No. I offer reasons, and valid ones. When you can suddenly smash the college 10000m record like you are on a training run, that is suspicious. I will take my track record on this issue over all of you.
This is a doping sport, and anything anomalous or too good to true, as a rule, is not. But to the aspiring online lawyers, allow me to explain the difference between a reasonable, if disagreeable opinion, and libel:
1. Not libel-"I think so and so, who has exhibited a sudden ability to smash college records, has shown an seemingly unnatural ability to recover from injury that even her competitors have publicly noticed, does not show natural fatigue or have the normal ups and downs of even terrific ncaa runners like Nico Young, with the most conspicuous example being that ncaa indoor escapade that no natural runner would emulate, whose training explanations are not credible, and who clearly has a major financial incentive to potentially dope, is doping."
2. Libel-"I saw so and so injecting steroids in the restroom and I have the proof."
Not hard. In a doping sport, when you smash college records by a minute and can kamikaze every race, you get scrutiny. And lets face it. Thus board had never met a verified doper it wont twist itself into a pretzel to defend. Undertrained. Multisport athlete. Late bloomer. Now crosstrainer. The list never ends. When this board defended Houlihan to the hilt, and cannot see a layup case like Chemusto, I no longer care what you think.