When I say principle of "presumption of innocence", it is for situations where many things are not explicitly known, where there remains a significant amount of uncertainty or doubt. Since, "presumption of innocence" seems to be unpalatable for you, how about giving athletes the "benefit of the doubt" in cases where the doubts are substantial?
After having seen the Alberto ban, do you find it appropriate to point a finger at, for example, Hassan? She was not there for the infusions, L-Carnitine, or the testosterone experiment. There is no testimony or evidence that she is getting private massages, or taking infusions, l-carnitine, asthma or thyroid medication. Any finger pointing toward Siffan Hassan is almost completely based on things not "explicitly known", combined with guilt by association with a coach who was not found to have doped any if his NOP athletes after a lengthy investigation.
I'm fine with advocating for clean sport, but how is pointing the finger at innocent athletes part of advocating for clean sport? Doesn't advocating for clean sport also mean protecting the reputations of clean athletes? I think the finger pointing without explicit knowledge is done far too often, based on far too little substantial knowledge, and this causes substantial collateral damage to the sport. This has 100% taken place.
Laws and Rules wrote:
In your next reply to Armstronglivs, you reference Court of Public Opinion. I referenced Public Opinion. This is not a court, this is a message board where I and you and anyone else are free to express our opinions. In opinions, people can presume whatever they want.
In regards to Seen and Believe: I have 'seen' the Alberto ban, and I 'believe' it did not happen in a vacuum. Someone could also say that they saw so and so use an inhaler, therefore they think so and so is a dirty athlete. Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation. WADA's rules are an interoperation. I find that what most people are accusatory of is a violation of what they find is and isn't ethical in sport.
Can you straight faced say you feel good about what is explicitly known to be taking place in this sport? Do you find that because no NOP athlete has been 'caught,' what they are doing is right for the sport? And this isn't a NOP hit job, a certain female athletes response to a question about visiting a certain doctor is right there as well, and on and on....
I'm advocating for clean sport, that is my ethical stance. If someone finds a loophole in the anti-doping rules that allows them an advantage without breaking the rules, that to me isn't ethical. That 100% has taken place.