Jonathan Gault is (rightly) full of praise for Elijah Manangoi - a guy who just got banned for 2 years

More Rekrunner doping apologist nonsense of the highest order.

Does it not concern you that this 2020 spate of Whereabouts failure suspensions involve almost entirely American sprinters, Kenyan supermen, and Bahrani imports? The exact same types who are failing EPO and roid tests again and again? Is it just a co-incidence?

The reason why he is suspended, like anybody missing three tests, is because World Athletics/AIU have decided on the balance of probabilities, that missing three tests is evasion whether than carelessness.

Why out of the thousands of athletes being subjected to testing is it a 9.7 sprinter and a 3:28 1500m runner, and dodgy Bahrainis, 'forgetting' their testing slots? Possibly they are getting tested a little more, but at the same time they surely have the money and teams to make sure they don't screw up out of carelessness?

We don't know for certain he doped, but the balance of probabilities is he did. In any case, he committed an anti-doping offence. The poster who claimed that anyone calling Manangoi a doper could be sued for libel doesn't understand libel laws. UK has some of the harshest libel laws in the world, but it's a defence even there if a majority of reasonable people would share the opinion stated by the alleged 'libeler'. It doesn't matter what Jonathan Gault thinks, or what Rekrunner thinks - the vast majority of informed people (i.e. the running community/athletics fans) would consider Manangoi a doper for missing three tests.

rekrunner wrote:

The photo caption says in big blue letters: "Praise for a drug cheat?"

A whereabouts failure rule violation does not make an athlete a "drug cheat".

You are correct. Jonathan Gault said the same thing. I changed the graphic. For some reason, it won't update above. See below.

Anyone know where we can find the data of how many tests he passed in the same period?

100% agree with the 3 missed tests stance, but it's a completely different ball game if you miss 3 out of 50 tests, compared to 3 out of 5 for example.

If I’m ever on trial for a crime, I sure hope you’re on the jury rekrunner.

OK so the point of the testing is to ascertain whether an individual has any detectable impermissible levels of substances in one’s body. The athlete does not permit this to be ascertained three times. This is dispositive evidence that the athlete does not want that data to be accessible to testing authorities. The athlete is hiding something. This we know for sure. A clean athlete would not behave in this way. We know this. Not three times in a 12 month period. This is what we know. The odds of a clean athlete behaving in this way are so small as to not be worth granting any credence to at all.

rekrunner wrote:

So kudos to Manangoi for taking the blame, and admitting he made mistakes.

(In hindsight) two of his violations could have been avoided with a simple SMS.

The third one could also have been avoided with a much higher level of diligence, had Manangoi doubled checked the entries in ADAMS (ultimately that is always the athlete's responsibility, even if they delegate updating whereabouts to someone else).

But Letsrun is wrong to label Manangoi a "drug cheat" -- this mentality only damages the sport further, unnecessarily.

Your assumption that he didn’t purposely miss these tests to avoid getting a positive may or may not be true. It is also just as likely that he missed them on purpose.

Yes. One simple text message or phone call would have been enough to avert this ban - of course unless he was glowing, then calling and getting tested a few hours later would have resulted in a four year ban. Hmmm, what does Logic 101 suggest? And as reminder, his three missed tests were in less than 6 months (!), not just 12 months. Might be a sad record.

In this instance, the Athlete has had three Missed Tests in the twelve-month period beginning on 3 July 2019, specifically:

i. A Missed Test on 3 July 2019;

ii. A Missed Test on 12 November 2019; and

iii. A Missed Test on 22 December 2019.

Lot's of people who hate freedom on this thread

Miasma wrote:

OK so the point of the testing is to ascertain whether an individual has any detectable impermissible levels of substances in one’s body. The athlete does not permit this to be ascertained three times. This is dispositive evidence that the athlete does not want that data to be accessible to testing authorities. The athlete is hiding something. This we know for sure. A clean athlete would not behave in this way. We know this. Not three times in a 12 month period. This is what we know. The odds of a clean athlete behaving in this way are so small as to not be worth granting any credence to at all.

Pure BS, come on. It's amazing what people who don't have any clue about something can chime in on it.

Haha YO-YO you are not very bright. I have given you a Cliffs Notes version of what happened. Educate yourself. Reread my post 10 times at least to try to get educated.

You have two major responsibilities as a pro runner:

1) Train hard and compete

2) Be available for drug tests.

A clean athlete would go out of his or her way to be available for testing... every minute of every day. Going out of town? Call the testers. Going to dinner? Call the testers. Stuck in traffic? GET OUT AND WALK to the testers. Your career is on the line.

Lance Armstrong said similar denials too.....

rojo wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The photo caption says in big blue letters: "Praise for a drug cheat?"

A whereabouts failure rule violation does not make an athlete a "drug cheat".

You are correct. Jonathan Gault said the same thing. I changed the graphic. For some reason, it won't update above. See below.

https://twitter.com/letsrundotcom/status/1329177834967994368

Thank you.

briswiss wrote:

If I’m ever on trial for a crime, I sure hope you’re on the jury rekrunner.

A jurist is a trier of facts. This requires facts.

If you are on trial for the crime of being a "drug cheat", and the only facts in evidence are three missed tests, a good defense lawyer will get the charge dismissed for lack of evidence before it ever gets to a jury.

More Coevett doping propagandist nonsense of the highest order.

I would say the increase in whereabouts failure violations is a function of certain groups succeeding more, over-representing the population of athletes in the RTP subject to unannounced out of competition testing, and in cases like Kenya, a significant increase in out of competition testing -- a change they are not yet accustomed to.

I would suspect, given human nature, that some athletes are very diligent about being available for testing, and some athletes have lower diligence, not appreciating the gravity until it is too late, and that some athletes avoid doping testers on purpose, because they are glowing. Athletes that fail whereabouts can fall in the last two categories. We cannot really determine likelihood and "balance of probabilities", but we can assume that both categories are non-zero.

Have you taken the brain exercise above? Are you really suggesting on "balance of probabilities" that Manangoi went to the US, bringing dope with him across international borders, in order to compete at Pre and subject himself to in competition testing, and then doped in the US, or perhaps in transit from the US, bringing drugs into the airports, then staged a delayed flight, losing his bag with his house keys, forcing him to stay in a nearby hotel, while until the "glow" is over? Or that he flew to a doctor to treat an injury while he was not training or competing, only to avoid testers by putting the wrong return date by one day in ADAMs, because he knew he would be "glowing" on return?

Arguments like "the vast majority of informed people" is another logical fallacy, e.g. "appeal to the majority". You cannot establish facts by consensus. You also allege that a majority holds this belief. Furthermore, you try to align yourself with "informed people", without showing that any informed person reasonably and logically agrees with you, giving the false illusion that you are informed and drawing conclusions based on information, and those who point out the fundamental logical flaws combined with lack of facts must not be.

The East African myth was just epo wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So kudos to Manangoi for taking the blame, and admitting he made mistakes.

(In hindsight) two of his violations could have been avoided with a simple SMS.

The third one could also have been avoided with a much higher level of diligence, had Manangoi doubled checked the entries in ADAMS (ultimately that is always the athlete's responsibility, even if they delegate updating whereabouts to someone else).

But Letsrun is wrong to label Manangoi a "drug cheat" -- this mentality only damages the sport further, unnecessarily.

Your assumption that he didn’t purposely miss these tests to avoid getting a positive may or may not be true. It is also just as likely that he missed them on purpose.

This is not my assumption. My conclusion is the lack of basis, i.e. the lack of facts that drugs were involved. Otherwise the charge would be "possession" or "use" resulting in a larger ban.

There are two possibilities, drugs or no drugs, which we cannot make an informed decision, because we do not have the information.

Suppose hypothetically we have 100 whereabouts failures. The possibility remains that athletes will fall into both categories. If your "default" position is that they are all "drug cheats", you are accusing the "no drug" group of an offense that they did not commit, and condemning them with a reputation they do not deserve -- I find that morally questionable, and casting the same umbrella over the whole group can only serve to maximize the damage to the sport beyond what it deserves.

This word "likely" keeps coming up. For two of the missed tests, the known circumstances doesn't seem like a likely scenario for Manangoi to be "glowing" -- see the brain exercise I gave above, and try to assess the likelihood for me.

Miasma wrote:

OK so the point of the testing is to ascertain whether an individual has any detectable impermissible levels of substances in one’s body. The athlete does not permit this to be ascertained three times. This is dispositive evidence that the athlete does not want that data to be accessible to testing authorities. The athlete is hiding something. This we know for sure. A clean athlete would not behave in this way. We know this. Not three times in a 12 month period. This is what we know. The odds of a clean athlete behaving in this way are so small as to not be worth granting any credence to at all.

This is not "dispositive evidence" of the athletes intent.

Suggesting "we know for sure" is a lie, as this is not knowledge.

Suggesting "this is what we know" is also a lie.

Maybe you simply don't know the definition of knowledge, and what it takes for something to become knowledge.

You also speak of "odds" without any measure that would help establish the odds.

The reason that they allow three missed tests before a violation, is that it is significantly probable that a missed test happens for innocent and unfortunate reasons of circumstance. Two missed tests are less probable, but still probable. Three missed tests are less probable still, but the probability is not zero.

The ban becomes a punitive sanction, meant to serve as a deterrent, rather than an indication of guilt.

Yusef Scummm wrote:

You have two major responsibilities as a pro runner:

1) Train hard and compete

2) Be available for drug tests.

A clean athlete would go out of his or her way to be available for testing... every minute of every day. Going out of town? Call the testers. Going to dinner? Call the testers. Stuck in traffic? GET OUT AND WALK to the testers. Your career is on the line.

Lance Armstrong said similar denials too.....

"Because Armstrong" has to rank as one of the worst arguments there can be. Why do you pick a cyclist from more than a decade ago as an example?

"Calling the testers" is not a possible remedy -- which one would they call? I think you mean update their whereabouts information in ADAMs.

The problem with debating someone like you Rekrunner is that you admit that you are the most ignorant poster here. You admit that you know NOTHING. You essentially state that we can KNOW nothing. Because you know nothing, you assert that everyone else must be similarly ignorant as you are. Your extrapolation and projection of your undeniable ignorance upon all you encounter renders you laughable as you continue to point out that others know nothing because you so clearly do.

So the same groups who are happy to inject themselves with roids or epo, just so happen to be the same groups that are a bit careless. There also seems to be a direct correlation between the ability to run close to clearly doped world records and the proclivity to miss tests. Coincidence much?

A very contrived attempt at reductio ad absurdum Rekrunner. You need to go back to your Wikipedia list of logical fallacies and start again. How do you know Manangoi wasn't delaying flights, deliberately getting stuck in traffic jams etc, many times? And on neither occasion did he update his whereabouts which would have been very simple to do. In other words, he might have been taking every chance to miss a test to reduce the odds of getting popped (or a negative ABP built up). In fact, the AIU rule supposes that he was.

And why couldn't he dope in the USA? I'm pretty sure a World Champion 1500m runner could have plenty of contacts in just about any country when it comes to doping.

You'd be better off taking these issues up with World Athletics, AIU, WADA, the UK government etc. I was just pointing out facts as to why your opinion is pretty irrelevant. The three missed whereabouts rule is based on the probability that one missed test may be regarded as a misfortune, two looks like carelessness, and three is evasion to escape a doping positive. Appeal to the (informed) majority is a defence in libel in the UK for presumably the reason you can't blacken somebody's name if it's already black in the eyes of most (informed) people. Again, you need to take these issues up with your local MP in London, who will perhaps be able to raise the matter in the Houses of Parliament as to why athletes missing three tests through delaying flights and getting caught in 4 am traffic jams need to have their good name protected as clean and honest sportsmen.