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.
I'm sure you've gone through life wondering what many things mean. You seem to lack memory persistence. Let's take a short journey down memory lane, shall we?
In post #149, only just yesterday, you reminded me again of what he said, including "... We are not effective enough ...", further clarifying "which suggests it is at least partially effective". I agree with both Howman and Armstronglivs here.
Yet just 6 hours and 4 posts later, by post #153, you completely contradict yourself: "He isn't saying antidoping isn't "effective enough"" and "... he isn't saying what you claim to agree with." Recall you told me multiple times that he did say that.
While you wonder what it all means, I continue to agree with Howman.
So tell me what is the silver lining you are looking for in a message that antidoping isn't effective, that intentional dopers are getting away with it and it is damaging the clean sport brand?
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.
It isn't "minutia". It is the core message. Rekrunner is trying to say that the world's foremost antidoping official isn't really saying what he has said about the "ineffectiveness" of antidoping and that the intentional cheats "are getting away with it". Rekrunner may as well be trying to say the US is bringing peace to Iran by bombing it.
This post was edited 40 seconds after it was posted.
So tell me what is the silver lining you are looking for in a message that antidoping isn't effective, that intentional dopers are getting away with it and it is damaging the clean sport brand?
Are you just going to pretend you didn't falsify yourself? Do you really know what your position is? Because from the outside, you are all over the map, constantly moving the goalposts. Recall again you said Howman said: "... We are not effective enough ...". Then, inexplicably, just hours later, you said the complete opposite: "He isn't saying antidoping isn't "effective enough"" and "... he isn't saying what you claim to agree with."
I agreed with Howman: "We are not effective enough." I agree with Howman that the science is bad, the law is bad, the intelligence is bad, and the investigation is bad. There is a great deal more that can be done to be more effective.
Who said there was a silver lining?
You keep saying "sport". I wonder, which "sport" do you reckon Howman is talking about here? I'm really only interested in distance running.
But generally, these look like reasonable fears arising from "we are not effective enough".
Recall that Howman only said it is "ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules". On the flip side of that coin, anti-doping is completely effective in dealing with those who are not beating the rules.
This means anti-doping is partially effective, as you successfully convinced me earlier. Credit where credit is due.
How big is each part? Even the world's foremost antidoping official concedes: "Without a measure for doping behaviour reliably, evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."
It isn't "minutia". It is the core message. Rekrunner is trying to say that the world's foremost antidoping official isn't really saying what he has said about the "ineffectiveness" of antidoping and that the intentional cheats "are getting away with it". Rekrunner may as well be trying to say the US is bringing peace to Iran by bombing it.
I agreed with Howman's core message, and what he really said about anti-doping being partially effective, to borrow from your successful argument.
I'm only trying to get you to reconcile your own self-contradictions, first confirming Howman told the world "not effective enough", then denying he said it.
Do you know where you stand? What did Howman really say?
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
So tell me what is the silver lining you are looking for in a message that antidoping isn't effective, that intentional dopers are getting away with it and it is damaging the clean sport brand?
Are you just going to pretend you didn't falsify yourself? Do you really know what your position is? Because from the outside, you are all over the map, constantly moving the goalposts. Recall again you said Howman said: "... We are not effective enough ...". Then, inexplicably, just hours later, you said the complete opposite: "He isn't saying antidoping isn't "effective enough"" and "... he isn't saying what you claim to agree with."
I agreed with Howman: "We are not effective enough." I agree with Howman that the science is bad, the law is bad, the intelligence is bad, and the investigation is bad. There is a great deal more that can be done to be more effective.
Who said there was a silver lining?
You keep saying "sport". I wonder, which "sport" do you reckon Howman is talking about here? I'm really only interested in distance running.
But generally, these look like reasonable fears arising from "we are not effective enough".
Recall that Howman only said it is "ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules". On the flip side of that coin, anti-doping is completely effective in dealing with those who are not beating the rules.
This means anti-doping is partially effective, as you successfully convinced me earlier. Credit where credit is due.
How big is each part? Even the world's foremost antidoping official concedes: "Without a measure for doping behaviour reliably, evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."
He isn't saying antidoping is partially effective or he would have said that. He says it is "ineffective", adding that dopers are "getting away with it" and it is damaging the brand of "clean sport". None of that is saying the illusory positive that you try to take from his statement, that antidoping kind of works bar a few problems. Howman is clearly saying they are losing the war against drugs in sport.
I like the way you say antidoping works well with those who aren't doping - which is like conceding the converse that it doesn't work very well with those who are. As Howman says - they are getting away with their doping. Not really a success story.
But why should you worry yourself about that? You maintain that doping is only confined to very few in the sport and for those that do use drugs they don't gain anything from it. Funnily, that's not what Howman says - or he would have said it.
This post was edited 48 seconds after it was posted.
It isn't "minutia". It is the core message. Rekrunner is trying to say that the world's foremost antidoping official isn't really saying what he has said about the "ineffectiveness" of antidoping and that the intentional cheats "are getting away with it". Rekrunner may as well be trying to say the US is bringing peace to Iran by bombing it.
I agreed with Howman's core message, and what he really said about anti-doping being partially effective, to borrow from your successful argument.
I'm only trying to get you to reconcile your own self-contradictions, first confirming Howman told the world "not effective enough", then denying he said it.
Do you know where you stand? What did Howman really say?
"Not effective enough" is not saying it is "partially effective". It is essentially saying it is largely ineffective. He uses the term "ineffective". He doesn't qualify his statement to say where antidoping works well, and so making a nonsense of his essential message that antidoping is losing. He offers no consolation to doping deniers such as yourself. But he is clearly speaking to an audience that will understand what he is saying. That does not include you.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
He isn't saying antidoping is partially effective or he would have said that. He says it is "ineffective", adding that dopers are "getting away with it" and it is damaging the brand of "clean sport". None of that is saying the illusory positive that you try to take from his statement, that antidoping kind of works bar a few problems. Howman is clearly saying they are losing the war against drugs in sport.
I like the way you say antidoping works well with those who aren't doping - which is like conceding the converse that it doesn't work very well with those who are. As Howman says - they are getting away with their doping. Not really a success story.
But why should you worry yourself about that? You maintain that doping is only confined to very few in the sport and for those that do use drugs they don't gain anything from it. Funnily, that's not what Howman says - or he would have said it.
You are the one who equated "not effective enough" to "partially effective":
Armstronglivs wrote:
antidoping isn't "effective enough", which suggests it is at least partially effective
I didn't say "those who aren't doping", but "those who aren't beating the rules", i.e. the ones who are caught by the effectiveness of anti-doping.
"Not effective enough" is not saying it is "partially effective". It is essentially saying it is largely ineffective. He uses the term "ineffective". He doesn't qualify his statement to say where antidoping works well, and so making a nonsense of his essential message that antidoping is losing. He offers no consolation to doping deniers such as yourself. But he is clearly speaking to an audience that will understand what he is saying. That does not include you.
Again you plainly contradict yourself:
Armstronglivs wrote:
antidoping isn't "effective enough", which suggests it is at least partially effective
And Howman does qualify the statement to apply only to the fraction of those who are beating the anti-doping rules:
Howman wrote:
ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules
Honestly, I feel bad replying to you when you just open your mouth to change your feet.
"Not effective enough" is not saying it is "partially effective". It is essentially saying it is largely ineffective. He uses the term "ineffective". He doesn't qualify his statement to say where antidoping works well, and so making a nonsense of his essential message that antidoping is losing. He offers no consolation to doping deniers such as yourself. But he is clearly speaking to an audience that will understand what he is saying. That does not include you.
Again you plainly contradict yourself:
Armstronglivs wrote:
antidoping isn't "effective enough", which suggests it is at least partially effective
And Howman does qualify the statement to apply only to the fraction of those who are beating the anti-doping rules:
Howman wrote:
ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules
Honestly, I feel bad replying to you when you just open your mouth to change your feet.
Only a fraction are beating the rules? Since you don't use "fraction" in the popular sense of very few it is estimated to mean more than half of pro and elite athletes. If they weren't Howman wouldn't be concerned that antidoping is "ineffective".
If he was saying what you claim he is saying his address to the conference would have been that "a few dopers are getting away with it but doping control is mostly effective because most athletes aren't doping. So let's give ourselves and the sport a pat on the back." Strangely, he said pretty much the opposite of that. But not that you could understand that.
Fantastic post. A lot of these posters consistently cite Occams Razor or other arguments. Then when presented with an athlete earmarking $50,000 annually to an organization that have proven highly effective at catching Kenyan road racers, it’s part of some vast virtue-signaling effort that makes almost no logical sense
Yes Sawe/adidas have something to gain from this initiative but IF he is doping I agree this is an insanely risky move with minimal payoff. The same people who think Kipchoge and Kiptum are guilty as hell will believe Sawe is no matter what he does. Kipchoge is a massive figure despite doubts around him. Sawe could be too, and he doesn’t need this at all to get there. But it’s clear he wants convert as many of the skeptics as possible in a way that few athletes do.
If you know you won't test positive (like Marion Jones knew a quarter of a century ago with "the clear") you have nothing to lose by inviting further tests. But it is a useful pr move when you know to be Kenyan now is to be automatically labelled a doper. Tests didn't catch every doped Russian athlete either. This is a doped sport.
It is very hard to believe he is clean, but if he isn't, then the others can't be either. Two sub 1:59 times in one marathon and a 2:00? What has driven such massive improvement? Norwegian singles method?
It is very hard to believe he is clean, but if he isn't, then the others can't be either. Two sub 1:59 times in one marathon and a 2:00? What has driven such massive improvement? Norwegian singles method?
No, more likely they are running massive miles in doubles or triples.