My 2 cents is we should be really careful with what we say we know about this subject especially.
If you really believe something, perhaps with good cause, means you know it? I must disagree.
Knowing vs Believing. Believing involves holding a conviction or acceptance of something as true, even in the absence of concrete evidence. Knowing refers to having factual information or evidence about something that is true and verifiable
Some of this sounds like Constanzian logic. "Jerry, Just Remember, It’s Not A Lie If You Believe It.”
See, the thing is, you and Rojo are starting off from the false assumption that knowing something and believing something are necessarily two seperate things.
What is concrete evidence? Rekrunner says that even a doping positive isn't evidence of doping, and that a whereabouts failure certainly isn't. Peter Bol's lawyer says that an A-Sample positive is not evidence. Rojo doubts we 'know' that Shelby is truly guilty, even though she tested positive.
I 'know that the sun will set tonight, and that it will rise tomorrow. But I can't provide evidence that it will, because it hasn't happened yet. It's a justified true belief, as will be proven when the sun does set tonight, and rises again in the morning.
As usual, your logic sucks.
For you, when someone claims something will happen in the future and it does happen, this person knew it when claiming,.
That's comlete nonsense.
You say: I know the lottery numbers next week will be: 1 2 3 4
When those numbers come. Did you know it? No, you were just lucky.
I KNOW you can't understand this.
You believe Sedjati (or Wanyoumi...) is doping. And that's fine. You don't know it.
FORT WAYNE, Ind. (WISH) — Two former student-athletes at Huntington University have filed suit against the school and its former track coach, claiming the university violated the athletes’ Title IX rights and failed to protec...
Jannick Sinner (tennis player) tested positive for clostebol. The 2 tests showed a level of 76 and 86 picograms per mililiter of urine. What is a picogram? It is 1 trillionth of a gram. The fact that a test found an incredibly small amount of a banned substance should be proof to the dumbbell doping witch hunters on this board that passing these drug tests is not easy. But nothing sways these idiots. They are absolutely certain everyone is doping. What makes them certain? They just know and that's all there is to it. And the owners of this website are perfectly fine with athletes being smeared on their boards because it makes them money. Pathetic.
And you think Sinner is the only tennis player who may have taken drugs - because he's the only one who has recently tested positive. You have no idea how many other players are doping that haven't been caught.
ALL CHARGES RELATED TO DRUG ADMINSTRATION WERE DISMISSED MONTHS AGO. THE PROSECUTOR, AFTER NEARLY A YEAR-LONG INVESTIGATION USING EVERY POSSIBLE ASSET AT HIS DISPOSAL, INCLUDING LAW ENFORCEMENT, FOUND ZERO EVIDENCE OF DRUGS AT HUNTINGTON. NOT ONE SINGLE FORMER MEMBER OF THE TEAM EVERY RECEIVED ANYTHING, SAW ANYTHING, OR HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT DRUG USE. THE ONLY HUNTINGTON ATHLETES WHO EVER SUPPOSEDLY RECEIVED DRUGS WERE THE THREE IN THE LAWSUIT. THE PROSECUTOR ASKED THE COURT TO DISMISS THE CHARGES BECAUSE HE SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE A CASE.
ALL CHARGES RELATED TO DRUG ADMINSTRATION WERE DISMISSED MONTHS AGO. THE PROSECUTOR, AFTER NEARLY A YEAR-LONG INVESTIGATION USING EVERY POSSIBLE ASSET AT HIS DISPOSAL, INCLUDING LAW ENFORCEMENT, FOUND ZERO EVIDENCE OF DRUGS AT HUNTINGTON. NOT ONE SINGLE FORMER MEMBER OF THE TEAM EVERY RECEIVED ANYTHING, SAW ANYTHING, OR HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT DRUG USE. THE ONLY HUNTINGTON ATHLETES WHO EVER SUPPOSEDLY RECEIVED DRUGS WERE THE THREE IN THE LAWSUIT. THE PROSECUTOR ASKED THE COURT TO DISMISS THE CHARGES BECAUSE HE SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE A CASE.
See, the thing is, you and Rojo are starting off from the false assumption that knowing something and believing something are necessarily two seperate things.
What is concrete evidence? Rekrunner says that even a doping positive isn't evidence of doping, and that a whereabouts failure certainly isn't. Peter Bol's lawyer says that an A-Sample positive is not evidence. Rojo doubts we 'know' that Shelby is truly guilty, even though she tested positive.
I 'know that the sun will set tonight, and that it will rise tomorrow. But I can't provide evidence that it will, because it hasn't happened yet. It's a justified true belief, as will be proven when the sun does set tonight, and rises again in the morning.
As usual, your logic sucks.
For you, when someone claims something will happen in the future and it does happen, this person knew it when claiming,.
That's comlete nonsense.
You say: I know the lottery numbers next week will be: 1 2 3 4
When those numbers come. Did you know it? No, you were just lucky.
I KNOW you can't understand this.
You believe Sedjati (or Wanyoumi...) is doping. And that's fine. You don't know it.
I appreciate we're getting way over your head Hoady, but even you surely can't be this dumb.
There is a difference between having a true, justified belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, and randomly guessing next week's lottery numbers.
Stay in your lane and stick to getting 'passionate' about Wayonyi, and your weird racial science theories about East African runners.
You claim to 'know' through ESP that Brits are dirty with near zero doping positives, compared to the concrete evidence of upwards of 400 busts for Kenyans.
For you, when someone claims something will happen in the future and it does happen, this person knew it when claiming,.
That's comlete nonsense.
You say: I know the lottery numbers next week will be: 1 2 3 4
When those numbers come. Did you know it? No, you were just lucky.
I KNOW you can't understand this.
You believe Sedjati (or Wanyoumi...) is doping. And that's fine. You don't know it.
I appreciate we're getting way over your head Hoady, but even you surely can't be this dumb.
There is a difference between having a true, justified belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, and randomly guessing next week's lottery numbers.
Stay in your lane and stick to getting 'passionate' about Wayonyi, and your weird racial science theories about East African runners.
You claim to 'know' through ESP that Brits are dirty with near zero doping positives, compared to the concrete evidence of upwards of 400 busts for Kenyans.
You don't know if Sedjati (Wyoming...) is doping. You believe it, that's fine. You don't know it.
What is concrete evidence? Rekrunner says that even a doping positive isn't evidence of doping, and that a whereabouts failure certainly isn't.
Not just me.
WADA says a "doping positive" can be an ATF (i.e. "not doping"), or an AAF (i.e. "doping"). In WADA reports, about 1 in 3 "doping positives" are dismissed as not doping.
Similarly, "whereabouts failure" is defined by WADA, and does not require or provide evidence of any banned substance or method.
Oh please. NJ was giving athletes injections after having them sign nondisclosure agreements. What they never got was their hands on what the substance was, although it sounded very similar to Salazar. The investigation was dropped as redundant after the main criminal charges emerged. I have a pretty good idea what it was. Plus NJ had prescriptions to epo and testosterone. Of course someone with his demonstrated high moral standards would never cheat. And the HU yahoos would never lie. Loll.
No one is fooled. But hey. This sport cannot police itself. Points for shamelessness.
