casual obsever wrote:
rule reader wrote:
You live in an Alice in Wonderland were words can mean anything you want.
Are you playing opposite day along with rekrunner?
Clearly using the correct technical terminology when discussing Manangoi's doping case/infraction, as put in writing by WADA and AIU, is appropriate, and neither misleading nor like Alice in Wonderland.
Recall my original "goalpost" was against the use non-WADA defined term "drug cheat".
It is not misleading only when you have established the full context, or everyone is using the term to mean the same thing.
It is misleading when you are using a different definition than your audience, who may not realize that WADA uses the term more broadly to include ADRVs that do not involved any banned substances.
If "trollism", by being comfortable "labelling (Manangoi) a doper" simply means Manangoi committed a whereabouts failure rule violation, and does not suggest or imply that Manangoi is a "drug user" or a "drug cheat", and everyone understood it that way, only then would your point would be valid, and there would be no one misled.
But the mundane interpretaton of the term "doping" is more narrow, with a strong implication that the accused took banned substances. Take as case in point "Yusef Scummm" above who suggests the extreme position: "one thing we surely agree on is the guy is a drug user".
And if someone like me were to assert that your use of the term consistent with WADA and the AIU does not suggest drug use, and point out the differences in understanding, he would be personally attacked as "naive" and "ignorant".