Thanks Thoughtsleader for the reality checks. Alfred Kipketer was banned for 2 years, for 4 whereabouts violations in 12 months, and not for failing any drug test for EPO, or any other banned drug.
More fact checking:
- The tweet itself says former 800m World record holder -- it can only be Wilson Kipketer, who competed for Denmark
- In 2018, Alfred Kipketer, born in Dec. 1996, would have been 21 years old
- The only "famously fled testers" athlete I can think of is Patrick Siele, the athlete who jumped out the window when testers arrived
Missing 4 tests in 12 months is tantamount to 'fleeing drug testers though'.
You know it's almost impossible to have only ducked 4 times if you miss 4 times.
He must have been ducking countless times during the year.
Maybe.
But would you say "famously fled"?
Coevett said "famously fled anti-doping testers before finally testing positive for EPO and getting banned."
The "near zero" "cascading improbabilites" argument only comes from a party on one side of a dispute, so neutrality and truthfulness cannot be taken for granted, especially given the history of one of the "experts" in a previous case. (quote)
"Only" comes from a party in one side of the dispute? The party you refer to is those who are responsible for formulating and enforcing the antidoping rules, and who conducted the test that she failed. They are not partial but simply enforce the rules. The evidence they presented was part of the process of determining on the facts available whether there had been an offence. As the other party she is an athlete who failed a drug test and thereby breached the rules unless she could produce an acceptable defence. She couldn't. AIU/WADA and Houlihan are hardly equivalent as parties to a dispute. She was subject to their authority. She had a right of appeal against their ban and her appeal failed. Case closed.
You are hopeless. This only confirms, you don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
- The "cascade of ... improbabilities ... close to zero" was attributed by the CAS (a panel of arbitrators) to the "claimant", i.e. "World Athletics". It is a "submission" from one of the parties in a dispute.
- It does not come from WADA, "who (is) responsible for formulating and enforcing the antidoping rules".
- It does not come from the WADA-certified lab, who "conducted the test", and provided the "evidence" of "whether there had been an offence".
- And it was not attributed to the "Expert Witnesses" hired by the "World Athletics".
Furthermore, you are still conflating "offence" with the consequence of the "offence". The evidence of the "offence" is the positive test, when it is considered an AAF. The "cascade of ... improbabilities" submission, and Houlihan's defense, is not any part of the process to determine "whether there had been an offence", but a part of the process to determine whether she can "benefit from a plea of No (Significant) Fault or Negligence". Even if her "defence" were accepted in full, the "offence" remains fully established, and the benefit would be a reduced sanction, or no sanction at all, for the established "offence".
The "near zero" "cascading improbabilites" argument only comes from a party on one side of a dispute, so neutrality and truthfulness cannot be taken for granted, especially given the history of one of the "experts" in a previous case. (quote)
"Only" comes from a party in one side of the dispute? The party you refer to is those who are responsible for formulating and enforcing the antidoping rules, and who conducted the test that she failed. They are not partial but simply enforce the rules. The evidence they presented was part of the process of determining on the facts available whether there had been an offence. As the other party she is an athlete who failed a drug test and thereby breached the rules unless she could produce an acceptable defence. She couldn't. AIU/WADA and Houlihan are hardly equivalent as parties to a dispute. She was subject to their authority. She had a right of appeal against their ban and her appeal failed. Case closed.
You are hopeless. This only confirms, you don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
- The "cascade of ... improbabilities ... close to zero" was attributed by the CAS (a panel of arbitrators) to the "claimant", i.e. "World Athletics". It is a "submission" from one of the parties in a dispute.
- It does not come from WADA, "who (is) responsible for formulating and enforcing the antidoping rules".
- It does not come from the WADA-certified lab, who "conducted the test", and provided the "evidence" of "whether there had been an offence".
- And it was not attributed to the "Expert Witnesses" hired by the "World Athletics".
Furthermore, you are still conflating "offence" with the consequence of the "offence". The evidence of the "offence" is the positive test, when it is considered an AAF. The "cascade of ... improbabilities" submission, and Houlihan's defense, is not any part of the process to determine "whether there had been an offence", but a part of the process to determine whether she can "benefit from a plea of No (Significant) Fault or Negligence". Even if her "defence" were accepted in full, the "offence" remains fully established, and the benefit would be a reduced sanction, or no sanction at all, for the established "offence".
What a load of casuistical waffle. The expert evidence was adduced by World Athletics applying WADA rules and procedures. If it had not been so it would have been rejected by CAS. It wasn't. Yes - the offence was established by the failed doping test but was confirmed by the further evidence - and lack of it by Houlihan - that showed her attempted defence couldn't meet the balance of probabilities.
You should give up on your bullsh*tting about the process and simply say you believe Houlihan. It would be more honest. Your attempts to undermine the credibility of the case against her are just garbage.
The "near zero" "cascading improbabilites" argument only comes from a party on one side of a dispute, so neutrality and truthfulness cannot be taken for granted, especially given the history of one of the "experts" in a previous case. (quote)
"Only" comes from a party in one side of the dispute? The party you refer to is those who are responsible for formulating and enforcing the antidoping rules, and who conducted the test that she failed. They are not partial but simply enforce the rules. The evidence they presented was part of the process of determining on the facts available whether there had been an offence. As the other party she is an athlete who failed a drug test and thereby breached the rules unless she could produce an acceptable defence. She couldn't. AIU/WADA and Houlihan are hardly equivalent as parties to a dispute. She was subject to their authority. She had a right of appeal against their ban and her appeal failed. Case closed.
You are hopeless. This only confirms, you don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
- The "cascade of ... improbabilities ... close to zero" was attributed by the CAS (a panel of arbitrators) to the "claimant", i.e. "World Athletics". It is a "submission" from one of the parties in a dispute.
- It does not come from WADA, "who (is) responsible for formulating and enforcing the antidoping rules".
- It does not come from the WADA-certified lab, who "conducted the test", and provided the "evidence" of "whether there had been an offence".
- And it was not attributed to the "Expert Witnesses" hired by the "World Athletics".
Furthermore, you are still conflating "offence" with the consequence of the "offence". The evidence of the "offence" is the positive test, when it is considered an AAF. The "cascade of ... improbabilities" submission, and Houlihan's defense, is not any part of the process to determine "whether there had been an offence", but a part of the process to determine whether she can "benefit from a plea of No (Significant) Fault or Negligence". Even if her "defence" were accepted in full, the "offence" remains fully established, and the benefit would be a reduced sanction, or no sanction at all, for the established "offence".
You are correct.
Armstronglies has had all this explained before with specific reference to the rules which he can easily check.
Missing 4 tests in 12 months is tantamount to 'fleeing drug testers though'.
You know it's almost impossible to have only ducked 4 times if you miss 4 times.
He must have been ducking countless times during the year.
Maybe.
But would you say "famously fled"?
Coevett said "famously fled anti-doping testers before finally testing positive for EPO and getting banned."
It's a wonder that anyone who can duck 4 tests in 12 months can stand upright. They sure can't lie straight.
"Famously fled" easily applies to a runner who made a practice of literally evading testers. It's like he's trying to set some sort of record. Would you prefer "accidentally fled"?
You are hopeless. This only confirms, you don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
- The "cascade of ... improbabilities ... close to zero" was attributed by the CAS (a panel of arbitrators) to the "claimant", i.e. "World Athletics". It is a "submission" from one of the parties in a dispute.
- It does not come from WADA, "who (is) responsible for formulating and enforcing the antidoping rules".
- It does not come from the WADA-certified lab, who "conducted the test", and provided the "evidence" of "whether there had been an offence".
- And it was not attributed to the "Expert Witnesses" hired by the "World Athletics".
Furthermore, you are still conflating "offence" with the consequence of the "offence". The evidence of the "offence" is the positive test, when it is considered an AAF. The "cascade of ... improbabilities" submission, and Houlihan's defense, is not any part of the process to determine "whether there had been an offence", but a part of the process to determine whether she can "benefit from a plea of No (Significant) Fault or Negligence". Even if her "defence" were accepted in full, the "offence" remains fully established, and the benefit would be a reduced sanction, or no sanction at all, for the established "offence".
You are correct.
Armstronglies has had all this explained before with specific reference to the rules which he can easily check.
You are hopeless. This only confirms, you don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
- The "cascade of ... improbabilities ... close to zero" was attributed by the CAS (a panel of arbitrators) to the "claimant", i.e. "World Athletics". It is a "submission" from one of the parties in a dispute.
- It does not come from WADA, "who (is) responsible for formulating and enforcing the antidoping rules".
- It does not come from the WADA-certified lab, who "conducted the test", and provided the "evidence" of "whether there had been an offence".
- And it was not attributed to the "Expert Witnesses" hired by the "World Athletics".
Furthermore, you are still conflating "offence" with the consequence of the "offence". The evidence of the "offence" is the positive test, when it is considered an AAF. The "cascade of ... improbabilities" submission, and Houlihan's defense, is not any part of the process to determine "whether there had been an offence", but a part of the process to determine whether she can "benefit from a plea of No (Significant) Fault or Negligence". Even if her "defence" were accepted in full, the "offence" remains fully established, and the benefit would be a reduced sanction, or no sanction at all, for the established "offence".
What a load of casuistical waffle. The expert evidence was adduced by World Athletics applying WADA rules and procedures. If it had not been so it would have been rejected by CAS. It wasn't. Yes - the offence was established by the failed doping test but was confirmed by the further evidence - and lack of it by Houlihan - that showed her attempted defence couldn't meet the balance of probabilities.
You should give up on your bullsh*tting about the process and simply say you believe Houlihan. It would be more honest. Your attempts to undermine the credibility of the case against her are just garbage.
What was the further confirmation that you depend upon ? Are you making things up again?
Her defence was not tested against the balance of probabilities; why do you keep making things up?
The rules make it clear that you just keep making things up; why do you keep inventing stuff ?
What a load of casuistical waffle. The expert evidence was adduced by World Athletics applying WADA rules and procedures. If it had not been so it would have been rejected by CAS. It wasn't. Yes - the offence was established by the failed doping test but was confirmed by the further evidence - and lack of it by Houlihan - that showed her attempted defence couldn't meet the balance of probabilities.
You should give up on your bullsh*tting about the process and simply say you believe Houlihan. It would be more honest. Your attempts to undermine the credibility of the case against her are just garbage.
What was the further confirmation that you depend upon ? Are you making things up again?
Her defence was not tested against the balance of probabilities; why do you keep making things up?
The rules make it clear that you just keep making things up; why do you keep inventing stuff ?
From the decision:
92. Pursuant to Rule 3.1 of the WA ADR, to rebut the presumption the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities:
92. Pursuant to Rule 3.1 of the WA ADR, to rebut the presumption the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities:
Have you read the decision yet?
That relates to the nature of the sanction and not the guilty verdict.
This must be 50 times you have been told this so why do you keep getting it wrong.
It must be that you are entirely content with not telling the truth !
Her guilt was established by her positive test. It was deemed intentional because she failed to rebut the presumption of intent in accordance with the standard of proof of the balance of probabilities, as rule 92 above requires. Guilt + intent = 4 year ban. A doper got what she deserved.
Kenya has been left with two athletes in men’s 1,500 metres after the 2016 world under-20 1,500m champion, Kumari Taki, was kicked out of Team Kenya village in Birmingham. Taki was among three Kenyan athletes who were sent back home three days ago, with speculation rife that they were flagged down for various doping offences.
Others are marathoners Stella Barsosio and Purity Changwony. Taki was the fourth Kenyan athlete to be stopped from competing at the “Club Games” for doping-related issues.
Another marathoner, Philomon Kacheran, suffered similar fate and was replaced by Michael Githae, who ended up claiming bronze medal for Kenya in the marathon.
Kenya has been left with two athletes in men’s 1,500 metres after the 2016 world under-20 1,500m champion, Kumari Taki, was kicked out of Team Kenya village in Birmingham. Taki was among three Kenyan athletes who were sent back home three days ago, with speculation rife that they were flagged down for various doping offences.
Others are marathoners Stella Barsosio and Purity Changwony. Taki was the fourth Kenyan athlete to be stopped from competing at the “Club Games” for doping-related issues.
Another marathoner, Philomon Kacheran, suffered similar fate and was replaced by Michael Githae, who ended up claiming bronze medal for Kenya in the marathon.
Was about to send this. Again some will look at this as a further negative, but you can tell Kenya is hellbent on getting dopers out of their midst. It will be interesting to see what the violations of the 4 are. Clearly there is a deterrent needed for athletes to either stop being lax in their whereabouts or cheating. The message should be sent pretty clear, there are no sacred cows.
That relates to the nature of the sanction and not the guilty verdict.
This must be 50 times you have been told this so why do you keep getting it wrong.
It must be that you are entirely content with not telling the truth !
Her guilt was established by her positive test. It was deemed intentional because she failed to rebut the presumption of intent in accordance with the standard of proof of the balance of probabilities, as rule 92 above requires. Guilt + intent = 4 year ban. A doper got what she deserved.
So I gather that the above is an apology for lying even thought you fail to make it clear that the standard of proof for the guilty verdict is NOT as you have previously lied about.
But you still have not grasped that there is no such thing as a positive test in the Wada rules.
But you have had all this explained to you but you still keep making things up.
Study the rules and then you will realise how you continue to mislead.
You are hopeless. This only confirms, you don't really understand how anti-doping works, and who the different players are, and what their roles are, do you?
- The "cascade of ... improbabilities ... close to zero" was attributed by the CAS (a panel of arbitrators) to the "claimant", i.e. "World Athletics". It is a "submission" from one of the parties in a dispute.
- It does not come from WADA, "who (is) responsible for formulating and enforcing the antidoping rules".
- It does not come from the WADA-certified lab, who "conducted the test", and provided the "evidence" of "whether there had been an offence".
- And it was not attributed to the "Expert Witnesses" hired by the "World Athletics".
Furthermore, you are still conflating "offence" with the consequence of the "offence". The evidence of the "offence" is the positive test, when it is considered an AAF. The "cascade of ... improbabilities" submission, and Houlihan's defense, is not any part of the process to determine "whether there had been an offence", but a part of the process to determine whether she can "benefit from a plea of No (Significant) Fault or Negligence". Even if her "defence" were accepted in full, the "offence" remains fully established, and the benefit would be a reduced sanction, or no sanction at all, for the established "offence".
What a load of casuistical waffle. The expert evidence was adduced by World Athletics applying WADA rules and procedures. If it had not been so it would have been rejected by CAS. It wasn't. Yes - the offence was established by the failed doping test but was confirmed by the further evidence - and lack of it by Houlihan - that showed her attempted defence couldn't meet the balance of probabilities.
You should give up on your bullsh*tting about the process and simply say you believe Houlihan. It would be more honest. Your attempts to undermine the credibility of the case against her are just garbage.
Once again, none of that is relevant to what I posted. I was demonstrating who actually said "cascade of ... improbabilities ... close to zero", and how you don't really know the difference between World Athletics, WADA, the WADA-certified lab, and experts hired by World Athletics, and how you don't really know the process for determining an "offence", and the subsequent process for determing the sanction, once the "offence" has been decided.
Coevett said "famously fled anti-doping testers before finally testing positive for EPO and getting banned."
It's a wonder that anyone who can duck 4 tests in 12 months can stand upright. They sure can't lie straight.
"Famously fled" easily applies to a runner who made a practice of literally evading testers. It's like he's trying to set some sort of record. Would you prefer "accidentally fled"?
Maybe. But does it apply to Kipketer? Whereabouts failures is not literal evasion.
One instance of evasion is an instant violation.
So basic fact-checking establishes he didn't flee, wasn't famous for something he didn't do, and he also wasn't banned for EPO.