rule readerr 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.
This is a comedy thread, because you've got two guys who both love dopers, but they constantly argue with each other.
They both think that whereabouts failures don't indicate doping, but they seem to be getting all upset with each other over the fine details of the rules.
It's beyond parody.