ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

I try to attack what looks to me like hype, gossip, myths, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, ambiguities, etc., which I aspire to consistently support with not only my ideas, opinions, beliefs, prejudices and imagination, but authoritative sources. If it looks like I cut one way, it because hype and exaggeration and unfounded allegations only ever cut the other way. It would be unusual for me to attack statements which are well supported by authoritative sources as lacking hype and exagerration and containing too much basis and logic. You say "in favor of dopers", but often the finger is pointed at athletes not yet found to be dopers, and many of my thousands and thousand of emails remind everyone where basis and logic end. In this thread, for example, that would include, according to the AAA panel's evaluation of Tygart's evidence, all NOP athletes, except, perversely, the whistle-blower.

intellectually dishonest you are wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You think that if I attack someone attacking a doper, that I'm defending a doper, when in reality I'm attacking a faulty argument, or pointing out something contradictory, or trying to find out circumstances.

Again, posing that you are a neutral poser of questions. The reality, based on thousands and thousands of posts on here, is that your skepticism and attacking faulty arguments only ever cut one way. In favor of the dopers.

WADA has limited ability to legally investigate anything , in any country. This is just a smoke show for publicity . If a WADA official in my country tries to " interrogate " an athlete , and the athlete and his team don't want to talk , you could put a restraining order on that WADA official. Again , there has been no transparency , I assume Kara and Magness were given immunity for sanctions from the USADA , but nothing is disclosed here. There have been many cases where the athlete said "my coach made us take this " and WADA said so what , and sanctioned the athlete .

I don't know if you mean me -- I often acknowledge that there are many things we can speculate based partly on things we don't know, but you don't like the words I use.

But with convicted dopers you seem to be on many occasions "digging" for mitigating factors that you try to portray as evidence that doping had very little or no effect on their performances. I've been following your posts on doping issues for a long time and this pattern is displayed with many doping cases. IMO, it characterizes you as defending dopers.

For example, with Jeptoo being stripped of her Boston title & CR for doping, you offered mitigating factors by pointing out she had pacers and that the other women also ran fast.. With Kiprop, you stated he probably started doping later in his career, and at the suggestion that he was a career doper, you thought that was unlikely. And with Bauman you thought steroids in the toothpaste defense was plausible and that doping wouldn't have anything to do with his fastest non-African time of 12:54 anyway. And there are many more examples.

And why would you "attack" someone attacking a convicted doper if your intentions were not to defend them? If they're convicted, lose their appeal to CAS, had due process, etc., and are consequently banned - where would a "faulty argument" be valid with their conviction? With so many athletes who have been busted that were exonerated or received lighter bans because of various excuses, I would think that when one gets a full 4 yr ban (e.g, EPO/steroid positive, ABP infraction), you wouldn't need to try and find a "faulty argument" with the case.

If you're for cleaning up the sport (if that's even possible) you should be impressed & satisfied that the powers to be are banning athletes and coaches with full 4 yr bans.

Sorry, but I try to keep scientific, mathematic, and logical discussions about causes and effects of performance separate from legal and moral and ethical defenses of persons breaking the rules. It's possible that A does not cause B, while A is remains an illegal, immoral, and unethical violation which must be banned to the fullest extent allowed. I do not dig for mitigating factors but insist on preserving intellectual integrity. Any argument and conclusion about the causes of performance must acknowledge and consider all factors that cause performance. You cannot make robust conclusions when ignoring half the facts. There are valid ways to show cause and effect, but you cannot offer proofs by example, or even many examples. That is the first rule of Logic 101. The existence of fast runners who have doped can prove their existence, but cannot be generalized to establish a universal rule. It's even worse if you provide examples where the resulting effect occurred before the known cause. Then you are required to add one element of faith, before you commit the logical fallacy of proof by example. I attack anyone who tries to make things up, and pass that off as real world observations and conclusions. This has little to do with attacking attackers of convicted dopers, but with preserving intellectual honesty and integrity and the process used to make robust logical conclusions. I don't understand your question about "faulty arguments" as it pertains to convictions, appeals, and bans. I generally accept the results of a process, based on the facts and reasoning in detailed reasoned decisions. By "faulty arguments" I usually mean categories like 1) calling potentially innocent persons corrupt, cheaters, or dopers; or 2) concluding cause and effect based on missing data, ignoring data, or employing a logical fallacy. I'm all for cleaning up the sport, but not at the cost of losing intellectual integrity and honesty.

casual obsever wrote:

Inquiring Minds Want To Know wrote:

Any reason given why the Brojo's are deleting or allowing the deletion of threads?

Of course not, this is letsrun after all.

But this time, even the brojos were (or acted) upset after all the deletions in the first 24 hours after the announcement of Cheat Salazar's ban. Yet the deletions ever so mysteriously and surprisingly continued...

i know you, subway and lonestar all know this....but for everyone else its pretty obvious

the comments that are being deleted are being deleted by the winstrol mod and gary. two people very very close to the brojos and doping. its actually pretty smart (yeah i know they faked it into the ivys), they bash on doping yet hang with dopers (and let them be mods). this is playing both sides...amazing! notice how lots of the biggest threads are about doping busts? and once they start to fizzle, the get gutted so the only thing left is what gary has posted? coincidence? i think not

brojos=faked it to ivys

gary=faked his wife to unicorn of a WR

winstrol=faked his way to a steeple AR

LR anti doping =fake it for more traffic

move along folks

NOP is just AW with a different name.

The Mail nails it again. wrote:

Not looking good for Sal, Coe, Mo and Crammy in UK:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-7526311/Mo-Farahs-link-notorious-doper-leaves-asterisk-name.html

Looks like they are setting up for Farah to be the one dirt ball served up in the UK. I bet China or Russia or Kenya would have been happy to dish up one scapegoat and bury the rest in blah blah blah.

You forgot O'Lionaird who from what I hear, just likes drugs in general.

I just looked at the posts deleted in this thread and I'm fine with them.

If you have a problem with moderating email me

wejo@letsrun.com

wejo wrote:

I just looked at the posts deleted in this thread and I'm fine with them.

If you have a problem with moderating email me

wejo@letsrun.com

ok come on weldon you act like you dont know who i am....trust me i emailed you before back when gary kept getting me banned, and renato freaked out on me...too bad both of them didnt see kiprop going down did they? lolz

You do dig for mitigating factors . Having pacers has nothing to do with the Standard tests for detecting the presence of recombinant EPO. The age of the individual , or the performance of an individual do not have anything to do with the chemical testing identifying EPO.

hey now be nice to gary, its hard to be in the upper crust of British athletics living lavishly in monaco...i bet besides trolling on LR his hardest job is dealing with prime dona Mo.

banned i got wrote:

wejo wrote:

I just looked at the posts deleted in this thread and I'm fine with them.

If you have a problem with moderating email me

wejo@letsrun.com

ok come on weldon you act like you dont know who i am....trust me i emailed you before back when gary kept getting me banned, and renato freaked out on me...too bad both of them didnt see kiprop going down did they? lolz

I will admit that I do have a man crush on Caster Semenya and that I do engage in bestiality, but so does Gary. Have you seen Paula?

wejo wrote:

I just looked at the posts deleted in this thread and I'm fine with them.

If you have a problem with moderating email me

wejo@letsrun.com

Or you could just take the deletion power away from these drug cheat apologists, whoever they are.

That would also help letsrun's reputation as being anti-doping.

This morning's deletions were quite comical, almost desperate - but thank you for restoring some of those posts.

I was accused of: ""digging" for mitigating factors that you try to portray as evidence that doping had very little or no effect on their performances." I often talk about causes and effects on performance, so that accusation is at least coherent. I was not accused of ""digging" for mitigating factors for detecting the presence of recombinant EPO or chemical tests identifying EPO." I'm not sure what that refers to, or even what it means. In any case, I said above that I try to keep discussions of performance separate, so I would agree that pacing has nothing to do with detecting EPO, and the performance of an individual has nothing to do with the chemical test identifying EPO.

LordEric44 wrote:

You do dig for mitigating factors . Having pacers has nothing to do with the Standard tests for detecting the presence of recombinant EPO. The age of the individual , or the performance of an individual do not have anything to do with the chemical testing identifying EPO.

JoePublic wrote:

Looks like they are setting up for Farah to be the one dirt ball served up in the UK.

Lol, no. He'll be declared innocent by Coe soon enough. If that isn't enough, Coe will organize another bogus in-house investigation, which will then publish a 10-page obfuscation document declaring Farah innocent. Then the Brits will close ranks, and all is well.

That worked with Paula, and would work with Mo as well, no worries.

casual obsever wrote:

JoePublic wrote:

Looks like they are setting up for Farah to be the one dirt ball served up in the UK.

Lol, no. He'll be declared innocent by Coe soon enough. If that isn't enough, Coe will organize another bogus in-house investigation, which will then publish a 10-page obfuscation document declaring Farah innocent. Then the Brits will close ranks, and all is well.

That worked with Paula, and would work with Mo as well, no worries.

Yep.

casual obsever wrote:

wejo wrote:

I just looked at the posts deleted in this thread and I'm fine with them.

If you have a problem with moderating email me

wejo@letsrun.com

Or you could just take the deletion power away from these drug cheat apologists, whoever they are.

That would also help letsrun's reputation as being anti-doping.

This morning's deletions were quite comical, almost desperate - but thank you for restoring some of those posts.

Or you could add some new moderators! I think that casual, Subway, Armstronglivs, Mindweak/ i got banned, and myself would make a good team!

LRC anti-dopers FTW!