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.
Of course details matter.
It's true that three "whereabouts failures" is an antidoping rule violation.
Anything beyond that knowledge is pure fabrication from your own imagination, which indeed doesn't actually mean anything to me.
I have to wonder why you fight so hard to blur inarguably clear details, in order to remove clarity, as if driven by some insecure inferiority complex to find any kind of support for your fragile world views with tenuous inferences, and why it's so important for you to want to drag me into your imaginary world.
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.
We are not in a civil or criminal court, so all these notions and distinctions about what happens in these other domains are wholly irrelevant here.
You asked me my opinion. In my opinion, athletes are innocent until proven guilty.
If I had to argue whereabouts failures in a real court, that would be a no-brainer, given the facts of the case. If you had to argue "he is a doper" in a real court based solely on three missed tests, your meandering waffle and rationalizations would be thrown out of court, and you would be fined for bringing a frivilous suit before the court, and referred to the bar for disciplinary action and possibly lose your license.
It is data, but not enough to draw conclusions without presumptions.
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 conclusion is only correct when the underlying presumptions are valid.
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 conclusion is only correct when the underlying presumptions are valid.
If we demand absolute validity before any conclusion, we risk paralysis. Would we stop investigating murders because no one witnessed them? Presumptions guide action, often rightfully so.
Had it happened in 2017, I would clearly have shouted doping.
Happening 7 years later, and having heard of the guy and how he actually behaves...I think he clearly did not care anymore. The guy has been struggling, even at the French level, for quite some time. But hey, who knows.
As regards doping in France...it most definitely exists. However, going by the number of current outstanding French distance or sprint runners, I doubt it is extremely widespread.
The only French that you can see throughout the track season is Akbache, and he is a pacer...
The conclusion is only correct when the underlying presumptions are valid.
If we demand absolute validity before any conclusion, we risk paralysis. Would we stop investigating murders because no one witnessed them? Presumptions guide action, often rightfully so.
Good comparison. Presumption are everywhere, e.g. that the cops didn't falsify the evidence or that the lab didn't work improperly. Saying it's too early to come to a conclusion because of a "presumption" is a cop-out. By that token, one can't conclude that Sumgong or Kiprop were "guilty" either.
Yes. Even rekrunner had to grudgingly admit that he is a doper. auuga - read the code. Articles 1 and 2 are enough in this case.
It's not about the code. It's about Dumbstrong not knowing the meaning of words.
"ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING 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."
Bosse committed the violation detailed in Article 2.4 ("Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete").
It's not about the code. It's about Dumbstrong not knowing the meaning of words.
"ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING 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."
Bosse committed the violation detailed in Article 2.4 ("Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete").
He was doping by the very definition of the word.
You are welcome.
I guess "by definition" depends on the dictionary. For example, Merriam-Webster would not say "he was doping by the very definition of the word".
Merriam-Webster
"doping. noun. dop·ing ˈdō-piŋ : the use of a substance (such as an anabolic steroid or erythropoietin) or technique (such as blood doping) to improve athletic performance and that is typically banned in competitive sports."
This definition is covered by Article 2.2 "Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method"
Even then, it is only a partial fit, as Merriam-Webster includes the purpose as part of the definition: "to improve athletic performance" -- which would exclude banned substances not known "to improve athletic performance", but prohibited by WADA for health and spirit reasons, and would exclude recreational drugs and masking agents.
So when Armstronglivs asks me, "is he a doper?", what is the common understanding between us meant to be? Should I understand he means WADA's broadened umbrella definition, covering Articles 2.1-2.11, or the widely understood everyday definition provided by Merriam Webster, strictly covered under Article 2.2? If we both understand WADA's definition, the question is rendered meaningless, unless we are debating whether three tests were actually missed.
I think he wants it both ways -- use WADA's definition to cast the widest net possible, and then Merriam-Webster's definition to conclude they are all using substances and techniques to improve athletic performance.
I have to wonder why it is so psychologically important to blur details in order to create the ambiguity necessary to keep clinging to their beliefs.
The conclusion is only correct when the underlying presumptions are valid.
If we demand absolute validity before any conclusion, we risk paralysis. Would we stop investigating murders because no one witnessed them? Presumptions guide action, often rightfully so.
... and often wrongfully so. For the innocent, paralysis is preferable over a wrongful conviction.
Presumptions do not encourage further investigation, but rather stops it or prevents it.
Your murder analogy seems backwards, as in this case, the investigators did stop investigating because of the presumptions. Murder investigators would not stop in the middle of an investigation, and then hand the investigation over to the accused to rebut the presumption that the investigators did their job correctly, and/or rebut the presumption that the presumed murder was intentional.
If we demand absolute validity before any conclusion, we risk paralysis. Would we stop investigating murders because no one witnessed them? Presumptions guide action, often rightfully so.
Good comparison. Presumption are everywhere, e.g. that the cops didn't falsify the evidence or that the lab didn't work improperly. Saying it's too early to come to a conclusion because of a "presumption" is a cop-out. By that token, one can't conclude that Sumgong or Kiprop were "guilty" either.
As I said above, the comparison seems backwards to me, because the investigation was in fact stopped precisely because presumptions eliminate the burden for further investigation.
When an athlete's livelihood and reputation is at stake, what is more important, the finality of conclusions, or accuracy?
We need to be clear the extent of conclusions that can reliably be drawn from the limited evidence available. ADAs, and ADOs, and Arbitration panels operate under a simplified process described in the WADA Code and associated documents. These simplifications permit increasing the number of convictions, and increasing the length of the sanction, while reducing the burden, and reducing prosecution costs. These tradeoffs work in favor of anti-doping organizations, against athletes, regardless of guilt or innocence.
It is a mistake to pretend that findings permitted by presumptions would have the same weight as findings resulting from a more thorough investigation establishing an exogenous source and intent to any reasonable standard, with tangible evidence.
As a result of the simplifications permitted by WADA, we can conclude with finality that an athlete violated rules, without ever establishing "intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part", and that they can be sanctioned for deemed intentional use, without ever establishing intent.
Can we conclude Sumgong and Kiprop are dopers, or were they also victims of a streamlined process that favors convictions? At the time of Sumgong's (and Jeptoo's) sanctions, I would have agreed that WADA Labs reporting the presence of EPO in urine would be sufficiently damning evidence on its own. But since then, having learned of the details and criticisms of the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, and Benedikt Karus, I have reasons to doubt: 1) whether WADA Labs are capable of performing a complicated EPO test correctly every time, and 2) whether athletes are afforded due process by having access to exculpatory evidence in order to meet their burden of challenging the correctness of the WADA Labs interpretation of the results.
"ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING 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."
Bosse committed the violation detailed in Article 2.4 ("Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete").
He was doping by the very definition of the word.
You are welcome.
I guess "by definition" depends on the dictionary. For example, Merriam-Webster would not say "he was doping by the very definition of the word".
Well we are talking here about a WADA violation and ban. I'd go with WADA's definition of doping.
I guess "by definition" depends on the dictionary. For example, Merriam-Webster would not say "he was doping by the very definition of the word".
Well we are talking here about a WADA violation and ban. I'd go with WADA's definition of doping.
Of course you would. The question is whether everyone else understands WADA's definition is not the same as Merriam-Webster's. As we have seen, according to WADA, one can become "a doper" for simply sending an email.
Do you think that's what Armstronglivs was asking me -- whether Bosse violated one of the 11 rules? Using WADA's broadened definition, Armstronglivs question becomes meaningless (well, that's not new), as I had previously claimed that Bosse committed whereabouts failures. He believes that whereabouts failures (2.4) are really evasion (2.3) attempting to hide presence (2.1) or use (2.2). Cool story, but is it real or imaginary?
Do you think that Bosse was also found having used banned drugs and/or methods on the basis of missing three tests in 12 months?
"I have to wonder why it is so psychologically important to blur details in order to create the ambiguity necessary to keep clinging to their beliefs."
I wonder why you think you are describing others when you so clearly are talking about yourself.
"I have to wonder why it is so psychologically important to blur details in order to create the ambiguity necessary to keep clinging to their beliefs."
I wonder why you think you are describing others when you so clearly are talking about yourself.
Does anyone really fall for your childish games? You are the one arguing against "details matter".
But maybe in the interest of clarity, you can tell us whose definition of "doping" you mean.