Ethiopia has had autocratic government for decades. At least Kenya is fairly democratic (on the 'Democracy Index', Ethiopia is at 123 with Russia one place behind, and Kenya is at number 93). The 'natural born runner' myth has been promoted by various Ethiopian governments and even before it was a thing in Kenya. The first East African star Bikila could have been written by a Hollywood scriptwriter, running barefoot to victory in the streets of Rome almost exactly 25 years after Italy had conquered Ethiopia. Before his victory, he was already a personal bodyguard to the emperor (the same one who Mussolini conquered). Anyone who thinks he wasn't doped to the max is naieve in the extreme.
The GDR actually modelled their system on that of the Ethiopians. Straub, Beyer, and the other dopers would train in Ethiopia, and Yifter and the Ethiopians would train with them in the GDR. I've made threads on this and every time the moderators delete them for whatever strange reason.
Everything about the athletics system in Kenya is chaotic. In Ethiopia, it's always been the reverse.
Plus the sheer size and number of remote training locations in Ethiopia. There's a reason doorbell Mo and others have it as their preferred full throttle hide out.
And now there is a WADA lab in Nairobi, but not sure it does much good as regards testing in Ethiopia.
27 athletes weren't ruled as innocent by WADA - their so-called innocence is merely a claim by Tygart. It hasn't been endorsed by WADA.
Tygart has lost credibility as an antidoping official, as he is more concerned with trying to reduce the standing of WADA than catch dopers. His mealy-mouthed defence of Houlihan has shown that. Ego has trumped judgment and integrity.
You don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
The only role WADA can play in anti-doping cases adjudicated by USADA (or the AIU) is to exercise their right of appeal if they are not satisfied with the ruling. As they did not, all 27 USADA rulings of athlete innocence are WADA approved.
If you were right, and Tygart had lost any credibility, WADA would be appealing their rulings.
Or she accidentally and unknowingly ingested it once, and was just unable to identify and prove the source one month after the fact. The available facts and evidence are not conclusive.
Yes, they are. On the grounds of probability she intentionally doped, as CAS concluded. So a 4 year ban. You live in the realm of merely fanciful "possibilities".
That's not quite accurate. The CAS ruling was only possible based on a set of presumptions, rather than drawing conclusions strictly from the available facts and evidence.
27 athletes weren't ruled as innocent by WADA - their so-called innocence is merely a claim by Tygart. It hasn't been endorsed by WADA.
Tygart has lost credibility as an antidoping official, as he is more concerned with trying to reduce the standing of WADA than catch dopers. His mealy-mouthed defence of Houlihan has shown that. Ego has trumped judgment and integrity.
You don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
The only role WADA can play in anti-doping cases adjudicated by USADA (or the AIU) is to exercise their right of appeal if they are not satisfied with the ruling. As they did not, all 27 USADA rulings of athlete innocence are WADA approved.
If you were right, and Tygart had lost any credibility, WADA would be appealing their rulings.
Armstronglies has never read the rules thus what he attempts to say has to be ignored.
27 athletes weren't ruled as innocent by WADA - their so-called innocence is merely a claim by Tygart. It hasn't been endorsed by WADA.
Tygart has lost credibility as an antidoping official, as he is more concerned with trying to reduce the standing of WADA than catch dopers. His mealy-mouthed defence of Houlihan has shown that. Ego has trumped judgment and integrity.
You don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
The only role WADA can play in anti-doping cases adjudicated by USADA (or the AIU) is to exercise their right of appeal if they are not satisfied with the ruling. As they did not, all 27 USADA rulings of athlete innocence are WADA approved.
If you were right, and Tygart had lost any credibility, WADA would be appealing their rulings.
WADA does not appeal USADA decisions. It is stuck with them. But the decisions aren't made by WADA and we see that Tygart has more support for convicted dopers like Houlihan than he does WADA. That is a loss of credibility. Hence, he is in your camp - a doping apologist in all but name.
You don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
The only role WADA can play in anti-doping cases adjudicated by USADA (or the AIU) is to exercise their right of appeal if they are not satisfied with the ruling. As they did not, all 27 USADA rulings of athlete innocence are WADA approved.
If you were right, and Tygart had lost any credibility, WADA would be appealing their rulings.
Armstronglies has never read the rules thus what he attempts to say has to be ignored.
Yes, they are. On the grounds of probability she intentionally doped, as CAS concluded. So a 4 year ban. You live in the realm of merely fanciful "possibilities".
That's not quite accurate. The CAS ruling was only possible based on a set of presumptions, rather than drawing conclusions strictly from the available facts and evidence.
Still lying. The decision was based explicitly on the "balance of probabilities" on the facts before the Court. Your claims remain mere "possibilities" (of "near-zero" likelihood) without evidence that meets the test of the balance of probabilities.
That's not quite accurate. The CAS ruling was only possible based on a set of presumptions, rather than drawing conclusions strictly from the available facts and evidence.
Still lying. The decision was based explicitly on the "balance of probabilities" on the facts before the Court. Your claims remain mere "possibilities" (of "near-zero" likelihood) without evidence that meets the test of the balance of probabilities.
Why keep on lying.
You have been told dozens of times what the standard of proof is.
When will you read the rules and accept them and stop making things up to suit your own prejudices.
You don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
The only role WADA can play in anti-doping cases adjudicated by USADA (or the AIU) is to exercise their right of appeal if they are not satisfied with the ruling. As they did not, all 27 USADA rulings of athlete innocence are WADA approved.
If you were right, and Tygart had lost any credibility, WADA would be appealing their rulings.
WADA does not appeal USADA decisions. It is stuck with them. But the decisions aren't made by WADA and we see that Tygart has more support for convicted dopers like Houlihan than he does WADA. That is a loss of credibility. Hence, he is in your camp - a doping apologist in all but name.
Once again you just don’t understand the rules. Either accept that you are not bright enough to understand them and go away or stop lying and go away.
You don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
The only role WADA can play in anti-doping cases adjudicated by USADA (or the AIU) is to exercise their right of appeal if they are not satisfied with the ruling. As they did not, all 27 USADA rulings of athlete innocence are WADA approved.
If you were right, and Tygart had lost any credibility, WADA would be appealing their rulings.
WADA does not appeal USADA decisions. It is stuck with them. But the decisions aren't made by WADA and we see that Tygart has more support for convicted dopers like Houlihan than he does WADA. That is a loss of credibility. Hence, he is in your camp - a doping apologist in all but name.
I continue to be surprized and amazed at both the breadth and depth of ignorance of publicly available facts on the topics you want to speak with such confidence about.
WADA is not "stuck with" USADA decisions. In the WADA Code, in Article 13 and Comment 82, WADA is given the opportunity to appeal all USADA decisions made under the Code.
Furthermore, if USADA decisions are not compliant with the Code, WADA has the another remedy of ruling that USADA is not WADA-Compliant.
If WADA were not completely satisifed with the USADA decisions, it had 27 opportunities since 2015 to say so.
If Houlihan's doping conviction was wrongful, then Tygart is supporting an innocent athlete who was not exonerated, because the AIU failed "to work just as hard to exonerate the innocent as (they) do pursuing the true cheaters". The WADA Code doesn't require it, but human ethics does.
Tygart recognized there is ambiguity and doubt as to whether an AAF or an ATF was the right call, and there is ambiguity and doubt as to the source of the nandrolone, which was neither proved nor disproved.
It's not just Tygart or me with some rogue opinion out of nowhere. A minority of the CAS Panel, based on all the facts before the CAS, ruled against finding that Houlihan's positive sample was properly found to be an AAF, according to the ISL/TD2021NA.
Your perception that Tygart has lost credibility, or for that matter, that I am a doping apologist, is based on your ocean of ignorance of fundamental facts.
This is why you no longer have any credibility left to lose.
That's not quite accurate. The CAS ruling was only possible based on a set of presumptions, rather than drawing conclusions strictly from the available facts and evidence.
Still lying. The decision was based explicitly on the "balance of probabilities" on the facts before the Court. Your claims remain mere "possibilities" (of "near-zero" likelihood) without evidence that meets the test of the balance of probabilities.
It's sufficient to read the CAS decision, to see that you've plucked out some keywords and formed your own conclusions which resembles the CAS decision they way a 7-year old would draw it with crayons.
The finding of "intent" is based, not on probabilities, but purely on presumption, and was not made by the CAS nor the AIU, but by the authors of the changes in the 2015 release of the WADA Code, who tied the hands of the CAS.
The balance of probabilities applies solely to Houlihan's arguments and evidence to establish "not intentional", in order to undo the codified presumption of intentional doping. Lacking a primary piece of evidence, it was impossible to meet that burden.
Kipketer gives an anti-doping mesage to young athletes at the U20 Champs on behalf of the AIU. I hope that's Wilson and not Alfred, who won the U20 800m in 2018 ahead of Kyle Langford and then famously fled anti-doping testers before finally testing positive for EPO and getting banned.
Kipketer gives an anti-doping mesage to young athletes at the U20 Champs on behalf of the AIU. I hope that's Wilson and not Alfred, who won the U20 800m in 2018 ahead of Kyle Langford and then famously fled anti-doping testers before finally testing positive for EPO and getting banned.
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.