I have a special requirement for you. I need to see 5 established registered LRC posters who posts regularly on topics like doping and high performance running who will back you up as a true antidoping spirit, not letter btw!
I emphasise spirituality here. They need not be Christians as I’m sure neither Coevett or Armstrongliv is. 😉
The only support Rekrunner gets is from Hoady's dozen or so unregistered accounts/split personalities.
Not true! We all stand united behind our Boss with his impeccable logic.
And rightly so! Syringes can be mislabeled. So, no proof for us scientific thinkers.
With friends like you ...
In this thread I confirmed Katir's bans for whereabouts failures and tampering.
Which is your way of saying he isn't a doper - because whereabouts failures and tampering clearly have nothing to do with doping. They are just eccentric and rather pointless rules enforced by antidoping for the fun of it.
In this thread I confirmed Katir's bans for whereabouts failures and tampering.
Which is your way of saying he isn't a doper - because whereabouts failures and tampering clearly have nothing to do with doping. They are just eccentric and rather pointless rules enforced by antidoping for the fun of it.
Really? WADA calls these rule violations "Doping" by definition:
"Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code."
These rule violations are comparable to "Obstruction of Justice" and "Lying to Investigators", both of which are chargeable offenses in and of themselves.
Which is your way of saying he isn't a doper - because whereabouts failures and tampering clearly have nothing to do with doping. They are just eccentric and rather pointless rules enforced by antidoping for the fun of it.
Really? WADA calls these rule violations "Doping" by definition:
"Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code."
These rule violations are comparable to "Obstruction of Justice" and "Lying to Investigators", both of which are chargeable offenses in and of themselves.
Whereabouts failures are part of a circumstantial evidence case which tends to trigger in the mind of an intelligent person the strong probability that someone is doping. The very reason for the rules is to act as a deterrent from doping and/or evading tests when one is doping, much as one might refuse an alcohol test when pulled over while driving, for example.
Really? WADA calls these rule violations "Doping" by definition:
"Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code."
These rule violations are comparable to "Obstruction of Justice" and "Lying to Investigators", both of which are chargeable offenses in and of themselves.
Whereabouts failures are part of a circumstantial evidence case which tends to trigger in the mind of an intelligent person the strong probability that someone is doping. The very reason for the rules is to act as a deterrent from doping and/or evading tests when one is doping, much as one might refuse an alcohol test when pulled over while driving, for example.
I'm not convinced that any "intelligent person" wouldn't wait for stronger evidence before jumping to other unsupported conclusions.
The AIU made a pretty strong and convincing case for three whereabouts failures and tampering.
Like I already said the moral approach to the truth presupposes accurately a moral outcome based on loose bits of moral information which needs to be vague and ambiguous so there is no need to have absolute concrete predictions of the future in order to satisfy the susceptibility of the moral outcome. It’s about susceptibility as Khamis likes to say and not about concrete content.
It is immoral to make false accusations intended to smear someone.
It’s possible to make susceptible accusations at someone without necessarily smearing them. Just substitute ‘false’ with ‘susceptible’ ( from Khamis)!
This post was edited 21 seconds after it was posted.
Whereabouts failures are part of a circumstantial evidence case which tends to trigger in the mind of an intelligent person the strong probability that someone is doping. The very reason for the rules is to act as a deterrent from doping and/or evading tests when one is doping, much as one might refuse an alcohol test when pulled over while driving, for example.
I'm not convinced that any "intelligent person" wouldn't wait for stronger evidence before jumping to other unsupported conclusions.
The AIU made a pretty strong and convincing case for three whereabouts failures and tampering.
Wait for Godot if you want before ever making any conclusion about anything. That is your prerogative. You are the kind of person who if you saw me having sex with your wife you would wait for some time before jumping to the conclusion that she was cheating on you, because maybe she was simply getting some form of sex education I suppose.
I'm not convinced that any "intelligent person" wouldn't wait for stronger evidence before jumping to other unsupported conclusions.
The AIU made a pretty strong and convincing case for three whereabouts failures and tampering.
Wait for Godot if you want before ever making any conclusion about anything. That is your prerogative. You are the kind of person who if you saw me having sex with your wife you would wait for some time before jumping to the conclusion that she was cheating on you, because maybe she was simply getting some form of sex education I suppose.
But I did make conclusions. Based on the AIU's reports, I agreed with the conclusions that Katir committed whereabouts failures and subsequently lied about them. He was rightfully banned for both of these violations.
You were talking about what triggers the minds of "in the mind of an intelligent person". It seems unlikely that intelligent people would be triggered to jump to baseless conclusions.
Wait for Godot if you want before ever making any conclusion about anything. That is your prerogative. You are the kind of person who if you saw me having sex with your wife you would wait for some time before jumping to the conclusion that she was cheating on you, because maybe she was simply getting some form of sex education I suppose.
But I did make conclusions. Based on the AIU's reports, I agreed with the conclusions that Katir committed whereabouts failures and subsequently lied about them. He was rightfully banned for both of these violations.
You were talking about what triggers the minds of "in the mind of an intelligent person". It seems unlikely that intelligent people would be triggered to jump to baseless conclusions.
So do you think Katir was likely to have been doping? You may have opined about this but I don’t read every post.
But I did make conclusions. Based on the AIU's reports, I agreed with the conclusions that Katir committed whereabouts failures and subsequently lied about them. He was rightfully banned for both of these violations.
You were talking about what triggers the minds of "in the mind of an intelligent person". It seems unlikely that intelligent people would be triggered to jump to baseless conclusions.
So do you think Katir was likely to have been doping? You may have opined about this but I don’t read every post.
That is a reasonable inference but not one he will make.
So do you think Katir was likely to have been doping? You may have opined about this but I don’t read every post.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "likely". There is always a small likelihood that any athlete doped.
My opinions closely follow the publicly known data, without too much baseless speculation. I don't have any data that shows that "presence" (Article 2.1) or "use" (Article 2.2) are any more likely than the next competitor. It is also likely that he didn't take his obligations seriously, and missed his tests due to personal disorganization, carelessness, negligence, lack of dilegence, etc., and then lied about it to help avoid a 2-year ban. He wouldn't be the first one. An organized and diligent doper would be the one with zero missed tests, and would have simply updated his whereabouts on March 26, or in the worst case, taken the strikes, and exercised more care after 2 strikes.
It looks like the main reasons people believe Katir doped is because he is both Spanish and Moroccan, and that drugs would be a good candidate explanation for his rapid performance improvements.
That is a reasonable inference but not one he will make.
Doesn't reasonable mean you need reasons?
You apparently don't or you would conclude, like most reasonable people, that an athlete convicted of avoiding drug testing and then tampering with test results did so because they were doping. They had no other plausible reason.
You apparently don't or you would conclude, like most reasonable people, that an athlete convicted of avoiding drug testing and then tampering with test results did so because they were doping. They had no other plausible reason.
If it were that simple, the most reasonable AIU would have charged and convicted Katir with an "Use or Attempted Use" (Article 2.2) rule violation. They do not make that leap because it would be irrational.
You apparently don't or you would conclude, like most reasonable people, that an athlete convicted of avoiding drug testing and then tampering with test results did so because they were doping. They had no other plausible reason.
If it were that simple, the most reasonable AIU would have charged and convicted Katir with an "Use or Attempted Use" (Article 2.2) rule violation. They do not make that leap because it would be irrational.
No, they wouldn't. They didn't have a drug for which they could charge him with use or attempted use - you don't understand the rules - but they could show he failed to meet his testing requirements and that he attempted to tamper with evidence. Any reasonable person would know he had no reason to do that unless he was doping. But antidoping doesn't need to show that and you aren't such a person.
This post was edited 53 seconds after it was posted.
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.