Is Sabastian Sawe showing that the sport is cleaner than we thought?

Armstronglivs wrote:

I quoted what Howman said. He says dopers are "getting away with it" and antidoping is "ineffective". What part of the term "getting away with it" means they are getting caught, and which part of the word "ineffective" suggests they are catching dopers?

Half a Dozen Reasons wrote:

Window Exit wrote:

This is a Kenyan, the most doped country in the world. Coached by Berardelli. Practically a wildfire. Additional “testing” is just another cover for someone that knows they won’t be caught.

Believing Kenyan runners are clean is like believing in Santa.

Berardelli currently has six athletes under suspension for drug use - that we know of. Sawe is radioactive, so are teammates Wanyonyi and Phanuel Koech and everyone else under Berardelli.

Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:

In a case like Shelby, she has convinced herself that she's innocent because she believes everyone else is doing it too so therefore it should be allowable. That's essentially what has occurred regarding that.

runn wrote:

I know it's dirty. I know a lot of runners cheat. But I think it's cleaner than most letsrunners think it is.

Having said that, I'm never surprised at a failed test from anyone. It's more like disgust for them.

I DO wish that the moderators had the guts to delete comments that make unfounded accusations. They hijack threads and we are no longer talking about races.

We all have our doubts-there's no need to make unfounded accusations.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I quoted what Howman said. He says dopers are "getting away with it" and antidoping is "ineffective". What part of the term "getting away with it" means they are getting caught, and which part of the word "ineffective" suggests they are catching dopers?

I also quoted what Howman said. For example:

"... evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."

and "... most evidence pointing to a prevalence rate of 0 to 5% overall, ..."

What he doesn't say, because he can't (and he says he can't) is how many dopers are "getting away with it", although he does say what is "most plausible", indicating the increased role of belief, rather than evidence and knowledge.

rekrunner wrote:

Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:

In a case like Shelby, she has convinced herself that she's innocent because she believes everyone else is doing it too so therefore it should be allowable. That's essentially what has occurred regarding that.

That sounds like something you've convinced yourself.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I quoted what Howman said. He says dopers are "getting away with it" and antidoping is "ineffective". What part of the term "getting away with it" means they are getting caught, and which part of the word "ineffective" suggests they are catching dopers?

I also quoted what Howman said. For example:

"... evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."

and "... most evidence pointing to a prevalence rate of 0 to 5% overall, ..."

What he doesn't say, because he can't (and he says he can't) is how many dopers are "getting away with it", although he does say what is "most plausible", indicating the increased role of belief, rather than evidence and knowledge.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That sounds like something you've convinced yourself.

Speaking there as one who does nothing else.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Speaking there as one who does nothing else.

For me, the jury is still out, and I wouldn't want to jump to any premature or unfounded conclusions..

Armstronglivs wrote:

You arent "agreeing" with Howman. He isn't saying antidoping isn't "effective enough", which suggests it is at least partially effective; he is saying it "isn't effective", without qualifying that. He even reinforces that, by saying dopers "are getting away with their doping".

You can't even purport to agree without falsifying what you claim to agree with. You don't "agree" with him because he isn't saying what you claim to agree with. You can't write a sentence that isn't a form of lying.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You arent "agreeing" with Howman. He isn't saying antidoping isn't "effective enough", which suggests it is at least partially effective; he is saying it "isn't effective", without qualifying that. He even reinforces that, by saying dopers "are getting away with their doping".

You can't even purport to agree without falsifying what you claim to agree with. You don't "agree" with him because he isn't saying what you claim to agree with. You can't write a sentence that isn't a form of lying.

Armstronglivs wrote:

To remind you again of what he said:-

"Let’s be honest and pragmatic … intentional dopers at elite level are evading detection ... “We are not effective enough nowadays in catching cheats.

I agreed with Howman. We are not effective enough nowadays in catching cheats.

Come back to me when you can agree with yourself.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Howman - “Our ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules is hurting the anti-doping movement’s credibility, with the resulting risk that our clean-sport message falls on deaf ears.”

Gee, I wonder what he means? Could it be he is saying antidoping is actually "ineffective"? You had better help out with one of your dictionary definitions, that turns it into the opposite of what is meant.

pupilpi3142 wrote:

good grief, are you two morans really arguing the minutia of what someone else might have said?

take a step back and look at yourselves.