If you don't want it to begin again, don't start anything.
I found the evidence in this specific case that a 49 year old father intentionally doped his 16-year old son with testosterone gel compelling.
Really? You?? Which evidence? By your "standards"? LOL
Shouldn't you downplay USADA's press statements to "unsubstantiated accusations from a party in dispute", like you normally do? And babble on about "appeal to authority" to deflect from the facts?
And even if he "confessed", maybe he only did it so the son gets a shorter ban? That would normally be your claim...
Same thing. If you don't want it to begin again, don't start anything.
Each case has to be evaluated on its own set of facts. Don't create false patterns from other cases with other facts for the sake of creating patterns to suit your own narrative.
Perhaps when USADA issues its Reasoned Decision, new facts will come to light.
Really? You?? Which evidence? By your "standards"? LOL
Shouldn't you downplay USADA's press statements to "unsubstantiated accusations from a party in dispute", like you normally do? And babble on about "appeal to authority" to deflect from the facts?
And even if he "confessed", maybe he only did it so the son gets a shorter ban? That would normally be your claim...
Same thing. If you don't want it to begin again, don't start anything.
Each case has to be evaluated on its own set of facts. Don't create false patterns from other cases with other facts for the sake of creating patterns to suit your own narrative.
Perhaps when USADA issues its Reasoned Decision, new facts will come to light.
I noticed you didn't say "which evidence". Here all is based atm on one press release of "a party in conflict". Now for you, that is convincing this time - you really don't see your inconsistency here?
Same thing. If you don't want it to begin again, don't start anything.
Each case has to be evaluated on its own set of facts. Don't create false patterns from other cases with other facts for the sake of creating patterns to suit your own narrative.
Perhaps when USADA issues its Reasoned Decision, new facts will come to light.
I noticed you didn't say "which evidence". Here all is based atm on one press release of "a party in conflict". Now for you, that is convincing this time - you really don't see your inconsistency here?
This alleged inconsistency is a fabrication, because you want to reduce all of my expressed sources of doubts about another case to statements coming from "a party in conflict".
In this father/son case, there is only one proposed scenario to choose from, rendering the choice obvious, and it appears to be undisputed by all parties, not having gone to arbitration or currently under appeal. If the father/son team comes up with an evidence based argument that a potential non-doping alternative exists -- e.g. consumption of testosterone-injected beef -- that is recognized by and consistent with WADA documents and decades of WADA-funded research, I remain prepared to listen to such evidence based arguments.
But that doesn't appear to be a part of the facts specific to this case -- so the existence of any controversy or ambiguity has not yet been raised.
Sadly, like baseball’s juicing era, people want to see people in sports do superhuman things. Track is already on life support. The people in power worry if track meets at the highest level are won with 100m times of 10.10, shot at 60’, 1500m in 3:40 in non tactical races, etc that the few fans track has will go away. When was track popular? When Bolt was doing super human things. How much do you suppose, out of season Mondo gets tested? There is a strong financial incentive for all parties involved to have athletes doing super human things. Super human = doping.
And so it begins, yet again. You minimise the prevalence of doping generally, you deny doping aids performance for distance runners because you say it is never "proven", you never find compelling evidence in specific cases despite athletes being convicted, you never find doping to be intentional because you say it isn't proven, and if there is a finding of doping you try to argue it wasn't against the rules. What shows how out of step you are is that no one - anywhere - works as hard at this as you do.
If you don't want it to begin again, don't start anything.
I found the evidence in this specific case that a 49 year old father intentionally doped his 16-year old son with testosterone gel compelling.
Yeah nice semantical flourish over there Mr PD!!!!!!
'I found.......compelling (for doping)....' but never 'I found doping right there' or 'That's a doper right there hehe'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are too learned for your own good to the extent that you could probably harbor ulterior motive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suppose in other cases, I am that human agent observing the non-compelling ambiguity facts. Good point.
But help me understand your point here. Are you promoting a father administering his own prescription testosterone gel to his minor child? How would Moses, Jesus, Abraham, et al judge that on the space-time scale of morality?
And yet, you are the one who found the evidence compelling, and still have neither cited the evidence nor explained based on facts why you found it compelling. Instead you attack and lecture posters left and right to detract from your original statement. Classic troll moves.
And yet, you are the one who found the evidence compelling, and still have neither cited the evidence nor explained based on facts why you found it compelling. Instead you attack and lecture posters left and right to detract from your original statement. Classic troll moves.
I found the father/son acceptance of the sanction, rather than disputing it, compelling. "Michael Vowell, a coach in the sport of track and field, and Seth Vowell, an athlete in the sport of track and field, both of Richmond, Texas, have accepted sanctions for anti-doping rule violations."
There doesn't really appear to be any genuine dispute.