egg on the face wrote:
You are crazy rekrunner. Dishonesty? Side show? You are the one who, for whatever reason, dishonestly changed "refusing to get tested" to "missed a test", and continued to repeat and insist on that. One comes with a four year ban, because it is treated like a positive test, and the other one comes with no consequences, unless there are three of those within twelve months. A huge difference, not a side show.
I owe you evidence? For what? I never said that she tested positive.
Why don't you provide evidence that she just missed a test, not refused a test?
Crickets... I thought so...
Yes dishonest. Let me count the many ways:
1) Was "refused" backed up in news reports? The first contribution you referred to was post-modified by LRC. It looks like "refusing to take a doping test" actually comes from LRC. They also changed the subject line to the less committal "allegedly refused". Now it's not evidence, but an allegation. What was documented in the news reports? The "apnews" and the "Inside the Games" did not use the word "refuse" or "refusing". These linked news reports say other things like "allegedly obstructing a doping test", and even "missing a doping test". and once again "allegedly obstructed a doping test". I cannot read the Washington Post link anymore. As you see, the events were documented in the news many different ways. I could not find "refused to take a test" in the news reports as you suggest I dishonestly changed.
2) Was I dishonest for saying "missed test"? "missing a doping test" was also documented in the news reports.
3) There was a lot more evidence that you seemed to ignore: The testers pretended to be the French police, were violent, hitting Calvin on the arm, harming a two-year old child, and never identified themselves as doping testers. The suspension was lifted by the high courts, and there was no suspension in effect when I said "if she remains eligible".
4) Saying "if she remains eligible" is probably the most, if not only, honest way to include all of the evidence available at that time, including conflicting evidence in dispute, and this non-committal conditioned phrase makes no distinction between "missed tests" and "refused tests".
5) You claimed I was wrong "by pretending that she might be clean". Given the conflicting evidence in dispute, I took no initial position one way or the other, and there was no need to take a position. Nevertheless, hypothetically, was that even wrong then before the verdict? Is it wrong now, after the verdict? A finding of "avoiding a random drugs test" is not a finding that she was not clean.
Yes -- side show. Not because they are not different, but because you fabricated a controversy that did not exist.