You're right. Missing three tests (which is a whereabouts violation) produces the same result as a positive test result (failing a test) and that is a doping ban. For normal people that means the same thing: another doper has been caught.
You're right. Missing three tests (which is a whereabouts violation) produces the same result as a positive test result (failing a test) and that is a doping ban. For normal people that means the same thing: another doper has been caught.
He was banned for 1 year. 1 year =/= 4 years. For intelligent people these are not the same.
Yes, Kyle Langford is the righftful silver medalist.
Mahkloufi was nowhere to be found (probably tipped off he was on the verge of a ban). I have no idea if Bosse was doping or not but in the moment everyone thought it was a fluky title at best and now we could go even more.
Don't live with "assumptions and rumor theories" spread LRC loosers (American + Brits).
And stop glorifying your Kenyan and American.
Makhloufi missed the entire 2017 and 2018 seasons due to injury and couldn't take part of the 2017 World Athletics Championships in London.
North Africa gave birth to two world class duelist 800m/1500m during the period 2005/20019. No other region has done it.
Interesting. please state your thesis, all performance related variables that you could control for, your conclusions, and the scientific bases for those. And please state whether you think WADA shouldn’t test for EPO any more. Thanks!
Interesting. please state your thesis, all performance related variables that you could control for, your conclusions, and the scientific bases for those. And please state whether you think WADA shouldn’t test for EPO any more. Thanks!
You are responding to my statement that: "some rule violations, like the "whereabouts failures" from Bosse, are not other rule violations, like "presence" and "use", it's not just what I think but that is what WADA says."
This is a basic conclusion from reading the contents, or even just the table of contents on pages 1-2, of the Articles 2.1 - 2.11 in the WADA Code. Quite simply Article 2.4 is not Article 2.1 or Article 2.2. Everyone is welcome to dispute that. But there is no thesis, and these Articles are independent of performance, and there is no explicit scientific basis that was provided by WADA.
I think WADA should keep testing for EPO. But I also think that athletes who want to raise their blood values should train at altitude rather than violating any WADA rules, and risking their health.
I didn't. You did. Thread after thread. But your memory fails you.
Actually, I haven't yet decided either way. That would be premature, because I don't have enough information.
What I did say comes from the CAS and WADA -- she was convicted based on two presumptions.
You haven't yet decided either way that Houlihan was doping, after her failing a drug test and being convicted of an antidoping violation? There's never enough information for you to decide if a convicted doper was doping. Always true to form.
This post was edited 31 seconds after it was posted.
You're right. Missing three tests (which is a whereabouts violation) produces the same result as a positive test result (failing a test) and that is a doping ban. For normal people that means the same thing: another doper has been caught.
He was banned for 1 year. 1 year =/= 4 years. For intelligent people these are not the same.
But for those with more intelligence than you they are both doping violations. The length of the penalty doesn't change that.
Interesting. please state your thesis, all performance related variables that you could control for, your conclusions, and the scientific bases for those. And please state whether you think WADA shouldn’t test for EPO any more. Thanks!
You are responding to my statement that: "some rule violations, like the "whereabouts failures" from Bosse, are not other rule violations, like "presence" and "use", it's not just what I think but that is what WADA says."
This is a basic conclusion from reading the contents, or even just the table of contents on pages 1-2, of the Articles 2.1 - 2.11 in the WADA Code. Quite simply Article 2.4 is not Article 2.1 or Article 2.2. Everyone is welcome to dispute that. But there is no thesis, and these Articles are independent of performance, and there is no explicit scientific basis that was provided by WADA.
I think WADA should keep testing for EPO. But I also think that athletes who want to raise their blood values should train at altitude rather than violating any WADA rules, and risking their health.
But that assumes doping is not as effective as training at altitude. That isn't what the data on doping suggests and altitude-trained athletes who dope obviously don't agree with you.
Actually, I haven't yet decided either way. That would be premature, because I don't have enough information.
What I did say comes from the CAS and WADA -- she was convicted based on two presumptions.
You haven't yet decided either way that Houlihan was doping, after her failing a drug test and being convicted of an antidoping violation? There's never enough information for you to decide if a convicted doper was doping. Always true to form.
The CAS told me that she was convicted on two presumptions.
My true form is to draw informed conclusions based on data, rather than assumptions or in this case, presumptions.