Further; the lab result is deemed a “ fact” and the burden is in the athlete to prove there has been a breach of the IST.
It must be tough for rekrunner to try and start posting on stuff he is so dumb about.
A 2-minute google search shows that both athletes proved non-intentional to the satisfaction of the tribunal, qualifying for a 2-year ban under 10.2.1.
Normally, that is your burden to take those 2 minutes to educate yourself, and not bite the hand that is feeding you.
Exactly. The burden is on the athlete.
You should withdraw from posting until you have grasped the basics not only of the rules but right back to the core of the language.
You claim to be feeding me but only stupidities or lies. You decide which.
LOL. Nice cherry picking, Troll. Let's take a neutral approach, and look at the top instead of 1281 male marathon runners.
For example at the last Olympics, the Kenyans won ZERO % of all medals in the men's long distance track events. Zero is sensationally low compared to 40% of the busts. Shocking.
What a curious post. It's so inaccurate in so many ways, it can only be trolling.
The cherry-picking of the example of sub-2:10 males comes from "jacksprat" in another thread. He had estimated 150 Kenyans in order to suggest it wouldn't add-up to 40%, when in fact I can count at least 532 Kenyans.
Counting Olympic medals gives too little data leading to wide deviations.
Just the same, at the 2021 (2020) Tokyo Olympics, Kenyan men won 5 medals. 5 out of 18 medals is 27.8%. Excluding the marathon (road), 4 out of 15 medals is 26.7%.
The 40% figure from Coe included both men and women, and was not limited to just Olympians, and not limited to the track and not limited to distance events. We should adapt 40% figure for just the men at the Olympics in distance events in order to compare apples to apples.
Note that the 40% is from the data of World Athletics, which does not include positive test results from NADOs and RADOs and other ADOs and ADAs. We should correct this for number of athletes tested by World Athletics to normalize the percentages, or wait for WADA to publish the real "global athletics" positive test data from all ADOs and ADAs. Even then, the testing among athletes are not uniform, with scarce resources biased towards targeting faster talented runners, while generally ignoring the slower runners, where doping is not relevant enough to impact athlete results or earnings.
Some years back, before the new shoes, I also "looked at the top" in another thread, counting how many athletes ran faster than times already achieved by 1990. As you move the threshold higher and higher, towards "the top", the proportion of Kenyan men increases, and non-African men decreases.
In the 28 year period in the marathon from 1990 to Jan. 2018, out of 201 athletes, I counted 61% Kenyans, 28% Ethiopians, 1.5% other East Africans, 3% North Africans, and 6% from the rest of the world, who ran sub-2:07:12 -- times achieved by Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones in the mid-1980s.
In the same 28 year period, across 6 distance events combined, from 1500m to the marathon, and de-duplicated, out of 341 unique athletes, I counted 56% Kenyans, 22% Ethiopians, 7% other East Africans, 7.4% North Africans, and 8% from the rest of the world.
So as damning as 40% may seem, it is certainly inflated by the higher quantities of talented athletes from Kenya. Looking at the remaining 60%, and factoring that Ethiopia is not a significant part of the AIU positive tests, the question becomes why these 60% non-Kenyan positive tests are not anywhere close to outperforming the Kenyans, either in quantity or in quality.
So says the person who has not a clue about the rules. Just ignore him.
It completely passes you by the one country having 40% of the drug busts with the rest of the world - more than a hundred nations - comprising the remaining 60% is an appalling indictment of Kenyan running. It is totally irrelevant to that point what performance benefit any gained from their doping. Doping is banned. Doping is cheating.
Rekrunner is about as atuned to the reality of the situation as that infamous Saddam Hussein army chief who claimed that Iraq was winning 'the mother of all battles' easily, while US tanks were pouring into Baghdad unopposed...
A 2-minute google search shows that both athletes proved non-intentional to the satisfaction of the tribunal, qualifying for a 2-year ban under 10.2.1.
Normally, that is your burden to take those 2 minutes to educate yourself, and not bite the hand that is feeding you.
Exactly. The burden is on the athlete.
You should withdraw from posting until you have grasped the basics not only of the rules but right back to the core of the language.
You claim to be feeding me but only stupidities or lies. You decide which.
You said "The burden is the same for all the drugs" and "The burden is always on the athlete to disprove a finding or prove accidental."
These are not true statements.
I decided that you are blaming me for your own failure to do a 2 minute google search.
You should withdraw from posting until you have grasped the basics not only of the rules but right back to the core of the language.
You claim to be feeding me but only stupidities or lies. You decide which.
You said "The burden is the same for all the drugs" and "The burden is always on the athlete to disprove a finding or prove accidental."
These are not true statements.
I decided that you are blaming me for your own failure to do a 2 minute google search.
The ref to the Wada rules, that you yourself provided, make clear that the burden is on the athletes to prove innocence rather than the authorities to prove guilt.
I have decided that you are either a fool or a liar ; please will you decide which.
You should withdraw from posting until you have grasped the basics not only of the rules but right back to the core of the language.
You claim to be feeding me but only stupidities or lies. You decide which.
You said "The burden is the same for all the drugs" and "The burden is always on the athlete to disprove a finding or prove accidental."
These are not true statements.
I decided that you are blaming me for your own failure to do a 2 minute google search.
The ref to the Wada rules, that you yourself provided, make clear that the burden is on the athletes to prove innocence rather than the authorities to prove guilt.
I have decided that you are either a fool or a liar ; please will you decide which.
So says the person who has not a clue about the rules. Just ignore him.
Indeed. Ignoring would be best. Rekrunnr just walled me with 10 paragraphs trying to show "so many inaccuracies" but found and demonstrated ZERO. Lame trolling, only deflection from his failed trolling.
Claiming that one responded to a comment from another thread by choosing male marathon runners? That's not cherry-picking?
Moving the goalpost from long distance medals to long distance and mid distance medals? His specialty (but even that resulting in < 30%, not 40%). As is his misogynistic focus on men, even in a thread about two doped female long distance runners.
So says the person who has not a clue about the rules. Just ignore him.
Indeed. Ignoring would be best. Rekrunnr just walled me with 10 paragraphs trying to show "so many inaccuracies" but found and demonstrated ZERO. Lame trolling, only deflection from his failed trolling.
Claiming that one responded to a comment from another thread by choosing male marathon runners? That's not cherry-picking?
Moving the goalpost from long distance medals to long distance and mid distance medals? His specialty (but even that resulting in < 30%, not 40%). As is his misogynistic focus on men, even in a thread about two doped female long distance runners.
Ignoring only leads to ignorance.
It was inaccurate to call your approach "neutral", and it was inaccurate to accuse me of cherry-picking.
If you want to look at Olympic medals from 2021, and more specifically, just the "men's long distance track events", then it hardly makes sense to compare that medal result with a "40%" value from 2022, coming from the WA/AIU, representing both men and women, from non-Olympians. How many positive tests came from the Kenyan Olympians in the "men's long distance track events"?
Note also that the IOC is responsible for doping control for the Olympics -- not the WA/AIU.
It completely passes you by the one country having 40% of the drug busts with the rest of the world - more than a hundred nations - comprising the remaining 60% is an appalling indictment of Kenyan running. It is totally irrelevant to that point what performance benefit any gained from their doping. Doping is banned. Doping is cheating.
I know it's complicated for you because it involves interpreting quantitative numbers in the context they were collected, but a high quantity of highly talented athletes at an average prevalence rate will predictably lead to a similar higher proportion of total testing and a higher proportion of positives tests.
What does 40% mean, in the AIU's words:
"The figures below only reflect the testing activities carried out by the AIU. The AIU’s testing is focused on elite top-end athletes and is designed to be specific, targeted and intelligence-led. The other levels of athletes are covered through the efforts of the National and Regional Anti Doping Organisations (NADOs and RADOs), and that data is collated and published separately by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)."
We don't need to guess too much about the AIU's distribution of total testing in recent years, because the AIU regularly publishes their testing figures:
- In 2020, the AIU reported that 46% of their testing was from Africans, and that 56% of their testing was for long distance events.
- In 2021, the AIU reported that 39.6% of their testing was from Africans, and that 50% of their testing was for long distance events.
The report for 2022 doesn't appear to be published yet, but 40% of positive tests from Kenyan athletes seems to be largely driven by the higher proportion of testing of distance running Africans. In other words, the 40%, as damning as it may seem at first, doesn't tell us much about true doping prevalence, as a percentage, of Kenyans, once you've normalized it for total testing and performance.
You're incapable of making a succinct point. That isn't surprising since everything you say is a form of deflection and lying. It apparently takes time to build up a smokescreen like yours. But it does at least render it unnecessary to read all that effluent.
You said "The burden is the same for all the drugs" and "The burden is always on the athlete to disprove a finding or prove accidental."
These are not true statements.
I decided that you are blaming me for your own failure to do a 2 minute google search.
The ref to the Wada rules, that you yourself provided, make clear that the burden is on the athletes to prove innocence rather than the authorities to prove guilt.
I have decided that you are either a fool or a liar ; please will you decide which.
You said "always on the athlete". I directed you to 10.2.1.2 which places the burden of "establishing intent" on the ADO -- in other words, not "always on the athlete". You're welcome.
You also said "prove accidental", which would change nothing. Accidental "presence" and "use" are still full violation of the rules, regardless. Surely you should already know this.
Now you say "prove innocence", which again is not a meaningful defined path under the rules.
Maybe the words you cannot find but were looking for are "non-negligence", "no fault", and "not intentional". These are the only things an athlete can "prove" to reduce the sanction after an immutable violation. The athlete can also provide substantial assistance.
Putting this serial sloppiness aside, if you already knew all the rules, then all of this should have been easy for you to figure out on your own, without taking the lazy route and posting the question in the first place.
You're incapable of making a succinct point. That isn't surprising since everything you say is a form of deflection and lying. It apparently takes time to build up a smokescreen like yours. But it does at least render it unnecessary to read all that effluent.
Ignoring leads to ignorance.
I predicted your reluctance and I gave you the AIU's own words about what 40% means, and doesn't mean.
I also showed you figures from the AIU's own testing reports -- they tend to test more Africans, which is one of the driving factors that contributes to 40%.
Establishing the connections between doping prevalence rates, testing rates, and elite performance rates is rather complex that cannot be explained away by sound bites. I try my best to dumb it down for you, using official sources.
It was inaccurate to call your approach "neutral", and it was inaccurate to accuse me of cherry-picking.
That was irony, demonstrating that one can show the opposite with a differently picked cherry, which evidently went straight over your head.
Yes, you cherry-picked the sub-2:10 marathons in this thread about1 female marathoner and 1 female 3K -10K runner. That somebody else talked about sub-2:10 marathons (or was it 2:09 or 2:12) in a different thread does not change that fact.
You can try to hide this under a pointless wall of text again, but that won't change the fact that it was your choice here in this thread, Mr. Cherry Picker.
It seems only the Ethiopians have that advantage now as especially their women are better than ever and there have been no doping bust whatsoever.
It's more plausible that Ethiopians have a genetic edge, and that the Kenyans were always riding on the coat-tails of Bilika's success for Ethiopia, doping their way to success disguised under the 'East African natural born runner' legend.
Ethiopians and Kenyans are very different genetically. There is no genetic reason why these two neighbouring countries should be the two best distance running nations out of 200+, when there are a number of other high altitude countries that do next to nothing in distance running.
Could it be the genetic edge is in the FEDERATION the Ethiopians have?
The ref to the Wada rules, that you yourself provided, make clear that the burden is on the athletes to prove innocence rather than the authorities to prove guilt.
I have decided that you are either a fool or a liar ; please will you decide which.
You said "always on the athlete". I directed you to 10.2.1.2 which places the burden of "establishing intent" on the ADO -- in other words, not "always on the athlete". You're welcome.
You also said "prove accidental", which would change nothing. Accidental "presence" and "use" are still full violation of the rules, regardless. Surely you should already know this.
Now you say "prove innocence", which again is not a meaningful defined path under the rules.
Maybe the words you cannot find but were looking for are "non-negligence", "no fault", and "not intentional". These are the only things an athlete can "prove" to reduce the sanction after an immutable violation. The athlete can also provide substantial assistance.
Putting this serial sloppiness aside, if you already knew all the rules, then all of this should have been easy for you to figure out on your own, without taking the lazy route and posting the question in the first place.
Comment on 10.2 says that burden is on the athlete to prove the source come what may.
You really are a joke with your “ prove innocence” is not a meaningful defined path.May not have been in a few European 20 th Century regimes but I think we now know better.
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.