casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It does not interest me to discuss whether they are "disgusting" or "cheats".
No? Fact: you responded "none of the above", when the above included
"b) denying that Baumann, Decker, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Salazar etc. etc. are cheats?
c) denying that these cheats are disgusting?"
rekrunner wrote:
It does interest me to talk about all of the relevant facts, regardless of whether they support or undermine such emotional judgments.
And yet you only mention those who "undermine such emotional judgments", if there are any.
If not, you just downplay the offense, for example by rephrasing "tampering" as "sending an email", or you just outright make up stuff, such as pretending that USADA/WADA have no jurisdiction over Salazar's testosterone traficking.
Denying "cheat" would be discussing it. This does not interest me.
Denying "disgusting" would also be discussing it. This does not interest me.
"e) None of the above" is consistent with not discussing it.
I guess it might look like my arguments are one-sided when I consistently complement half the facts with the missing half.
It is a plain fact that the "email" was considered "tampering" or "attempted tampering" with the doping control process. It seems more honest to be precise. While "tampering" is not wrong, it is a broad description that can imply many things, and only one is a plain fact.
Similarly, with the testosterone experiment, I argued many things, getting it mostly right. I argued that Salazar had a medical need and a prescription, that his sons were not subject to WADA rules, and that the experiment did not fall under USADA's jurisdiction, but could have broken local, state, or federal laws. These arguments all turned out to be upheld, or at least, not leading to an ADRV, as I argued it wouldn't.
I did not realize that "trafficking" covered non-athletes not subject to WADA. I don't recall anyone arguing specifically for "trafficking" to non-athletes. This seems like a technicality, not envisioned by the drafters of a code intended to protect clean athletes. If Dr. Brown had supplied the testosterone, Salazar would have been cleared of all charges related to the testosterone experiment. But I cannot and do not and did not argue against the plain wording of "third party".