She trusted her micro dosing and thought she would be negative. flew too close to the sun.
BEST COMMENT OF ALL TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Simply accurate!!!!!!!!!!!! It's such subjective mastery of space-time that I Khamis the RF King signed up to enjoy and appreciate on LRC!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hopefully Mr PD rekrunner can learn a thing or 2!!!
Look Mr PD, you seem unconscious as always!!! You don't see the speck in your eye but keep finding the speck in another's????? Aren't you also doing presumption and 'presuming objective facts, evidence and data' as the superior evidence bar when I rather presume against your presumption and place subjective data as the more superior one instead????
At the end of the day, everything is a presumption, including objective data, evidence and facts duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One basic difference is I presume athletes are innocent until it is established otherwise with facts, data, and evidence.
Incorrect, you presume athlete are innocent until you abruptly presume otherwise later with facts, data and evidence. You can't run away from presumption and assumption, you are in the divine simulation and presumption defines you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm also only advocating for a superior method of drawing moral, spiritual and fact based conclusions all 3 in one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm 3-in-1 and what are you Mr PD????????
Your fact based only conclusion is highly flawed thus sympathetic to pro-doping!!!
So you cannot show me which part you believe is "pro-doping" either?
I find you 0 for 3: Your aggressivity is immoral, unspiritual, and not fact based.
Incorrect Mr PD, reason and persuasion is a branch of inquiry that seeks TOTAL KNOWLEDDGE AND TOTAL UNDERSTANDING of how a human being behaves and exists, you feeling me?????
For knowledge and understanding to be TOTAL and ALL-ENCOMPASSING, I'm so sorry you need to extract moral, spiritual/metaphysical, and objective data together simultaneously and emerge the truth from there alright!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I find your exclusively objective approach unnatural, partial, incomplete, half-baked, half-truth and hence immoral and evil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This post was edited 50 seconds after it was posted.
Look Mr PD, I'm not interested in objective correctness laced with subjectively ill-intentioned purpose alright????? So what if you are strictly objectively correct when I have told you that you have done so in an imbalanced manner to the extent that it seems affected??????
The reason why WADA presumes intention to dope is because objective data had previously shown that it could be up to 1 in 2 athletes who got away with doping in their lifetime and entire careers and never got caught. The prevalence and ubiquity informs the subjective presumption of intention to dope!!!!!!!
Just as the prevalence and ubiquity of sexually sinful behavior between Tinder date partners informs the subjective presumption of intention to commit sexual sin whenever Tinder date partners meet up, you feeling me sir??????
Subjectivity is the higher bar of adjudication!!!!
I'll take your concession that it is your subjectively superior conclusion that my entire post was strictly objectively correct, despite you baselessly calling it deceptive.
Your next point is wrong on at least two counts: 1) WADA changed from the ADAs/ADOs burdened with proving "aggravating circumstances" to the athlete burdened with disproving"presumed intent" because it was too hard to prove "aggravating circumstances" (the same way it is too hard to prove non-intent"), and 2) "presuming intent" speaks only to the length of sanctions (4 years versus 2 years), and does not reduce the number of "athletes who got away with doping in their lifetime and entire careers and never got caught." (ignoring the inaccuracies of "objective data had previously shown that it could be up to 1 in 2 athletes who ...").
I don't think we need to know your experience with Tinder.
Incorrect, my concession should be written this way:
"I'll take your concession that it is your subjectively superior conclusion that my entire post was strictly objectively correct despite you spiritually, morally and metaphysically calling it deceptive"
And my reply would then be:
"DUH????????????????? An objective-only post and comment is bound to be spiritually, morally and metaphysically incorrect and false because it doesn't contain spiritual, moral and metaphysical substance and reasonings DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Now do you understand Mr PD????
WADA didn't just switch to presumption of intent because it was expedient only, they also did so because there had ALSO been good enough data to be satisfied that 'presumption of intent' should be a better deterrent against doping and dopers you feeling me Mr PD????
This post was edited 36 seconds after it was posted.
Grant Fisher Is universally beloved on these boards while Shelby Houlihan might be the most intensely despised person on Letsrun.
So LRC faithful answer me this, do you believe:
a) Houlihan acted independently to knowingly take drugs while BTC coaches/athletes were completely out of the dark. b) Nandrolone accidently got into Houlihan’s system and no one on the team was doping. c) The coaches were involved but only gave drugs to Houlihan and no other athletes on the team d) Everyone on the team was in on it, took drugs but only Houlihan tested positive. e) Some other scenario (please explain)
If you don’t believe option a or b, how do you reconcile that with your opinion of Fisher?
I have a conspiracy theory that subterfuge was in play. There was quite a bit of jealousy on that team.
I’m a former Jerry Schumacher coached athlete. Jerry would never dope an athlete and Shelby was one of Jerry’s favorite athletes he ever coached. If there was any hint of her doping he would have had nothing to do with her. No one knows how the nandrolone got into her system.
It is the fault of Alberto Salazar that people don’t believe Shelby through and through. If he had not ruined the integrity of American distance running, people would not be so skeptical of someone like Shelby or even of Jerry.
If the test were handled by USADA, there never would have been a ban and it is possible we would never heard about it. WADA has political reasons they classified the test as a positive test, rather than an atypical finding. WADA is currently a political body, not an anti-doping body.
This is the truth. I’m sorry that people refuse to accept it and live in their fantasy delusions that Shelby is a doper.
I've noticed that no athlete has stepped forward to "condemn" Shelby for doping, either from within BTC, nor otherwise. It is really mostly the "fans" of the sport, or some shock pundits, who were persuaded by a process that can railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans, if they are not able to persuasively prove something they don't know to a panel of arbiters in a short timeframe. I think in this case, the athletes know more than outsiders.
I wouldn't just blame what people thought about Salazar, because I can think of a dozen people, and milestones, dating back to Armstrong and Tour de France, and Ben Johnson, that have built up the current environment that causes so many "fans" of the sport to doubt potentially clean athletes and their performances.
Incorrect, my concession should be written this way:
"I'll take your concession that it is your subjectively superior conclusion that my entire post was strictly objectively correct despite you spiritually, morally and metaphysically calling it deceptive"
And my reply would then be:
"DUH????????????????? An objective-only post and comment is bound to be spiritually, morally and metaphysically incorrect and false because it doesn't contain spiritual, moral and metaphysical substance and reasonings DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Now do you understand Mr PD????
WADA didn't just switch to presumption of intent because it was expedient only, they also did so because there had ALSO been good enough data to be satisfied that 'presumption of intent' should be a better deterrent against doping and dopers you feeling me Mr PD????
The downside of subjectivity is the introduction of personal bias, especially from those who have demonstrated no particular subject matter knowledge.
Only objectivity can tether conclusions from the "spiritual, moral and metaphysical" to the real world.
I generally tend to ignore personally biased conclusions that have not been tethered to the real world.
I'm not sure where your "up to 1 in 2" data comes from (maybe you aren't either), but if you mean the 2011 WCA survey results, 1) the 2015 changes in the Code predate the publication of your alleged "good enough data", and in any case, 2) only apply to one Olympic sport (Athletics), which wouldn't be a "good enough" reason to change the Code applying to all Olympic and non-Olympic sports subject to the WADA Code.
Regarding WADA's reasons for switching, I tend to accept what the "SportsIntegrityInitiative" article "Why life bans for doping will not work" says:
Sports Integrity Initiative wrote:
"Proving intentional doping is notoriously difficult." "This difficulty in proving intent was why the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) abandoned the 'aggravating circumstances' provision within the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code that allowed the standard two-year ban to be scaled up to four years. The burden of proof in establishing 'aggravating circumstances' was so high that it was almost never used. Instead, the 2015 Code opted for a standard sanction of four years that could be reduced down if -- for example -- an athlete could prove that use of a substance was non-intentional." "In effect, the 2015 Code reversed the burden of proof from innocent until proven guilty. An athlete is now considered guilty unless they can prove that they are innocent. The same would presumably be true for any introduced life ban. This is dangerous to athletes." "Not every athlete that is sanctioned for doping intends to cheat." "For the same reasons that it is difficult to prove intentional doping, it is difficult to put an exact figure on the number of athletes sanctioned for doping who did not intend to cheat." "At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional."
One basic difference is I presume athletes are innocent until it is established otherwise with facts, data, and evidence.
Incorrect, you presume athlete are innocent until you abruptly presume otherwise later with facts, data and evidence. You can't run away from presumption and assumption, you are in the divine simulation and presumption defines you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
???
I presume things are not true until they are shown to be true, and then, until they are not shown to be false. I do not run away from presumptions. I am just careful not to conclude my presumptions without any objective basis. "Assuming the conclusion" is a common logical fallacy, and often unwittingly and persuasively dupes the persuadables.
Coaches amd brands operate a wilful blindness policy on doping. Why would they take the risk?
Just delegate the doping down to the athletes then pick up the ones who do it well and get away with it.
All the upside, none of the downside.
Big entities outsource their dirty work, and knowledge of their dirty work all the time. Politicians, corporations, everyone's at it.
Personally I think the answer is b) - she was doing it in secret from her team (obv centro knew)
These conspiracy theory idiots have no clue, no evidence - just pure conjecture. I am no corporate apologist and actually my job is in the field over corporate governance. I've seen the good, the bad and a lot of ugly.
The number of people that would have to be involved or aware of such a program is probably at least 30 or 40 people within and most importantly on the outside of Nike.... And it would go all the way to the top. Doctors, trainers, coaches, athletes, as well as brand managers, business unit managers all the way up to the C-Suite. That many people don't keep good secrets. And the amount of money that would make it worth it for some random doctor or trainer is probably more than they're actually paying Grant Fisher in the first place!!! Would 30 to 50 people risk their career for an extra $50k or $100k?? Maybe a few would but someone would crack.
Anyway - yes, you're right... it's a "wilful blindness" policy. Why would Nike (or people within Nike) risk so much of their brand image and spend Millions on cover-up and lawyers, when they can simply 'outsource' or 'down source' the doping to the athletes themselves??
Besides, recent history has revealed that 'grey area' doping can be nearly as effective anyway.
Anyway, nice try on your little conspiracy theory... at least it's entertaining.
I always hate this way of “debunking” “conspiracy theories”. As if everyone knows what the CIA does, what the NSA is up to, or even what the 11 herbs and spices are that KFC uses. SomEoNe wOUld tAlK. Why? What proof do you have that someone would? Who at Nike blew the whistle about Lance and Postal doping back in the day? Literally no evidence to suggest people would whistleblow
I apologize to all... I didn't realize summoning rekrunner would also summon Khamis, who is twice as bad in whatever direction his meds are taking him each day.
LOL. Now the questions are: who is posting even more, who gets even more downvotes, and who will have the last word? Stay tuned (I'll come back next week).
The answer is, of course, rekrunner to all of the above.
Khamis, you need to post a lot more obnoxiously and provocatively if you don't want to get out-trolled. You only lost narrowly with 14 : 17 posts, but some of your posts actually got more upvotes than downvotes, like 5 : 2 and 4 : 1, while rekrunner's are consistently between 0 : 3 and 1 : 11. And you didn't even try to have the last word.
I guess it's hard to beat a troll with a decade of trolling in trolling.
LOL. Now the questions are: who is posting even more, who gets even more downvotes, and who will have the last word? Stay tuned (I'll come back next week).
The answer is, of course, rekrunner to all of the above.
Khamis, you need to post a lot more obnoxiously and provocatively if you don't want to get out-trolled. You only lost narrowly with 14 : 17 posts, but some of your posts actually got more upvotes than downvotes, like 5 : 2 and 4 : 1, while rekrunner's are consistently between 0 : 3 and 1 : 11. And you didn't even try to have the last word.
I guess it's hard to beat a troll with a decade of trolling in trolling.
Look sir, I didn't sign up to LRC to troll and beat trolls alright???????? I'm here to contribute positively and make a divine impact on humanity and mankind you feeling me sir???????
I can't believe you are actually asking me to post more obnoxiously and provocatively so that I can out-troll a well known liar and sinner in rekrunner, also known as Mr PD!!!!!!!!!!
You are just as corrupt a man as rekrunner Mr PD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know how to be obnoxious or provocative, I only know how to reprimand, rebuke, advise, love, care, reason, persuade, pray, censure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
Incorrect, you presume athlete are innocent until you abruptly presume otherwise later with facts, data and evidence. You can't run away from presumption and assumption, you are in the divine simulation and presumption defines you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
???
I presume things are not true until they are shown to be true, and then, until they are not shown to be false. I do not run away from presumptions. I am just careful not to conclude my presumptions without any objective basis. "Assuming the conclusion" is a common logical fallacy, and often unwittingly and persuasively dupes the persuadables.
Look you are getting from bad to worse alright Mr PD!!!!! You are attacking your own reputation and bringing yourself further into a hole from now on with no help from me or anybody else on LRC!!!!
Your brain simply can't see that one can still assume the conclusion with objective data because objective data when used independent of moral, spiritual and metaphysical scrutiny is still an 'assumption'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you get it Mr PD???????
It's also a balance Mr PD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You studied math in college did you??? You have a parabolic shaped curve that maxes out at the top and reverses direction and trend!!!!! The balance point is dy/dx=0 or zero gradient at the peak, and this is the point of confluence (balance) of all 3 pillars of reason and persuasion, namely OBJECTIVITY, MORALITY, SPIRITUALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you were to merely apply 'objective data' only, you wouldn't be reasoning and persuading from the point of zero gradient or peak you feeling me Mr PD!!!!!!!! And that means your reasoning and persuading would be imbalanced, affected, fallacious and even decetiful now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Incorrect, my concession should be written this way:
"I'll take your concession that it is your subjectively superior conclusion that my entire post was strictly objectively correct despite you spiritually, morally and metaphysically calling it deceptive"
And my reply would then be:
"DUH????????????????? An objective-only post and comment is bound to be spiritually, morally and metaphysically incorrect and false because it doesn't contain spiritual, moral and metaphysical substance and reasonings DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Now do you understand Mr PD????
WADA didn't just switch to presumption of intent because it was expedient only, they also did so because there had ALSO been good enough data to be satisfied that 'presumption of intent' should be a better deterrent against doping and dopers you feeling me Mr PD????
The downside of subjectivity is the introduction of personal bias, especially from those who have demonstrated no particular subject matter knowledge.
Only objectivity can tether conclusions from the "spiritual, moral and metaphysical" to the real world.
I generally tend to ignore personally biased conclusions that have not been tethered to the real world.
I'm not sure where your "up to 1 in 2" data comes from (maybe you aren't either), but if you mean the 2011 WCA survey results, 1) the 2015 changes in the Code predate the publication of your alleged "good enough data", and in any case, 2) only apply to one Olympic sport (Athletics), which wouldn't be a "good enough" reason to change the Code applying to all Olympic and non-Olympic sports subject to the WADA Code.
Regarding WADA's reasons for switching, I tend to accept what the "SportsIntegrityInitiative" article "Why life bans for doping will not work" says:
Sports Integrity Initiative wrote:
"Proving intentional doping is notoriously difficult." "This difficulty in proving intent was why the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) abandoned the 'aggravating circumstances' provision within the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code that allowed the standard two-year ban to be scaled up to four years. The burden of proof in establishing 'aggravating circumstances' was so high that it was almost never used. Instead, the 2015 Code opted for a standard sanction of four years that could be reduced down if -- for example -- an athlete could prove that use of a substance was non-intentional." "In effect, the 2015 Code reversed the burden of proof from innocent until proven guilty. An athlete is now considered guilty unless they can prove that they are innocent. The same would presumably be true for any introduced life ban. This is dangerous to athletes." "Not every athlete that is sanctioned for doping intends to cheat." "For the same reasons that it is difficult to prove intentional doping, it is difficult to put an exact figure on the number of athletes sanctioned for doping who did not intend to cheat." "At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional."
Do you have a source that says otherwise?
1 in 2 was my wholehearted faith and trust in my darling Armstrong!!!!!!!! As a doping expert, Armstrong was the one who shared with all of us about 1 in 2 athletes doping in track and field!!!! Apparently from a survey!!!!
Out of all the athletes who dope, only 50% intended to dope, while out of all the athletes in total, 50% get caught for doping which then means half of this 50% or 25% intended to dope. I think this is just a priori and not a posteriori, may I please?????????????????
There is no solid a posteriori data supporting the claim that not more or less than 25% of athletes intended to dope!!!!! At best they were conducted using surveys which have their limitations as athletes may lie and fake responses. What's stopping me from assuming that the figure is rather 100% of caught dopers actually intended to dope and not 50%???????
And how do we know the percentage of athletes who intend to dope doesn't exponentially increase in space and time from 25% to 100% as human sin spreads like wildfire and greed and avarice takes root in more hearts in space and time?????????????????
How do we know athletes are not suggested to dope by the very advice not to dope called 'the Imp of the perverse' in Edgar Allan Poe????????????????????
And how do we know athletes are not subsequently suggested to dope intentionally precisely because they know they can control their space and time in such a way as to produce the very evidence that gives the illusion of 'unintentional' doping in court in order to get away with it???????????????
While I have the right to a priori construction they are still governed by a vast a posteriori history of moral evidence of widespread human sin and corruption since the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden you feeling me Mr PD?????? And this human corruption is no exception in high performance sport!!!!!
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
LOL. Now the questions are: who is posting even more, who gets even more downvotes, and who will have the last word? Stay tuned (I'll come back next week).
The answer is, of course, rekrunner to all of the above.
Khamis, you need to post a lot more obnoxiously and provocatively if you don't want to get out-trolled. You only lost narrowly with 14 : 17 posts, but some of your posts actually got more upvotes than downvotes, like 5 : 2 and 4 : 1, while rekrunner's are consistently between 0 : 3 and 1 : 11. And you didn't even try to have the last word.
I guess it's hard to beat a troll with a decade of trolling in trolling.
Look you are getting from bad to worse alright Mr PD!!!!! You are attacking your own reputation and bringing yourself further into a hole from now on with no help from me or anybody else on LRC!!!!
Your brain simply can't see that one can still assume the conclusion with objective data because objective data when used independent of moral, spiritual and metaphysical scrutiny is still an 'assumption'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you get it Mr PD???????
It's also a balance Mr PD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You studied math in college did you??? You have a parabolic shaped curve that maxes out at the top and reverses direction and trend!!!!! The balance point is dy/dx=0 or zero gradient at the peak, and this is the point of confluence (balance) of all 3 pillars of reason and persuasion, namely OBJECTIVITY, MORALITY, SPIRITUALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you were to merely apply 'objective data' only, you wouldn't be reasoning and persuading from the point of zero gradient or peak you feeling me Mr PD!!!!!!!! And that means your reasoning and persuading would be imbalanced, affected, fallacious and even decetiful now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I studied calculus in high school, and multivariable calculus in college. I also studied philosophy, logic, and science, according to the scientific method. This gives me ample education to detect when arguments flow within logical constraints, and when they are another example of one of many common logical fallacies.
Whatever you think of my reasoning and persuading, you are committing a number of fallacies, while failing to provide any objective data supporting your own reasoning and persuading. Your reliance on your own supernatural subjectivity (i.e. personal bias), completely unsubstantiated with objective data, leads you to a number of false conclusions untethered to objective reality.
1 in 2 was my wholehearted faith and trust in my darling Armstrong!!!!!!!! As a doping expert, Armstrong was the one who shared with all of us about 1 in 2 athletes doping in track and field!!!! Apparently from a survey!!!!
Out of all the athletes who dope, only 50% intended to dope, while out of all the athletes in total, 50% get caught for doping which then means half of this 50% or 25% intended to dope. I think this is just a priori and not a posteriori, may I please?????????????????
There is no solid a posteriori data supporting the claim that not more or less than 25% of athletes intended to dope!!!!! At best they were conducted using surveys which have their limitations as athletes may lie and fake responses. What's stopping me from assuming that the figure is rather 100% of caught dopers actually intended to dope and not 50%???????
And how do we know the percentage of athletes who intend to dope doesn't exponentially increase in space and time from 25% to 100% as human sin spreads like wildfire and greed and avarice takes root in more hearts in space and time?????????????????
How do we know athletes are not suggested to dope by the very advice not to dope called 'the Imp of the perverse' in Edgar Allan Poe????????????????????
And how do we know athletes are not subsequently suggested to dope intentionally precisely because they know they can control their space and time in such a way as to produce the very evidence that gives the illusion of 'unintentional' doping in court in order to get away with it???????????????
While I have the right to a priori construction they are still governed by a vast a posteriori history of moral evidence of widespread human sin and corruption since the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden you feeling me Mr PD?????? And this human corruption is no exception in high performance sport!!!!!
In other words, you are blind faith following the blind.
Despite all the scandalous headlines and gossip, survey results are not yet proven to be reliable. At this same event, we can find several "published" survey results: your "nearly 1 in 2" (actually closer to 4 in 9), a refined 1 in 3 (actually closer to 3 in 10), and using an alternative survey method at the same event, 1 in 5. Or survey results ranging from 21% to 44% -- at the very same event from the very same survey respondents. These are "a posteriori" survey results, which may or may not accurately reflect true doping prevalence among the survey participants, which may or may not accurately reflect true doping prevalence "in the sport", and is virtually useless if you want to look at elite men's distance running performance. You can refer to the studies themselves for the long list of limitations in the researchers own words.
All the answers to "how do we know" is that we don't know much. While the belief in the power of doping to produce the supernatural is widespread and deep and goes to the top, rooted in mythical stories that evolve over time, we know very little about the true magnitude of doping prevelance, and how it is distributed across sports, across events, across levels of talent, across various countries, across gender, and how that is connected to elite performance, and how that has changed since the 2011 surveys, and for that matter, how all that has evolved since 1970.
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.