Armstronglivs wrote:
WADA is not "concerned" with rules; it has rules because its concern is doping. The argument is not whether an athlete who misses a single test is doping; no one is claiming that. That even applies to two missed tests. But 3 missed tests puts an athlete in the same position as an athlete who returns a positive test and therefore similarly earns a ban. The inference is that clean athletes won't miss three consecutive tests, otherwise the rule would be seen as unjustifiable. There is nothing to suggest that it is "probable" that a clean athlete will miss 3 tests in a year - conceivable, yes, but highly unlikely. And that is why a violation of the rule carries a serious penalty.
You keep referring to penalties, as if that had any bearing. Even on your terms, you lose.
If it were a doping violation, the penalty would be 4 years.
The penalty for a whereabouts violation is 2 years.
Hence, WADA does not consider three whereabouts failures a doping violation.
You also say "the argument" as if there is one. By definition, there is no argument. There is only obstinate denial of clear and unambiguous definitions. All this talk about inference can equally be replaced by subjective "imagination", which does not factor into the interpretation of WADA's anti-doping rules.