesn't have to prove that - it is a given - so the penalty is automatic. You have come up with no credible reason why he would fail to meet his obligations not once but three times. But in your book no one dopes.
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.