This looks like a long-winded way of saying: "Of course there is no evidence in all of that report that shows that any of these athletes were doping" followed by "that doesn't mean (something that no one said)"
This looks like a long-winded way of saying: "Of course there is no evidence in all of that report that shows that any of these athletes were doping" followed by "that doesn't mean (something that no one said)"
While you guys debate over the semantics of "evidence" versus "proof", you all seem to ignore the important limiting qualifier "that shows that any of these athletes were doping".
Armstronglivs wrote:
The Nike Androgen Project wrote:
Actually, it was a poor choice of words. She is confusing "evidence" with "proof." There is considerable evidence in the form of testimony from teammates and coaches, a lab chart, whereabouts violations, a leaked IAAF report, a hollowed-out book, Androgel violations, illegal infusions, etc.
Apparently the evidence has thus far been insufficient by IAAF standards. That's what Paula should have said.
Your qualification of her statement is correct. But, as we know, she is not independent in this matter. "No evidence" should have been "insufficient evidence" - which is why there wasn't proof, as you say,
Why would I focus on an unrelated statement in this thread about something else? And it seems you answered your own question. Also look up "appeal to authority" and "appeal to false authority".
I just can't figure this one out wrote:
I'm surprised rekrunner hasn't focused more on this statement - ...
...
and rekrunner ... has gone as far to state in another thread that it's without basis?
Has Miss Radcliffe not had blood passport anomalies?
Is she not on the Nike payroll, the same dollars that pay for Salazar?
Why is anyone even listening to her?
Passport Control wrote:
Has Miss Radcliffe not had blood passport anomalies?
Is she not on the Nike payroll, the same dollars that pay for Salazar?
Why is anyone even listening to her?
Yes. Twice she was caught with an over 20% jump in Hct along with an over 20% decline in Ret-% within a few days, and once she had an Hct over 50% along with a normal RET count. Altitude, lol, she is still laughing all the way to the bank.
Yes. She was interviewed as a Nike employee, not as an IAAF functionary. As the latter, she should have argued for a transparent and independent investigation, but of course her hands are tied.
Because it's fun - in a sad way though - watching her hypocrisy and lies and fight against transparency and a clean sport.
So the NOP athletes weren't doping? Who was Salazar doping?
Good question.
Just his assistant coach received too much L-Carnitine, and his sons with T-gel.
Only because your husband now coaches super doped Farah
From the master of long-windedness, you're not too good at summaries. The report does not resolve the question of whether any of Salazar's athletes were doping. It was investigating Salazar, not his athletes. There. Done.
rekrunner wrote:
While you guys debate over the semantics of "evidence" versus "proof", you all seem to ignore the important limiting qualifier "that shows that any of these athletes were doping".
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your qualification of her statement is correct. But, as we know, she is not independent in this matter. "No evidence" should have been "insufficient evidence" - which is why there wasn't proof, as you say,
Again, a lecture from one caught up in the semantic distinction between "doping" and "doping violation" - as though there is a significant difference. But there is a very material difference between "evidence" and "proof". That you don't see it goes to the heart of the flaws typical of your arguments. Your casuistry has long been evident to most readers but this latest offering is proof.
Not silly wrote:
Good question.
Just his assistant coach received too much L-Carnitine, and his sons with T-gel.
As far as USADA was able to establish in a 4-year investigation. But he has had a 30-year coaching career and has himself doped as a competitor. If you think the report was the full story on Salazar then Donald Trump is a leading intellectual of this age. But I guess quite a few believe that, too. It does seem strange, however, that Salazar's activities, for which he is paying a severe penalty, were intended only to indulge his own curiosity and were to be of no benefit to his athletes. If that was so, why would anyone care - including USADA?
If the question is regarding "blood passport", she has only had one atypical value after a lengthy stay at high altitude. If you don't trust Paula, Salazar, and Nike, you are right to be sceptical. Similarly, don't trust any no name posters here , and go directly to the source -- the AAA panel report can be found posted at the USADA website.
Passport Control wrote:
Has Miss Radcliffe not had blood passport anomalies?
Is she not on the Nike payroll, the same dollars that pay for Salazar?
Why is anyone even listening to her?
You are preaching to the choir. You don't have to convince me that the report provides no basis for aspersions against NOP athletes.
Armstronglivs wrote:
From the master of long-windedness, you're not too good at summaries. The report does not resolve the question of whether any of Salazar's athletes were doping. It was investigating Salazar, not his athletes. There. Done.
I'm sure I would have said anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). The prefix "anti" is a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of” -- a rather significant semantic distinction. In fact, it's hard to imagine any more significant semantic distinction than the polar opposite. Sending emails and diluting your blood with non-banned substances is not doping, but for Salazar these were both found to be ADRVs. I understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof" here, but the material difference is immaterial to the point. Call it what you want, it does not show that any of the NOP athletes were doped by Salazar.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Again, a lecture from one caught up in the semantic distinction between "doping" and "doping violation" - as though there is a significant difference. But there is a very material difference between "evidence" and "proof". That you don't see it goes to the heart of the flaws typical of your arguments. Your casuistry has long been evident to most readers but this latest offering is proof.
Another Paula/doping thread rekrunnered...
casual obsever wrote:
Passport Control wrote:
Has Miss Radcliffe not had blood passport anomalies?
Is she not on the Nike payroll, the same dollars that pay for Salazar?
Why is anyone even listening to her?
Yes. Twice she was caught with an over 20% jump in Hct along with an over 20% decline in Ret-% within a few days, and once she had an Hct over 50% along with a normal RET count. Altitude, lol, she is still laughing all the way to the bank.
Yes. She was interviewed as a Nike employee, not as an IAAF functionary. As the latter, she should have argued for a transparent and independent investigation, but of course her hands are tied.
Because it's fun - in a sad way though - watching her hypocrisy and lies and fight against transparency and a clean sport.
Can't we have someone else talk about the Salazar situation? Perhaps someone who has not issued gagging orders against the press to interfere with free discussion in connection with their own dubious accomplishments?
This is an "NOP athletes not shown doping" thread.
Never ever wrote:
Another Paula/doping thread rekrunnered...
You can actually find out for yourself -- USADA published the AAA Panel report with many details about the Salazar situation. Everyone can find out for themselves 1) what the evidence is, and 2) what that evidence does show, and does not show.
Passport Control wrote:
Can't we have someone else talk about the Salazar situation? Perhaps someone who has not issued gagging orders against the press to interfere with free discussion in connection with their own dubious accomplishments?
Lol @ Paula Ratclitt....
rekrunner wrote:
If the question is regarding "blood passport", she has only had one atypical value after a lengthy stay at high altitude.
If you don't trust Paula, Salazar, and Nike, you are right to be sceptical.
Similarly, don't trust any no name posters here , and go directly to the source -- the AAA panel report can be found posted at the USADA website.
Passport Control wrote:
Has Miss Radcliffe not had blood passport anomalies?
Is she not on the Nike payroll, the same dollars that pay for Salazar?
Why is anyone even listening to her?
This video was done before Paula's record was broken. Nonetheless, he makes a lot of sense:
https://youtu.be/LmfUIWnMjGYGreat interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06