Wonderfully predictable. The one thing you won't assume from a confirmed positive test is that they were doping.
When you understand the process, the outcome should be predictable.
Assuming is something you do when you have no knowledge. A "confirmed positive test" already looks like an unconfirmed assumption.
Anyone with any familiarity of the process should predictably understand that an "adverse analytical finding (AAF)" is not a confirmed "anti-doping rule violation (ADRV)".
Anyone who reads WADA reports also knows that many AAFs do not result in ADRVs. In 2019 (pre-COVID) WADA reported 57% of AAFs (i.e. "confirmed positive tests") were confirmed as ADRVs. Keep in mind this is from a process that has already been tilted against the athletes, who are often not be able to afford sufficient representation, by shifting the burden to the athletes from the anti-doping organizations, lowering both the costs of prosecution, and the required burdens of proof, by permitting favorable presumptions of guilt.
It boggles my mind that someone like you, who is so passionate about this topic of doping use, who says he passed the bar, wants to remain uninformed, or can ignore all these relevant facts, and the consequences of recent changes to the "law".
Come back when they get off - like all those hundreds of other Kenyans who escaped a violation. But actually didn't.
Come back when they get off - like all those hundreds of other Kenyans who escaped a violation. But actually didn't.
I suspect when the AIU gives us an update, you will be the one who comes back to me with many questions looking for some more answers, and I can tell you what they decided, and what it all means in the bigger picture.
Come back when they get off - like all those hundreds of other Kenyans who escaped a violation. But actually didn't.
I suspect when the AIU gives us an update, you will be the one who comes back to me with many questions looking for some more answers, and I can tell you what they decided, and what it all means in the bigger picture.
No, you won't. We will simply add their names to the unending list of Kenyan cheats - whom you never see with your unending "questions".
No, you won't. We will simply add their names to the unending list of Kenyan cheats - whom you never see with your unending "questions".
Of course I will explain simply what the AIU says, and you won't listen, content to keeping prejudging.
But as for these three Kenyans, the AIU and WADA has been telling us about Kenyan doping for a long time. According to the AIU, Kenya has a "unique problem" of having a large pyramid of hundreds, or thousands of top-class talented athletes. This creates a fertile environment for exploitation from local doctors and pharmacists as well as foreign agents. With increased testing including many more of the lower tiered-athletes than before, they will predictably catch more of athletes doping. What we are seeing is entirely expected and predictable.
You told me in another thread you preferred accuracy and the truth. But here it seems you prefer premature judgements. The fast-track process resulting from "strict liability", which presumes personal fault and intent, is not one that lends itself to discovering accurate truths.
No, you won't. We will simply add their names to the unending list of Kenyan cheats - whom you never see with your unending "questions".
Of course I will explain simply what the AIU says, and you won't listen, content to keeping prejudging.
But as for these three Kenyans, the AIU and WADA has been telling us about Kenyan doping for a long time. According to the AIU, Kenya has a "unique problem" of having a large pyramid of hundreds, or thousands of top-class talented athletes. This creates a fertile environment for exploitation from local doctors and pharmacists as well as foreign agents. With increased testing including many more of the lower tiered-athletes than before, they will predictably catch more of athletes doping. What we are seeing is entirely expected and predictable.
You told me in another thread you preferred accuracy and the truth. But here it seems you prefer premature judgements. The fast-track process resulting from "strict liability", which presumes personal fault and intent, is not one that lends itself to discovering accurate truths.
Your explanations are both irrelevant and tedious. We simply have a country whose sport has been overtaken by doping. I don't care how or why. You seek reasons for either minimising their doping or denying it in the case of individual athletes - constantly seeking "explanations" for what is glaringly obvious.
Your explanations are both irrelevant and tedious. We simply have a country whose sport has been overtaken by doping. I don't care how or why. You seek reasons for either minimising their doping or denying it in the case of individual athletes - constantly seeking "explanations" for what is glaringly obvious.
But these are not my explanations. These are the AIU's explanations that you find irrelevant and tedious.
If you don't care how or why, why do you ask me all these questions?
Your explanations are both irrelevant and tedious. We simply have a country whose sport has been overtaken by doping. I don't care how or why. You seek reasons for either minimising their doping or denying it in the case of individual athletes - constantly seeking "explanations" for what is glaringly obvious.
But these are not my explanations. These are the AIU's explanations that you find irrelevant and tedious.
If you don't care how or why, why do you ask me all these questions?
I ask you questions so that you have the opportunity to again demonstrate your refusal to see what stares you in the face.
I ask you questions so that you have the opportunity to again demonstrate your refusal to see what stares you in the face.
What refusal? I accepted how the AIU described everything, something you refused as tedious and irrelevant.
It is like trying to get blood from a stone for you to concede any athlete was doping who has incurred a doping violation. You never stop looking for excuses. It's a disease with you.
What refusal? I accepted how the AIU described everything, something you refused as tedious and irrelevant.
It is like trying to get blood from a stone for you to concede any athlete was doping who has incurred a doping violation. You never stop looking for excuses. It's a disease with you.
Which of these three Kenyans "has incurred a doping violation"?
You told me that you had a preference for accuracy. Did you really mean that, or is that just one of the tangled webs you weave to deceive yourself? Tell me who is more accurate? You or the AIU? What does the AIU say? Can you point me to any statement where they say these three already committed a "doping violation" in their own words?
In the interest of maximum accuracy -- again, something you told me you preferred -- the data and the details matter. I can only concede that the AIU issued a "Notice of Allegation" and placed these athletes on "Provisional Suspension". If that is good enough for the AIU, then I see no need to entertain any further discussion with someone who is satisfied with superficial and premature conclusions. I wonder why you feel the psychological need to reformulate what is already made public and is unambiguous, in your own words that mean different things?
The opposite of you, I care less about a fast-tracked finding of a "doping violation" than the "how or why", and also the "who", not to mention my real preference about whether any of these violations have, or even can, influence(d) any performances.
I lament the state of anti-doping that will find rule violations, but fail to answer any of these important questions, about who is doping these athletes, about whether the doping is no-fault, non-negligent, non-intentional, and/or non-knowing use, and about the integrity of the whole doping control process that leads to such findings.
It is like trying to get blood from a stone for you to concede any athlete was doping who has incurred a doping violation. You never stop looking for excuses. It's a disease with you.
Which of these three Kenyans "has incurred a doping violation"?
You told me that you had a preference for accuracy. Did you really mean that, or is that just one of the tangled webs you weave to deceive yourself? Tell me who is more accurate? You or the AIU? What does the AIU say? Can you point me to any statement where they say these three already committed a "doping violation" in their own words?
In the interest of maximum accuracy -- again, something you told me you preferred -- the data and the details matter. I can only concede that the AIU issued a "Notice of Allegation" and placed these athletes on "Provisional Suspension". If that is good enough for the AIU, then I see no need to entertain any further discussion with someone who is satisfied with superficial and premature conclusions. I wonder why you feel the psychological need to reformulate what is already made public and is unambiguous, in your own words that mean different things?
The opposite of you, I care less about a fast-tracked finding of a "doping violation" than the "how or why", and also the "who", not to mention my real preference about whether any of these violations have, or even can, influence(d) any performances.
I lament the state of anti-doping that will find rule violations, but fail to answer any of these important questions, about who is doping these athletes, about whether the doping is no-fault, non-negligent, non-intentional, and/or non-knowing use, and about the integrity of the whole doping control process that leads to such findings.
Your posts are like listening to the equivalent of a member of the Jim Jones cult.
Which of these three Kenyans "has incurred a doping violation"?
You told me that you had a preference for accuracy. Did you really mean that, or is that just one of the tangled webs you weave to deceive yourself? Tell me who is more accurate? You or the AIU? What does the AIU say? Can you point me to any statement where they say these three already committed a "doping violation" in their own words?
In the interest of maximum accuracy -- again, something you told me you preferred -- the data and the details matter. I can only concede that the AIU issued a "Notice of Allegation" and placed these athletes on "Provisional Suspension". If that is good enough for the AIU, then I see no need to entertain any further discussion with someone who is satisfied with superficial and premature conclusions. I wonder why you feel the psychological need to reformulate what is already made public and is unambiguous, in your own words that mean different things?
The opposite of you, I care less about a fast-tracked finding of a "doping violation" than the "how or why", and also the "who", not to mention my real preference about whether any of these violations have, or even can, influence(d) any performances.
I lament the state of anti-doping that will find rule violations, but fail to answer any of these important questions, about who is doping these athletes, about whether the doping is no-fault, non-negligent, non-intentional, and/or non-knowing use, and about the integrity of the whole doping control process that leads to such findings.
Your posts are like listening to the equivalent of a member of the Jim Jones cult.
New flash: You're both beyond tedious. Every doping thread is eventually dominated by the two of you insulting and talking past one another.
To settle your long simmering dispute, neither of you is stupid, but you're both very poor listeners. And, for the rest of us, you both said all you have to say hundreds of posts ago. Further iterations will not add value or clarity.
Your posts are like listening to the equivalent of a member of the Jim Jones cult.
New flash: You're both beyond tedious. Every doping thread is eventually dominated by the two of you insulting and talking past one another.
To settle your long simmering dispute, neither of you is stupid, but you're both very poor listeners. And, for the rest of us, you both said all you have to say hundreds of posts ago. Further iterations will not add value or clarity.
That would be a reasonable request but for the fact that doping continues unabated in the sport - as the unending series of violations out of Kenya shows - while fans refuse to see it and another certain poster never ceases in his efforts to spin disinformation about the practice. Since I'm not here to please I accept your evaluation of my presence.
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.