Armstronglivs wrote:
As I said - nothing rouses your suspicions, including if Gidey ran 57x. You haven't denied that point. It is only doping that you deny (including Houlihan's - since you refuse to concede a violation makes her a doper). Guaranteed. You are a predictable tedious apologist.
On the contrary — you repeatedly say nothing and this is precisely why my suspicion is not roused.
But what you actually said is “there is no level of performance that would rouse” my suspicion. Surprisingly from you, that is quite accurate. There are things that would rouse my suspicion, but for distance running, it is not clear to me, after reading from dozens of decades of anti-doping research, and reviewing decades of all-time performances, that any strong positive relationship exists between higher levels of elite distance running performance and doping.
I assumed this is precisely what you mean when you say things like “in the modern era it is no longer possible to tell the difference” and “we can no longer can tell (sic) a doped from a clean performance, or a doped from a clean athlete” and “it becomes impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level” and “it becomes very difficult to confidently distinguish the clean from the doped performance next to it” and “it is difficult to distinguish the doped from the clean competitor, and there is a 50% chance (*) that an athlete would be doped. (* but then you immediately correct yourself) … most expert estimates tend to a ball-park of between 20-50% over a range of sports.”
You want to fault me for not using level of performance as a basis for suspicion when you yourself repeatedly acknowledged it is “impossible”, and that “we can no longer .. tell”, and that “it is difficult” and concede that “most expert estimates” would still give Gidey a 50%-80% chance that she is clean.
When the best (or worst) you can do is argue it is 50/50, while repeatedly failing to respond to my requests to demonstrate any positive correlation, I’m forced to say we need to wait for better data.
I feel sorry for you that you were so easily duped way back in the ‘70s, when you were young and ignorant and naive and impressionable, and now you have developed a false confidence built upon 40+ years of confirmation bias.
Regarding Houlihan, I simply can’t find any common definition of “doper” at the WADA website, nor the World Athletics website, nor at the Athletics Integrity Unit website, nor can I find the term used in the detailed CAS report. The CAS didn’t call her a “doper”, nor did the AIU, nor did the World Athletics, so I don’t find it important to speak in undefined terms that are potentially ambiguous out of the narrow context of anti-doping.