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

Coevett wrote:

No one give a sh!t about distance running because of the doping from a certain group that have won nearly everything for the last 30 years. If they are all doping, why is it American sprinters and Kenyan distance runners getting caught all the time?

Maybe you have a point if you're saying that we can never stop the cheats doping, so let everybody dope. But you can't conclude from the fact that 130+ Kenyans have been busted, that everyone else is doping too (unless you're a full on doping apologist loon like a few people here at LetsDope are).

If it were just a question of doping, Americans and Britains and Europeans would also be winning in the last 30 years.

If you look at official WADA reports, you will find that runners all over the world are getting caught all the time.

The question becomes why we only care about American sprinters and Kenyans.

Which Wada report separates runners and their nations?

The possible answer to your question is that if there is a widespread problem you can pretend it is not by having sacpgoats (sp).Once these are sorted the problem goes away. But of course drug use in sport is just sat there like Covid.

Miasma wrote:

Rekrunner

You are litigating this to death. IF it makes you happy, we can all acknowledge that we do not know if Manangoi took banned substances, we do not know if you are his agent, we do not know if you are his lover, we do not know if he pays you to post here, we do not know if you are financially invested in his career and we do not know if you are a transvestite. We know none of that.

What am I litigating? I have noted my agreement and justness with Manangoi's verdict -- which could have been easily avoided with a little more diligence and a phone app or SMS. The whereabouts rules are well defined, and doping substances are not any part of that definition.

What would make me happy is if so-called "fans" of the sport stop trying to pass off their deep-rooted beliefs as knowledge, by saying things like "we know for sure" things you do not know, or cannot know.

What I wonder is, if he had updated his whereabouts, which would have been as simple as sending three text messages, and there were no missed tests, which of you would still say Manangoi was a doper, and on what specific basis? If you maintain he is still a doper, you show your inherent bias, regardless of anti-doping results. If you say, no not yet, it's curious that the material difference to change your mind would only be three text messages.

trollism wrote:

I could easily, like you, find a lot of tenuous reasons why he might not be a cheat, but to any rationally thinking person, they're all squashed by the big ones that show that he is.

Your big reasons are also tenuous -- that is the point.

casual obsever wrote:

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.

Do you consider your use of the term "doping", as broadly defined by WADA and the AIU, is consistent with "trollism's"? Do you agree with "trollism's" use of the term? If not, do you consider that one of you is misleading? What should an outsider think, upon reading your posts, and trollism's post, that use the same term "doping", while meaning different things?

rekrunner wrote:

trollism wrote:

I could easily, like you, find a lot of tenuous reasons why he might not be a cheat, but to any rationally thinking person, they're all squashed by the big ones that show that he is.

Your big reasons are also tenuous -- that is the point.

I agree.

My tenuous reason is lazy ness based on a decade of experience in Kenya when no one really bothered with the whereabouts matters.

Now we have a crackdown.

AIU must have a whole load of two or one failures sat there plus those for three under review prior to a charge.

Await rafts of bans as the sport further declines.

Cure worse than curse.

rule readerr wrote:

Await rafts of bans as the sport further declines.

More bans for all those dopers would be nice, but I doubt it. Note that these recent increased whereabouts cases concern less than a handful of nations, namely those, whose NADOs like AKAD and USADA gave their athletes inappropriate advantages like warning calls and coincidentally missing the special 1-hour window by 1 minute.

This is far from a worldwide trend with only a few rogue nations tackled at this point. While it's embarrassing that we are in the midst of, USADA's behavior isn't exactly surprising.

Sooner or later the athletes will adapt, and not expect warning calls. Hopefully that means that they start using smaller dosages to minimize their glowing windows (and thus their illegitimate advantages over clean competitors).

rule readerr wrote:

Which Wada report separates runners and their nations?

The possible answer to your question is that if there is a widespread problem you can pretend it is not by having sacpgoats (sp).Once these are sorted the problem goes away. But of course drug use in sport is just sat there like Covid.

If you google "wada adrv report", you will quickly find annual reports.

Go to Table 2 on page 35-36, and you can see athletes from 39 countries:

People have been convicted of murder utilizing circumstantial evidence. We have circumstantial evidence that indicates that Manangoi is likely a doper. This we know. We KNOW we have circumstantial evidence which points to Manangoi being a doper.

rule readerr wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Your big reasons are also tenuous -- that is the point.

I agree.

My tenuous reason is lazy ness based on a decade of experience in Kenya when no one really bothered with the whereabouts matters.

Now we have a crackdown.

AIU must have a whole load of two or one failures sat there plus those for three under review prior to a charge.

Await rafts of bans as the sport further declines.

Cure worse than curse.

To be fair, they didn't bother with anti-doping at all until very recently. That's why it's a hard cycle to break.

We've had decades of unbridled Kenyan doping and now they're actually being tested, there are positives and whereabouts violations all the time.

I guessing by your attitude, you think the sport was better when African athletes were allowed complete and unrestricted access to doping, and there was no risk of them getting caught?

xeroxero wrote:

People have been convicted of murder utilizing circumstantial evidence. We have circumstantial evidence that indicates that Manangoi is likely a doper. This we know. We KNOW we have circumstantial evidence which points to Manangoi being a doper.

With that logic everyone is a doper by the simple circumstance of being an athlete.

Cases have also been dismissed for lack of evidence.

I KNOW you have no evidence that can link Manangoi to any banned substances.

The only evidence, circumstantial or not, on Manangoi was not being present where and when a database said he should be.

rekrunner wrote:

xeroxero wrote:

People have been convicted of murder utilizing circumstantial evidence. We have circumstantial evidence that indicates that Manangoi is likely a doper. This we know. We KNOW we have circumstantial evidence which points to Manangoi being a doper.

With that logic everyone is a doper by the simple circumstance of being an athlete.

Cases have also been dismissed for lack of evidence.

I KNOW you have no evidence that can link Manangoi to any banned substances.

The only evidence, circumstantial or not, on Manangoi was not being present where and when a database said he should be.

Now you are simply LYING. You have lost the argument. I would have expected better of you. DISAPPOINTING!

xeroxero wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

With that logic everyone is a doper by the simple circumstance of being an athlete.

Cases have also been dismissed for lack of evidence.

I KNOW you have no evidence that can link Manangoi to any banned substances.

The only evidence, circumstantial or not, on Manangoi was not being present where and when a database said he should be.

Now you are simply LYING. You have lost the argument. I would have expected better of you. DISAPPOINTING!

You should expect from me to say exactly what can be concluded from the evidence, and what cannot.

There is no lie. No evidence connects Manangoi to any banned substances.

It would be a lie to suggest otherwise.

If you went to a court with your circumstantial evidence, you would not get a murder conviction, but you would get an outright dismissal and a stern admonishment from the judge.

rekrunner wrote:

You should expect from me to say exactly what can be concluded from the evidence, and what cannot.

There is no lie. No evidence connects Manangoi to any banned substances.

It would be a lie to suggest otherwise.

If you went to a court with your circumstantial evidence, you would not get a murder conviction, but you would get an outright dismissal and a stern admonishment from the judge.

This isn't a court case though.

What we have is:

A guy from a doping group,

Who's from a doping country,

Who competes in a doping sport,

Who spent 6 months dodging anti-doping officials and missed 3 tests.

You give those facts to anyone impartial and they'll be in hysterics at your assertion that the guy is probably clean.

trollism wrote:

This isn't a court case though.

What we have is:

A guy from a doping group,

Who's from a doping country,

Who competes in a doping sport,

Who spent 6 months dodging anti-doping officials and missed 3 tests.

You give those facts to anyone impartial and they'll be in hysterics at your assertion that the guy is probably clean.

It was "xeroxero" who likened the circumstantial evidence as sufficient for a murder conviction.

What you have is tenuous and lacks impartiality.

You give biased input to anyone impartial, and they will give a biased response.

rekrunner wrote:

trollism wrote:

This isn't a court case though.

What we have is:

A guy from a doping group,

Who's from a doping country,

Who competes in a doping sport,

Who spent 6 months dodging anti-doping officials and missed 3 tests.

You give those facts to anyone impartial and they'll be in hysterics at your assertion that the guy is probably clean.

It was "xeroxero" who likened the circumstantial evidence as sufficient for a murder conviction.

What you have is tenuous and lacks impartiality.

You give biased input to anyone impartial, and they will give a biased response.

Is there a doper you won't defend?

Do you actually support these cheats more once they get busted?

trollism wrote:

Do you actually support these cheats more once they get busted?

Are you new here? Of course he does, from Baumann to Decker to Kiprop to Jeptoo to Salazar.

rekrunner wrote:

rule readerr wrote:

Which Wada report separates runners and their nations?

The possible answer to your question is that if there is a widespread problem you can pretend it is not by having sacpgoats (sp).Once these are sorted the problem goes away. But of course drug use in sport is just sat there like Covid.

If you google "wada adrv report", you will quickly find annual reports.

Go to Table 2 on page 35-36, and you can see athletes from 39 countries:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2017_adrv_report.pdf

Oh dear !

What a school boy error!

The report does not state one thing that you said it did.

But good try, but I am far to competent than you assume.

trollism wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You should expect from me to say exactly what can be concluded from the evidence, and what cannot.

There is no lie. No evidence connects Manangoi to any banned substances.

It would be a lie to suggest otherwise.

If you went to a court with your circumstantial evidence, you would not get a murder conviction, but you would get an outright dismissal and a stern admonishment from the judge.

This isn't a court case though.

What we have is:

A guy from a doping group,

Who's from a doping country,

Who competes in a doping sport,

Who spent 6 months dodging anti-doping officials and missed 3 tests.

You give those facts to anyone impartial and they'll be in hysterics at your assertion that the guy is probably clean.

You say it is not a court case but what is happening is that the cases are being run like court cases.

Twenty years ago a case was done and dusted in a month. The first hearing was called an appeal and no disclosure of evidence.

All getting too complicated for Wada, or rather too expensive.

We have noted the £ 13 million award against wada from a soccer player.