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.
Case in point.
You can make up any argument you can imagine when you don't need to provide any evidence.
As this thread is going predictably everywhere but forward, with deflections and distractions in all directions continuing to come from everyone all to avoid the plain reality that there is simply no substantial evidence that Rosa was involved in any athlete doping, the answer to the subject line must be:
"It is fair to say Kiplimo and Chebet both have Federico Rosa as an agent."
It is also fair to say "As far as the public knows, neither Kiplimo nor Chebet has ever tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs or substances (PEDs). Likewise, Rosa has not been convicted of anything untoward."
Anything more just doesn't seem fair.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
I believe Confucius said, "before seeking revenge, dig two graves."
So, I will end with this and let you slip further into your own hole.
The charges, convictions, suspensions and bans start with asking the questions, doing the investigations, finding results (or not) and following the rule of law or in Athletics the WADA code, or in another realm, moral code.
My advice to you is to use a long shovel, so you don't bend too much, thereby wrecking your weak backside before you lower yourself into the cold, dark hole.
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.
I know that you can't. I think that's unfortunate.
In 8 pages it can be seen that at least one person will give Rosa the benefit of the doubt. But he always does that for all the dopers. And it fills virtually all of the 8 pages - while persuading no one.
In 8 pages it can be seen that at least one person will give Rosa the benefit of the doubt. But he always does that for all the dopers. And it fills virtually all of the 8 pages - while persuading no one.
I doubt that anyone has really gotten persuaded here and really nothing said here makes any difference. But if you insist on applying innocent until proven guilty you'll block any significant anti doping action and it's not a necessary standard here anyway.
And that's talking about athletes who at least can be caught through failed tests. How would you ever convict and agent of using PEDs? They aren't tested, most likely aren't taking PEDs themselves and if they are, so what? They aren't competing.
So we'll get their athletes to rat them out? Most dopers insist they're innocent so they aren't going to say their agent gave them this drug they deny taking. If some athlete actually testified that someone like Rosa gave them the drug they took they'd have to prove that. The agent would just deny it. You'd really need to set up some sort of sting where there'd be witnesses or videos set up. And if you want to do this with Kenyans it will never happen.
I have running friends there. Many of those busted athletes really didn't know what they were taking. That's not to excuse them but it means they'd be useless as prosecution witnesses. And more to the point, and this is something one of my Kenyan friends told me very clearly, testifying about doping there is a good way to get yourself killed.
In 8 pages it can be seen that at least one person will give Rosa the benefit of the doubt. But he always does that for all the dopers. And it fills virtually all of the 8 pages - while persuading no one.
I doubt that anyone has really gotten persuaded here and really nothing said here makes any difference. But if you insist on applying innocent until proven guilty you'll block any significant anti doping action and it's not a necessary standard here anyway.
And that's talking about athletes who at least can be caught through failed tests. How would you ever convict and agent of using PEDs? They aren't tested, most likely aren't taking PEDs themselves and if they are, so what? They aren't competing.
So we'll get their athletes to rat them out? Most dopers insist they're innocent so they aren't going to say their agent gave them this drug they deny taking. If some athlete actually testified that someone like Rosa gave them the drug they took they'd have to prove that. The agent would just deny it. You'd really need to set up some sort of sting where there'd be witnesses or videos set up. And if you want to do this with Kenyans it will never happen.
I have running friends there. Many of those busted athletes really didn't know what they were taking. That's not to excuse them but it means they'd be useless as prosecution witnesses. And more to the point, and this is something one of my Kenyan friends told me very clearly, testifying about doping there is a good way to get yourself killed.
All of those eludes the poster who thinks if athletes and their agents aren't being caught then the problem doesn't exist. What he can't see isn't there. The captain of the Titanic felt the same way.
In 8 pages it can be seen that at least one person will give Rosa the benefit of the doubt. But he always does that for all the dopers. And it fills virtually all of the 8 pages - while persuading no one.
Asking "What is the connection?" was never intended to persuade anyone, except perhaps myself -- I always remain open to persuasion to robust arguments.
In those 8 pages, no one was able to gave an answer, which itself is telling.
I believe Confucius said, "before seeking revenge, dig two graves."
So, I will end with this and let you slip further into your own hole.
The charges, convictions, suspensions and bans start with asking the questions, doing the investigations, finding results (or not) and following the rule of law or in Athletics the WADA code, or in another realm, moral code.
My advice to you is to use a long shovel, so you don't bend too much, thereby wrecking your weak backside before you lower yourself into the cold, dark hole.
Quite the journey, going from Confucious to Tucker Carlson.
If you are going to continue asking the same question for the next 11 years, and the next, and so on, at least learn how to spell Federico.
In 8 pages it can be seen that at least one person will give Rosa the benefit of the doubt. But he always does that for all the dopers. And it fills virtually all of the 8 pages - while persuading no one.
I doubt that anyone has really gotten persuaded here and really nothing said here makes any difference. But if you insist on applying innocent until proven guilty you'll block any significant anti doping action and it's not a necessary standard here anyway.
And that's talking about athletes who at least can be caught through failed tests. How would you ever convict and agent of using PEDs? They aren't tested, most likely aren't taking PEDs themselves and if they are, so what? They aren't competing.
So we'll get their athletes to rat them out? Most dopers insist they're innocent so they aren't going to say their agent gave them this drug they deny taking. If some athlete actually testified that someone like Rosa gave them the drug they took they'd have to prove that. The agent would just deny it. You'd really need to set up some sort of sting where there'd be witnesses or videos set up. And if you want to do this with Kenyans it will never happen.
I have running friends there. Many of those busted athletes really didn't know what they were taking. That's not to excuse them but it means they'd be useless as prosecution witnesses. And more to the point, and this is something one of my Kenyan friends told me very clearly, testifying about doping there is a good way to get yourself killed.
That's why an athlete testing positive should be banned for life first time they are caught. Their coaches/dealers too.
As far as the "those athletes didn't know what they were taking" excuse goes --- Bull _ _ _ _!
That's why an athlete testing positive should be banned for life first time they are caught. Their coaches/dealers too.
As far as the "those athletes didn't know what they were taking" excuse goes --- Bull _ _ _ _!
So you are saying agents like Rosa should not be banned?
These are not good reasons to support lifetime bans.
Here is an article which explains in greater detail why lifetime bans will also cause unknown collateral damage to the sport and the goal of protecting clean athletes, essentially saying both the "science" and the "law" fall short of providing justice. (Letsrun's esteemed sports scientist consultant Ross Tucker also had 2 articles explaining how the science of anti-doping is not good enough, but something seems to have happened to the "sportsscientists" site.)
On Sunday, Justin Gatlin was booed as he received his gold medal following his victory in the 100m final at the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) London 2017 World Championships on Saturday. The reason...
I doubt that anyone has really gotten persuaded here and really nothing said here makes any difference. But if you insist on applying innocent until proven guilty you'll block any significant anti doping action and it's not a necessary standard here anyway.
And that's talking about athletes who at least can be caught through failed tests. How would you ever convict and agent of using PEDs? They aren't tested, most likely aren't taking PEDs themselves and if they are, so what? They aren't competing.
So we'll get their athletes to rat them out? Most dopers insist they're innocent so they aren't going to say their agent gave them this drug they deny taking. If some athlete actually testified that someone like Rosa gave them the drug they took they'd have to prove that. The agent would just deny it. You'd really need to set up some sort of sting where there'd be witnesses or videos set up. And if you want to do this with Kenyans it will never happen.
I have running friends there. Many of those busted athletes really didn't know what they were taking. That's not to excuse them but it means they'd be useless as prosecution witnesses. And more to the point, and this is something one of my Kenyan friends told me very clearly, testifying about doping there is a good way to get yourself killed.
Speaking for myself, I cannot be persuaded when no facts exist. I can understand if we have a difference of opinion based on the same set of facts arriving at different conclusions, but I feel some corrections to your post are in order.
When you say "it's not a necessary standard here anyway", this is mistaken. It is already the standard in the WADA Code for all anti-doping organizations to show that an accused person has committed a rule violation, to a fairly high standard of "comfortable satisfaction". Mere association with multiple athletes may be enough to raise suspicion and start investigations, but it fails to meet the existing standard necessary for sanctions.
Arguing that it would be hard to "rat out" agents, or even life threatening, is not a good reason to lower or remove the evidentiary standard and eliminate the burden to show that a rule violation has occurred. For those who want anti-doping to be taken seriously, the answer is to increase the quality of the science, and the investigations, and not to reduce the quality of law enforcement.
But I'm not so sure it is impossible. Mathew Kisorio was ready to speak to everyone about who provided his doping, including having a one-to-one interview with Seppelt. Seppelt convinced Kenyans to go undercover and wear a wire and hidden camera. Yuliya Stepanova, Liliya Shubokhova, and Grigory Rodchenkov also spoke out against Russia, in spite of great personal threats, as others involved were mysteriously dying. Where there is a will, there is a way.
You crack me up. Couldn't let it go to not have the last word for once, eh? Did it eat you alive for the last five days until you finally gave into your urges and started all over again?
Please don't go over and ruined the current Shelby thread too.
You crack me up. Couldn't let it go to not have the last word for once, eh? Did it eat you alive for the last five days until you finally gave into your urges and started all over again?
Please don't go over and ruined the current Shelby thread too.
Five whole days? (Well, not whole days: letsrun tells me it's only been a bit more than 4 days.)
I see in another thread, that letsrun has been talking about Rosa for 21 years, and posters are still posting today. Why are you talking about the "last word"? After 21 years of circular discussions, the question is, when will we see the first word showing any non-agency link between Rosa and his doped athletes?
In this thread, I hadn't seen the last post calling for lifetime bans -- but under the current system, that is a bad idea for many reasons. Even Professor/Doctor Ross Tucker thought so, but his site has dissappeared.
And HRE misstates the standard -- it seems fair to correct him, so his opinions, and others' opinions, are formed based on correct facts.
I didn't see there's a new Shelby thread -- thanks for pointing me to it. I'll be on the lookout for any revisionist history and any incorrect facts.
Let's see if these "wayback machine" for the sportsscientists links work:
Should dopers be banned for life? Or is two years enough? Yesterday, we looked at , disgraced sprinter from Britain who served a two year suspension for his use of the designer steroid THG and who …
So as expected, CAS today overturned the BOA policy of issuing a lifetime ban for any athlete who has served a doping ban longer than six months. This is hardly unexpected, and is a decision that p…
Speaking for myself, I cannot be persuaded when no facts exist. Your linking to old, biased opinion pieces from 2012 - 2017 - that in fact have been in part proven wrong - does nothing for me.
For example, the 2 year ban was increased to 4 years, without - as Tucker falsely predicted - an "increased burden of proof". So his "even bigger problem" simply does not exist. Plus, while he argued helplessly against criminal charges, several countries have adopted them successfully, even the USA has done that now. In fact, the involvement of the German and Austrian police as well as the FBI has already taken quite a few drug cheats and their enablers out.
It goes without saying that "Only Gatlin knows if he intentionally doped." is also false, and so on and on. "vitriol of moral righteousness"? What an emotional outbreak that tells you everything you need to know about the author's personal bias.
When you say "it's not a necessary standard here anyway", this is mistaken. It is already the standard in the WADA Code for all anti-doping organizations to show that an accused person has committed a rule violation, to a fairly high standard of "comfortable satisfaction". Mere association with multiple athletes may be enough to raise suspicion and start investigations, but it fails to meet the existing standard necessary for sanctions.
Quite sure the "here" refers to "here on letsrun", considering the context of HRE's paragraph, where he used "here" three times: his first sentence makes that quite clear that "here" cannot mean WADA:
I doubt that anyone has really gotten persuaded here and really nothing said here makes any difference. But if you insist on applying innocent until proven guilty you'll block any significant anti doping action and it's not a necessary standard here anyway.
But you have a different reading comprehension than most...
"Mere association with multiple athletes"... what? More accurately: Being the agent of 20 banned athletes.
Speaking for myself, I cannot be persuaded when no facts exist. Your linking to old, biased opinion pieces from 2012 - 2017 - that in fact have been in part proven wrong - does nothing for me.
For example, the 2 year ban was increased to 4 years, without - as Tucker falsely predicted - an "increased burden of proof". So his "even bigger problem" simply does not exist. Plus, while he argued helplessly against criminal charges, several countries have adopted them successfully, even the USA has done that now. In fact, the involvement of the German and Austrian police as well as the FBI has already taken quite a few drug cheats and their enablers out.
It goes without saying that "Only Gatlin knows if he intentionally doped." is also false, and so on and on. "vitriol of moral righteousness"? What an emotional outbreak that tells you everything you need to know about the author's personal bias.
I can understand your skepticism and desire to reject the opinions of letsrun's paid expert consultant, and dismiss his opinion as biased for differing with yours. But Ross Tucker, and Andy Brown, make many points in their detailed articles that still stand.
It's not quite correct to say that a 2 year ban was increased to 4 years. The 2-year and 4-year bans have always existed before and after 2015 changes, but what changed is who bears the burden in some cases, when deciding whether to sanction doping as intentional versus non-intentional. It's true that Ross failed to predict that WADA could "solve" their "increased burden" problem by simply placing that difficult burden onto the accused to prove otherwise, in order to qualify for a reduction. So a "bigger problem" still exists, but it has been transformed into a different one, resulting in railroading innocent athletes into 4-year bans, when they cannot prove their lack of intent or fault.
WADA has always been in favor of laws criminalizing the suppliers and exploiters, but less enthusiastic about criminalizing the actual doping use of the athletes. That seems like a reasonable stance and place to draw the line. One of the goals of WADA is to harmonize anti-doping enforcement for all athletes from all countries, and criminalizing doping in just a few countries results in further disharmony.
I know what the WADA code is and did not misstate it. I think it should and could be changed. Taking away someone's agent's license is not the same as convicting him of a crime. It's similar to disbarring a lawyer or suspending a medical license, neither of which require the sort of proof a criminal conviction does. And yes, where there's a will there's a way but there just doesn't seem like there's much will on the part of high level administrators and race directors.
I can understand your skepticism and desire to reject the opinions of letsrun's paid expert consultant, and dismiss his opinion as biased for differing with yours. But Ross Tucker, and Andy Brown, make many points in their detailed articles that still stand.
You are showing again your poor reading comprehension. I did not "dismiss his opinion as biased for differing with" mine. What is wrong with you?
"letsrun's paid expert consultant"? That was years later, and on a different topic, where he actually summarized, analyzed and explained the facts and evidence. Completely irrelevant here. Nice distraction though.
