2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures

I didn't realize that "world class runners" meant "won gold", or that your post was so charged.

I think America has accepted Brazier (born in Michigan), and Solomon (born in California), as well as legend Johnny Gray (born in California).

"would be amazing"? LOL - that's not exactly new. See your own remark about the 3000 - 4000 m altitude/EPO earlier in this thread (higher HCT with EPO than with normal altitude < 2500 m), or the Kenyan altitude study with 5% performance improvement.

Or ask Kiptum, Kiprop, Sumgong, Jeptoo or their coach.

And a positive test for which she could provide no acceptable excuse is not "data"? CAS seemed to think so. You'd defend a doper if they were caught with a syringe sticking out of their backside.

So is he a doper?

Do you think that by "effect", he simply meant HCT, rather than running performance? Which one is more effective at raising HCT is just a question of dosage versus altitude. You can die of polychthemia from both. From trial and error, training between 2000m-3000m seems to be the sweet spot for best performance.

He said he had the data -- I shouldn't have to go ask anyone else for it.

In the Kenyan EPO study, they ran like high school girls, improving 4.7%. In the Stray-Gundersen altitude study, by the same measure, the men in the hi-lo group improved by 6.5% over the course of the study.

None of what you wrote rises to the level of "data on doping" which suggests against assuming "doping is not as effective as training at altitude".

Although I made no such assumption -- I am always interested in raw data from controlled measursements about performance, rather than uninformed, biased, tenuous, or unsupported conclusions.

It is data, but not enough to draw conclusions without presumptions.

Being true to form, the most I can say is that he missed three tests and failed no tests.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and he is only guilty of missing three tests.

No matter how many apples you have, they will never become an orange.

That's not what you see in these forum or some channels like Total Running Production (who claim being American and ignored Nuguse recently and bashed some Spanish Moroccan following the rumor spread in these forums. And for that I will wait the justice of time to do its work).

Just look at the threads reserved to white/blond American and why most of others are considered as the servitor of the "republic".

He’s like the only time I believe someone could unintentionally miss 3 tests.

He’s literally the type of people that would happen to. When he was a professional athlete he used to wake up at 1pm and therefore miss morning training, stay up all night etc.

Even when he won worlds he was like that, he has never been super serious about anything, he’s just super talented.

You have a flaw and you refuse to acknowledge your flaw.

For years I have read you stating criminal court standards regarding sports and drug punishments.

Innocent until proven guilty is not the standard. Civil court level of standards regarding drugs and athletes.

What is the applicable standard for a public finding of "a doper" in the absence of "drugs"?

Here are your flaws:

- You asked my opinion. Outside civil and criminal courts, "Innocent until proven guilty" is an applicable standard in the court of public opinion.

- In the paper, "THE STRICT LIABILITY PRINCIPLE AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE ATHLETE IN DOPING CASES", "it is argued that the disciplinary law concerning doping as essentially punitive law should be regarded as "pseudo-criminal law". Given the striking resemblance between disciplinary doping law and criminal law, private law connotations should not be allowed to intrude in this field."

- We are in a public discussion forum, not a civil court, nor arbitration hearing, nor disciplinary hearing. The definitions and standards of these inapplicable contexts is irrelevant.

- You cannot turn chalk into cheese, no matter how much chalk you have.

That still does not mean he doped.
He very well could have, but missing 3 tests does not = doped.

He is "only" guilty of doping violations - but to you that can't mean he is a doper. It doesn't actually mean anything to you - a mere technical infringement at the most. The reason that missing three tests is a doping violation is that clean athletes know they can't afford to do that. Three missed tests is not an accident, it is avoidance - and only a doper will choose to do that.

Apples and oranges are both fruit and if "fruit" are a doping violation then it doesn't matter what kind they are. A whereabouts failure and a positive test come out of the same doping orchard.

It does. That's why it is a doping violation. The distinction is pedantry - or doping denial.

Innocent until proven guilty is not the standard in the "court" of public opinion. Public opinion is not a court; it is what people think on places like this, based largely on suppositions, partialities and prejudices - like yours. If you actually had to present your arguments before a court, with its rigorous inquiries of fact according to rules of evidence, you would always fail. You show that by not understanding how a court works and the processes they use. Your "facts", "evidence" and "data" are merely reflections of your partialities.

People do not apply the criminal standard of proof in everyday life because, in their own lives, they are dealing with problems, not cases, that do not require being proved to that standard, which is that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing would get done if we tried to make decisions by that standard in everyday life. It only applies when the liberty of an individual is at stake - a crime is involved. What we typically rely on in everyday life is determining what is probable or most probable, a process that the nonprofessional is better able to grasp and implement. Doping is not a crime. So the criminal processes are neither applicable nor relevant. That you don't grasp this shows you wouldn't have a clue how to argue a case before a court of any kind.

You forgot super-stupid if as a professional athlete he didn't pay attention to his professional obligations. But that isn't most likely. He was likely doing what most top athletes do today but got caught.

No, it does not. Learn the meaning of words.

A failed test is enough to draw conclusions without presumptions. An athlete is responsible for what is found in their body. They put it there unless they can show otherwise. That's the most logical conclusion. The presumption was they intended to dope, which a doper like Houlihan couldn't produce evidence to rebut. So CAS arrived at the correct conclusion. You never would.

The irony in your advice.