US Decathlon champ gets 3 year ban for doping violation.

Sprinting Discussion Sprints

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 8 of 11

1 7 8 9 11

2 years ago 11/26/2022 6:31am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
He didn't add - but he should have for the morons here - "because the athlete did not make himself available for testing as he should have". Because he was in all likelihood taking prohibited drugs. He had no excuses that were accepted for missing those tests.
I think no one disputes his obligations from being in the RTP -- that goes without saying.

I agree.

His failure to comply caused the infraction but that does not mean he is a doper( a word in common parlance but conspicuously absent from the WADA Code )

Posters are advised to read the Code prior to exhibiting their prejudices.

2 years ago 11/26/2022 7:09am EST

re: Reading skill operative

Reading skill operative wrote:
I agree.
His failure to comply caused the infraction but that does not mean he is a doper( a word in common parlance but conspicuously absent from the WADA Code )
Posters are advised to read the Code prior to exhibiting their prejudices.

LOL, "conspicuously absent from the WADA Code"? The WADA code calls his two antidoping rule violations literally "doping". Ergo he was doping, ergo he is a doper.

Read the code...

2 years ago 11/26/2022 7:23am EST

re: casual obsever

casual obsever wrote:
Reading skill operative wrote:
I agree.
His failure to comply caused the infraction but that does not mean he is a doper( a word in common parlance but conspicuously absent from the WADA Code )
Posters are advised to read the Code prior to exhibiting their prejudices.
LOL, "conspicuously absent from the WADA Code"? The WADA code calls his two antidoping rule violations literally "doping". Ergo he was doping, ergo he is a doper.
Read the code...

No you are wrong.

Read the Code. It does not call anti doping violations doping it calls them anti doping violations and then you have to go back to their definition of doping and such does not embrace being a doper. The word doper does not exist in the Code. This is because the Code is based on strict liability and not mens rea.

You can’t mix and match the terms and meaning of the Code with common parlance.You can’t have it both ways just to suit your prejudices.

So is a non intentional breach such to cause the use of the word doper?

2 years ago 11/26/2022 7:52am EST

re: casual obsever

casual obsever wrote:
Reading skill operative wrote:
I agree.
His failure to comply caused the infraction but that does not mean he is a doper( a word in common parlance but conspicuously absent from the WADA Code )
Posters are advised to read the Code prior to exhibiting their prejudices.
LOL, "conspicuously absent from the WADA Code"? The WADA code calls his two antidoping rule violations literally "doping". Ergo he was doping, ergo he is a doper.
Read the code...

LOL. WADA literally defines Doping to include acts of sending emails, missing appointments, and failing to timely update a website.

I think no one can dispute that.

Technically, they don't literally define "doper", but I think it is not a stretch to say that WADA would call the one who sent the email, missed the appointments, and failed to timely update a website, a doper, applying their broadened redefinition of Doping.

2 years ago 11/26/2022 8:11am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
LOL, "conspicuously absent from the WADA Code"? The WADA code calls his two antidoping rule violations literally "doping". Ergo he was doping, ergo he is a doper.
Read the code...
LOL. WADA literally defines Doping to include acts of sending emails, missing appointments, and failing to timely update a website.
I think no one can dispute that.
Technically, they don't literally define "doper", but I think it is not a stretch to say that WADA would call the one who sent the email, missed the appointments, and failed to timely update a website, a doper, applying their broadened redefinition of Doping.

Ok ; but you then hit the problem even you shy away from.
Is a doper; in what you may say is in Wada terms; a doper in common parlance/ usage?

So we have unintentional usage; we have sabotage which still gets sanctioned; we have attending the White House and forgetting or mis logging whereabouts.D

Do any of the above warrant the use of the term doper in common usage ?

Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Former nfl player. No surprise. Only letdown is it further confirms nfl doesn't test or bust their players to maintain a high level of fan interest. Public relations trumps integrity in the business world.

Calling Scantling a "former NFL player" is a stretch. He lasted all of 5 weeks in spring practices (of 2017) before he got cut, never even made it to the preseason.

He was never on a preseason-90 roster, much less a 53 season roster or even practice squad. I could try out for team's April practices for a few days before the inevitable cut, that wouldn't make me an NFL player.

2 years ago 11/26/2022 1:30pm EST

re: Reading skill operative

Reading skill operative wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
LOL. WADA literally defines Doping to include acts of sending emails, missing appointments, and failing to timely update a website.
I think no one can dispute that.
Technically, they don't literally define "doper", but I think it is not a stretch to say that WADA would call the one who sent the email, missed the appointments, and failed to timely update a website, a doper, applying their broadened redefinition of Doping.
Ok ; but you then hit the problem even you shy away from.
Is a doper; in what you may say is in Wada terms; a doper in common parlance/ usage?
So we have unintentional usage; we have sabotage which still gets sanctioned; we have attending the White House and forgetting or mis logging whereabouts.D
Do any of the above warrant the use of the term doper in common usage ?

What am I shying away from? I do try to shy away from ambiguity. Ambiguity is a problem in any context. And context is important for any discussion. Interpreting things out of context only leads to misunderstanding, if not a sign of outright dishonesty.

WADA took the liberty of redefining "Doping" in terms of any one of 11 violations. Looking through their list, I would only consider three of them connected (in part) to doping with a banned substance: "presence", "use", and for support staff, "administration".

It's unfortunate that WADA has codified this confusion for both those who don't seem to know better, and for those who seem like they should know better.

2 years ago 11/26/2022 2:58pm EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Reading skill operative wrote:
Ok ; but you then hit the problem even you shy away from.
Is a doper; in what you may say is in Wada terms; a doper in common parlance/ usage?
So we have unintentional usage; we have sabotage which still gets sanctioned; we have attending the White House and forgetting or mis logging whereabouts.D
Do any of the above warrant the use of the term doper in common usage ?
What am I shying away from? I do try to shy away from ambiguity. Ambiguity is a problem in any context. And context is important for any discussion. Interpreting things out of context only leads to misunderstanding, if not a sign of outright dishonesty.
WADA took the liberty of redefining "Doping" in terms of any one of 11 violations. Looking through their list, I would only consider three of them connected (in part) to doping with a banned substance: "presence", "use", and for support staff, "administration".
It's unfortunate that WADA has codified this confusion for both those who don't seem to know better, and for those who seem like they should know better.

Marvellous; we are in full agreement.

2 years ago 11/26/2022 8:53pm EST

re: Reading skill operative

Reading skill operative wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
What am I shying away from? I do try to shy away from ambiguity. Ambiguity is a problem in any context. And context is important for any discussion. Interpreting things out of context only leads to misunderstanding, if not a sign of outright dishonesty.
WADA took the liberty of redefining "Doping" in terms of any one of 11 violations. Looking through their list, I would only consider three of them connected (in part) to doping with a banned substance: "presence", "use", and for support staff, "administration".
It's unfortunate that WADA has codified this confusion for both those who don't seem to know better, and for those who seem like they should know better.
Marvellous; we are in full agreement.

Then you are the only two on the thread who have it completely wrong.

2 years ago 11/26/2022 10:05pm EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Reading skill operative wrote:
Marvellous; we are in full agreement.
Then you are the only two on the thread who have it completely wrong.

So is an unintentional infractor a doper? This question has been asked many times on this thread and scores of times on others but you run away from answering.

What’s new then?

2 years ago 11/27/2022 3:26am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Reading skill operative wrote:
Marvellous; we are in full agreement.
Then you are the only two on the thread who have it completely wrong.

Wada of course agree as well. One day you will read the Code.

2 years ago 11/27/2022 4:34am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
What am I shying away from? I do try to shy away from ambiguity. Ambiguity is a problem in any context. And context is important for any discussion. Interpreting things out of context only leads to misunderstanding, if not a sign of outright dishonesty.
WADA took the liberty of redefining "Doping" in terms of any one of 11 violations. Looking through their list, I would only consider three of them connected (in part) to doping with a banned substance: "presence", "use", and for support staff, "administration".
It's unfortunate that WADA has codified this confusion for both those who don't seem to know better, and for those who seem like they should know better.
Reading skill operative wrote:
Marvellous; we are in full agreement.
Then you are the only two on the thread who have it completely wrong.

Completely wrong? Completely? Wow. Thanks for your brutal honesty. In light of this revelation, I'd like to fix that now.

Please share what is completely right then. If something is wrong, I'd like to take the opportunity now to correct it before I go any further down the wrong path.

Can you please be specific and unambiguous?

Do you suggest ambiguity isn't a problem, at least in some contexts?

Do you suggest that interpreting things out of context doesn't lead to misunderstanding?

Do you suggest that express interpretation out of context cannot ever by outright dishonesty?

Do you suggest WADA didn't take the liberty of redefining "Doping"?

Which of the other 11 rules in WADA's defintion of "Doping" are connected to doping with a banned substance, besides "presence", "use", and "administration"? Maybe "retaliation"?

Do you suggest that WADA's codified redefinition of Doping, to include for example, missing appointments and sending emails, doesn't lead to confusion?

Do you see yourself among those who "don't seem to know better", or those who "seem like they should know better"? If neither, then what?

Since I'm completely wrong, you should be able to produce supporting examples and disproving counter-examples in your answers to each and every one of these questions.

Thanks in advance.

2 years ago 11/27/2022 6:12am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Then you are the only two on the thread who have it completely wrong.
Completely wrong? Completely? Wow. Thanks for your brutal honesty. In light of this revelation, I'd like to fix that now.
Please share what is completely right then. If something is wrong, I'd like to take the opportunity now to correct it before I go any further down the wrong path.
Can you please be specific and unambiguous?
Do you suggest ambiguity isn't a problem, at least in some contexts?
Do you suggest that interpreting things out of context doesn't lead to misunderstanding?
Do you suggest that express interpretation out of context cannot ever by outright dishonesty?
Do you suggest WADA didn't take the liberty of redefining "Doping"?
Which of the other 11 rules in WADA's defintion of "Doping" are connected to doping with a banned substance, besides "presence", "use", and "administration"? Maybe "retaliation"?
Do you suggest that WADA's codified redefinition of Doping, to include for example, missing appointments and sending emails, doesn't lead to confusion?
Do you see yourself among those who "don't seem to know better", or those who "seem like they should know better"? If neither, then what?
Since I'm completely wrong, you should be able to produce supporting examples and disproving counter-examples in your answers to each and every one of these questions.
Thanks in advance.

Your waffle is endless.

2 years ago 11/27/2022 6:14am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Then you are the only two on the thread who have it completely wrong.
Completely wrong? Completely? Wow. Thanks for your brutal honesty. In light of this revelation, I'd like to fix that now.
Please share what is completely right then. If something is wrong, I'd like to take the opportunity now to correct it before I go any further down the wrong path.
Can you please be specific and unambiguous?
Do you suggest ambiguity isn't a problem, at least in some contexts?
Do you suggest that interpreting things out of context doesn't lead to misunderstanding?
Do you suggest that express interpretation out of context cannot ever by outright dishonesty?
Do you suggest WADA didn't take the liberty of redefining "Doping"?
Which of the other 11 rules in WADA's defintion of "Doping" are connected to doping with a banned substance, besides "presence", "use", and "administration"? Maybe "retaliation"?
Do you suggest that WADA's codified redefinition of Doping, to include for example, missing appointments and sending emails, doesn't lead to confusion?
Do you see yourself among those who "don't seem to know better", or those who "seem like they should know better"? If neither, then what?
Since I'm completely wrong, you should be able to produce supporting examples and disproving counter-examples in your answers to each and every one of these questions.
Thanks in advance.

It is a vain hope that you will get a response that references any reading of the Code.

2 years ago 11/27/2022 6:17am EST

re: Reading skill operative

Reading skill operative wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Then you are the only two on the thread who have it completely wrong.
So is an unintentional infractor a doper? This question has been asked many times on this thread and scores of times on others but you run away from answering.
What’s new then?

An athlete who misses a series of tests and tampers with evidence doesn't do so unintentionally, even though a finding of a breach of the rules doesn't require intent be proven. He didn't break the rules in his sleep.

2 years ago 11/27/2022 6:18am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Completely wrong? Completely? Wow. Thanks for your brutal honesty. In light of this revelation, I'd like to fix that now.
Please share what is completely right then. If something is wrong, I'd like to take the opportunity now to correct it before I go any further down the wrong path.
Can you please be specific and unambiguous?
Do you suggest ambiguity isn't a problem, at least in some contexts?
Do you suggest that interpreting things out of context doesn't lead to misunderstanding?
Do you suggest that express interpretation out of context cannot ever by outright dishonesty?
Do you suggest WADA didn't take the liberty of redefining "Doping"?
Which of the other 11 rules in WADA's defintion of "Doping" are connected to doping with a banned substance, besides "presence", "use", and "administration"? Maybe "retaliation"?
Do you suggest that WADA's codified redefinition of Doping, to include for example, missing appointments and sending emails, doesn't lead to confusion?
Do you see yourself among those who "don't seem to know better", or those who "seem like they should know better"? If neither, then what?
Since I'm completely wrong, you should be able to produce supporting examples and disproving counter-examples in your answers to each and every one of these questions.
Thanks in advance.
Your waffle is endless.

Not waffle but considered response.

You have failed after scores and scores of requested to answer the most simplest of questions.

Is a unintentional infractor a doper?

2 years ago 11/27/2022 6:22am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Reading skill operative wrote:
So is an unintentional infractor a doper? This question has been asked many times on this thread and scores of times on others but you run away from answering.
What’s new then?
An athlete who misses a series of tests and tampers with evidence doesn't do so unintentionally, even though a finding of a breach of the rules doesn't require intent be proven. He didn't break the rules in his sleep.

Of course it is possible to miss an appointment without intent; what sort of world do you exist in?

Now yet again.Is an unintentional infractor a doper?

2 years ago 11/27/2022 6:31am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Reading skill operative wrote:
So is an unintentional infractor a doper? This question has been asked many times on this thread and scores of times on others but you run away from answering.
What’s new then?
An athlete who misses a series of tests and tampers with evidence doesn't do so unintentionally, even though a finding of a breach of the rules doesn't require intent be proven. He didn't break the rules in his sleep.

Let’s imagine they miss a test intentionally.They make a conscious decision not to change their whereabouts. They are on RTP but over 12 mths never been tested. They meet a friend who offers benefits and decides not to break off the surprise liaison and lose the moment to try to log on to change his details. A doper ?

2 years ago 11/27/2022 6:46am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Completely wrong? Completely? Wow. Thanks for your brutal honesty. In light of this revelation, I'd like to fix that now.
Please share what is completely right then. If something is wrong, I'd like to take the opportunity now to correct it before I go any further down the wrong path.
Can you please be specific and unambiguous?
Do you suggest ambiguity isn't a problem, at least in some contexts?
Do you suggest that interpreting things out of context doesn't lead to misunderstanding?
Do you suggest that express interpretation out of context cannot ever by outright dishonesty?
Do you suggest WADA didn't take the liberty of redefining "Doping"?
Which of the other 11 rules in WADA's defintion of "Doping" are connected to doping with a banned substance, besides "presence", "use", and "administration"? Maybe "retaliation"?
Do you suggest that WADA's codified redefinition of Doping, to include for example, missing appointments and sending emails, doesn't lead to confusion?
Do you see yourself among those who "don't seem to know better", or those who "seem like they should know better"? If neither, then what?
Since I'm completely wrong, you should be able to produce supporting examples and disproving counter-examples in your answers to each and every one of these questions.
Thanks in advance.
Your waffle is endless.

I will presume that your response is complete to the extent of your knowledge and ability.

2 years ago 11/27/2022 11:09am EST

re: Reading skill operative

Reading skill operative wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
An athlete who misses a series of tests and tampers with evidence doesn't do so unintentionally, even though a finding of a breach of the rules doesn't require intent be proven. He didn't break the rules in his sleep.
Of course it is possible to miss an appointment without intent; what sort of world do you exist in?
Now yet again.Is an unintentional infractor a doper?

Yes - it is possible to miss one appointment without intent to dope. But not three. And not with further tampering. So that's why he is in breach of the rules. They don't say so but he is a doper. You may as well have a paper bag over your head.

Page 8 of 11

1 7 8 9 11

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

US Decathlon champ gets 3 year ban for doping violation.

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

US Decathlon champ gets 3 year ban for doping violation.

Jump To A Page

Follow casual obsever

Block casual obsever

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow RastaMon Goose

Block RastaMon Goose

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.