LOL - now you have asked me for the second time whether or not I feel shame for not saying something that I couldn't have said. You are the most illogical person I've ever "met".
Also, you have repeatedly claimed to mostly ask only for evidence. Clearly even you cannot possible think that that is correct.
LOL - now you have asked me for the second time whether or not I feel shame for not saying something that I couldn't have said. You are the most illogical person I've ever "met".
Also, you have repeatedly claimed to mostly ask only for evidence. Clearly even you cannot possible think that that is correct.
If you read more carefully, I asked if you were ashamed about what you did post. I did not ask if "(you) feel shame for not saying something that (you) couldn't have said".
I'm not sure what your second point is, or if I should entertain yet another distraction and yet another deflection on your part. The way you combine "repeatedly", "mostly", and "only" out of any context makes me doubt the accuracy of what you claim. "Mostly" and "only" are contradictory qualifiers.
Someone asked what my agenda was, and I replied it was to "request any substantial evidence".
You said earlier: "only this one "What is the connection?" can be explained as asking for evidence". This is "question #2", as early as post #4.
And there are many examples in this thread of me asking for substantial evidence, or saying it is lacking, or saying I can be persuaded by it, or etc.
Whether it is infrequent, or dangerous doesn't change the basic requirements or fundamental principles.
There is no law of rarity or no law of danger shortcut in logic that suddenly permits drawing conclusions without any substantial supporting evidence.
And again, the WADA Code requires such things to be "proved" to a fairly high standard before anti-doping bodies can consider sanctioning an agent.
So you're satisfied to keep doing, or not doing, things the same way?
Depends on the proposed changes.
If the proposal is to remove any evidentiary standard and ban and/or sanction agents based on no evidence of any rule violations, this would be a step that does more harm than good. Rosa currently represents 144 athletes, and they would all somehow also be punished for something that may not involve them.
But if the proposal is to increase intelligence and investigations for ADOs and ADAs, and incentivize and protect whistleblowers, in order to collect sufficient evidence to identify bad agents, I would be most satisfied.
On this topic, I can form my own opinions about what kinds of things should change to improve the situation, but I have no skin in the game, and I think which ideas should be proposed are best done by some kind of union of athlete representatives.
The way you answered suggests that you are writing in a second language (or more). So, to clarify, you are not Kenyan, nor former Kenyan nor from another East African country? Right?
No East Africans announced as testing positive for PEDs today.
We cannot exclude that maybe it is your deductive reasoning that is below par.
Not that another distraction, or where I'm from, is relevant, but some long time readers will know that I am an American born citizen who has lived in Europe for over three decades. I know I have adapted the way I speak and write to accomodate others who speak English as a second language. But English is most certainly my first language, and there is very little wrong with my English reading comprehension.
You asked me to explain to you a case I know nothing about, based on a false assumption that I would defend Kenyan doping. For your benefit, I don't defend doping, and I responded in a generic way what kind of factual elements I would look for, if I cared enough to investigate why someone tested positive for a masking agent.
Many here fail to comprehend that my primary interest is in things that relate to performance, rather than Kenyans and/or doping per se. So if some Kenyans are doping, and some Kenyans are performing, and some of these two groups overlap, the nature of my interest is to the extent that we can consider these two things are related, to the extent that relation is based on evidence.
What I can't comprehend is your reluctance to talk about Rosa here, given your long interest, and prolific discussion elsewhere. Can you tell me, in one word, after all that time, in all of your research and writings, do you have any substantial evidence that Rosa's connection to his athletes caught doping is something that goes far beyond a standard agent-athlete relationship? A simple "no" will suffice, but if yes, please tell all of us which evidence and which athlete and what is the connection?
I am more scientist and logician than lawyer. My expectation of proof has nothing to do with which court decides which questions of law. Everything you want to spell out will be subject to that expectation in the court of public debate, or else it will not be trustworthy.
Spelling it out means with specificity. It is a bad look to specifically blur Kenya so you can generally lump all East Africans together in one pot. You say "doping works", but again, without any specificity, that can mean a hundred things to a hundred people.
The fastest times are coming from East Africans, and have done so for decades, also when the East Africans have emigrated to other countries around the world, like Japan, Denmark, USA, etc.
The link is still missing that would connect these performances to the effects of doping, and just for East Africans. If it were that easy, these results wouldn't have stayed isolated among East Africans for so long.
I think the people theselves are their own cause of their discomfort, because they've convinced themselves of many things, substituting general fallacies for specific proofs.
Let's get this straight, doping to improve performance works . It doesn't mean a hundred things to a hundred people, it means athletes dope to win ....this is why people say you obfuscate everything, trying to be clever, even the common understanding you try and muddy. If you can't even agree the basics you aren't worth time.
So you're satisfied to keep doing, or not doing, things the same way?
Depends on the proposed changes.
If the proposal is to remove any evidentiary standard and ban and/or sanction agents based on no evidence of any rule violations, this would be a step that does more harm than good. Rosa currently represents 144 athletes, and they would all somehow also be punished for something that may not involve them.
But if the proposal is to increase intelligence and investigations for ADOs and ADAs, and incentivize and protect whistleblowers, in order to collect sufficient evidence to identify bad agents, I would be most satisfied.
On this topic, I can form my own opinions about what kinds of things should change to improve the situation, but I have no skin in the game, and I think which ideas should be proposed are best done by some kind of union of athlete representatives.
How would those 144 athletes be harmed if Rosa is banned? They'd find other agents.
How would those 144 athletes be harmed if Rosa is banned? They'd find other agents.
Maybe, maybe not. Not sure I share your optimism that all 144 would.
But even then, the time and effort for an unplanned search for a new agent is harm. It may take time resulting in missed races. The new agents may not be as good at negotiating entries. Other agents may not take them.
Furthermore, since there was no evidence, it may solve nothing it the athletes doping through their local doctor or chemist just continue with the new agent.
How would those 144 athletes be harmed if Rosa is banned? They'd find other agents.
Maybe, maybe not. Not sure I share your optimism that all 144 would.
But even then, the time and effort for an unplanned search for a new agent is harm. It may take time resulting in missed races. The new agents may not be as good at negotiating entries. Other agents may not take them.
Furthermore, since there was no evidence, it may solve nothing it the athletes doping through their local doctor or chemist just continue with the new agent.
Other agents would reduce suspicion of their performances.
Let's get this straight, doping to improve performance works . It doesn't mean a hundred things to a hundred people, it means athletes dope to win ....this is why people say you obfuscate everything, trying to be clever, even the common understanding you try and muddy. If you can't even agree the basics you aren't worth time.
As much as I want to take the wise words of "Old running fool" at face value, if you don't provide substantial evidence specific to elite distance running, and the elite runners in question, then you are wasting your time and mine.
The people who accuse me of obfuscation are just confused in their own minds about the reasons for my skepticism and what needs to happen to overcome it, despite my making that crystal clear.
Even if you managed to sufficiently prove "doping works", this still doesn't mean that the athletes who win, and who set world records, like Kiplimo and Chebet, doped to do so.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
Not explicitly engaging with potential defamation to appease you.
The role of media, the fourth pillar of democracy, is to ask the hard questions, hold people and institutions to account and seek truth.
This is why CNN asks if Trump is suffering cognitive decline or BALCO was exposed or ARDTV exposed systematic doping in Russia and malfeasance with the Diacks.
Other agents would reduce suspicion of their performances.
Maybe your suspicion. Until it doesn't.
This is just solving a problem of perception, not the problem of doping.
If I was a world class runner I would not want be associated with an agent with as shady a reputation as Rosa's. And the sport has a huge perception problem that is not helped by having someone with his reputation connected to it.
If I was a world class runner I would not want be associated with an agent with as shady a reputation as Rosa's. And the sport has a huge perception problem that is not helped by having someone with his reputation connected to it.
Which is why it’s surprising that many Western European sprinters are repped by him. They are good but not the best, so maybe they don’t feel pressure as the links to him don’t come up much (unlike his marathoners/distance runners).
This post was edited 24 seconds after it was posted.
Not explicitly engaging with potential defamation to appease you.
The role of media, the fourth pillar of democracy, is to ask the hard questions, hold people and institutions to account and seek truth.
This is why CNN asks if Trump is suffering cognitive decline or BALCO was exposed or ARDTV exposed systematic doping in Russia and malfeasance with the Diacks.
If you don't say yes, I'll have to assume it is no.
What hard truths has the media uncovered about Rosa, except that he is an agent to many many athletes, and some of them have been busted for doping?
BALCO was already the subject of a federal investigation and an USADA investigation, and was exposed after Trevor Graham sent a loaded syringe to USADA. Although it was heavilly covered in the media, I'm not sure they played a role in exposing BALCO.
Seppelt and ARD TV did play a role in the IAAF/Russian scandal, but only after WADA's chief investigator Jack Robertson approached Seppelt with a gift-wrapped Stepanova and Shobukhova. In parallel, the IAAF's newly formed Ethics Commission was investigating the role of IAAF officials, which eventually resulted in three lifetime bans, and a 5-year ban for Dolle, without any involvement of the media. The Ethics Commission eventually merged with the IAAF's Medical and Anti-doping Department, to become the AIU.
This post was edited 15 minutes after it was posted.
This is just solving a problem of perception, not the problem of doping.
If I was a world class runner I would not want be associated with an agent with as shady a reputation as Rosa's. And the sport has a huge perception problem that is not helped by having someone with his reputation connected to it.
If you were Kenyan, who would you chose as an agent?
Isn't Rosa's perceived shady reputation something that was fabricated by the fans and media? If it wasn't Rosa, it would just be someone else. Berardelli and Pineda are two names that come up frequently. Or Jos Hermans. Look how many here are skeptical of Canova. Or Paula. Conspiracy-driven fans will always search for patterns, and will always find confirmation somewhere.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Let's get this straight, doping to improve performance works . It doesn't mean a hundred things to a hundred people, it means athletes dope to win ....this is why people say you obfuscate everything, trying to be clever, even the common understanding you try and muddy. If you can't even agree the basics you aren't worth time.
As much as I want to take the wise words of "Old running fool" at face value, if you don't provide substantial evidence specific to elite distance running, and the elite runners in question, then you are wasting your time and mine.
The people who accuse me of obfuscation are just confused in their own minds about the reasons for my skepticism and what needs to happen to overcome it, despite my making that crystal clear.
Even if you managed to sufficiently prove "doping works", this still doesn't mean that the athletes who win, and who set world records, like Kiplimo and Chebet, doped to do so.
If anyone is confused it’s you. An argument could be made that you are mentally disturbed, such is your obsession that leads you to muddy the waters and outright lie in many cases, never mind the constant deflections. All to cover for the endless stream of African cheats.
If I was a world class runner I would not want be associated with an agent with as shady a reputation as Rosa's. And the sport has a huge perception problem that is not helped by having someone with his reputation connected to it.
If you were Kenyan, who would you chose as an agent?
Isn't Rosa's perceived shady reputation something that was fabricated by the fans and media? If it wasn't Rosa, it would just be someone else. Berardelli and Pineda are two names that come up frequently. Or Jos Hermans. Look how many here are skeptical of Canova. Or Paula. Conspiracy-driven fans will always search for patterns, and will always find confirmation somewhere.
I don't know but it wouldn't be any of the names you're mentioning but no, someone who has had dozens of athletes caught doping's shady reputation is well earned and not fabricated..
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Not explicitly engaging with potential defamation to appease you.
The role of media, the fourth pillar of democracy, is to ask the hard questions, hold people and institutions to account and seek truth.
This is why CNN asks if Trump is suffering cognitive decline or BALCO was exposed or ARDTV exposed systematic doping in Russia and malfeasance with the Diacks.
lol
TDS emerges, even in this thread. Why didn’t CNN ask if Biden was suffering from cognitive decline instead of waiting until his handlers made sure he embarrassed himself in the “debate” with Bad Orange Man Trump?
Back on the current course, rek is a nutcase and will break his spine while twisting things to try and shield cheating Africans. If this is pilpul practice for him, it isn’t working.
If you were Kenyan, who would you chose as an agent?
Isn't Rosa's perceived shady reputation something that was fabricated by the fans and media? If it wasn't Rosa, it would just be someone else. Berardelli and Pineda are two names that come up frequently. Or Jos Hermans. Look how many here are skeptical of Canova. Or Paula. Conspiracy-driven fans will always search for patterns, and will always find confirmation somewhere.
I don't know but it wouldn't be any of the names you're mentioning but no, someone who has had dozens of athletes caught doping's shady reputation is well earned and not fabricated..
I can't see how it is well earned if there is no evidence of his involvement or tangible basis for suspicion.