Clemence Calvin - who allegedly refused a doping test last month - sets new French NR of 2:23:41 in Paris

rekrunner wrote:

Huh?

When I wrote that, she had a provisional suspension, which was then lifted by France's highest administrative court.

Seems like "if she remains eligible" was an appropriate thing to say, considering how it was going back and forth.

egg on the face wrote:

Too funny, you are such a jokster (or so I hope).

Don't you get it rekrunner...you thought she was clean in the first place. You usually don't condemn a doper unless they are officially convicted & banned. IOW, I think you believe all athletes (and coaches - think Aden) are not involved with any PED use unless they are officially banned.

Huh? She was an obvious cheat back then, with ample evidence, that that court didn't question either.

Of course you couldn't accept the evidence, a classical rekrunner. And wrong again.

Here's my take wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Huh?

When I wrote that, she had a provisional suspension, which was then lifted by France's highest administrative court.

Seems like "if she remains eligible" was an appropriate thing to say, considering how it was going back and forth.

Don't you get it rekrunner...you thought she was clean in the first place. You usually don't condemn a doper unless they are officially convicted & banned. IOW, I think you believe all athletes (and coaches - think Aden) are not involved with any PED use unless they are officially banned.

I guess not. Was she actually found to have doped? I only looked for about 30 seconds, but the article I saw only said she missed a test.

egg on the face wrote:

Huh? She was an obvious cheat back then, with ample evidence, that that court didn't question either.

Of course you couldn't accept the evidence, a classical rekrunner. And wrong again.

How can I be wrong by saying "if she remains eligible", leaving all possibilities open?

Am I wrong because they decided she should keep the record while not being eligible?

Or did they decide she should not keep the record despite being eligible?

Can you repeat the evidence here, with exact detailed specificity?

Looking a the linked articles, I only saw evidence that she missed a test.

What evidence do you think I ignored? Please be specific.

You were wrong by pretending that she might be clean, despite her literally fighting of the tester, aided by her husband, and despite her various lies about her whereabouts. All classical cheater signs, which is now officially confirmed, but the writing was already on the wall back then. Only not for you.

Leader UK wrote:

El Keniano wrote:

The Chinese? No mention of Paula Radcliffe?

Paula Radcliffe ran clean and with honour her entire career . She is a leader , and is fighting to sanction the entire country of Kenya for there state sponsored doping practices.

Radcliffe is leading a group of white people , who have decided they need to teach brown skinned people how to conduct their lives .

egg on the face wrote:

You were wrong by pretending that she might be clean, despite her literally fighting of the tester, aided by her husband, and despite her various lies about her whereabouts. All classical cheater signs, which is now officially confirmed, but the writing was already on the wall back then. Only not for you.

You said there was ample evidence I could not accept.

I'll take your failure to provide evidence that I couldn't accept as a concession that there was no evidence presented that I did not accept.

The evidence I did see says she missed a test. That evidence I accepted.

Was there evidence that shows she was not clean? I don't recall such specific evidence ever being presented.

If you present such evidence, I will consider it. But both then and now, lacking such evidence, I have not formed any opinion about whether she was clean or dirty.

I have formed an opinion about whether she missed a test, and I have formed an opinion about the quality of her performance.

rekrunner wrote:

How can I be wrong by saying "if she remains eligible", leaving all possibilities open?

...

Looking a the linked articles, I only saw evidence that she missed a test.

What evidence do you think I ignored? Please be specific.

You are really doubling down, eh?

Let's try this again.

You can find already in the first contribution of this thread, backed up by the news reports:

She had been suspended for refusing to take a doping test last month in Morocco

Two facts there:

1) She had been suspended.

2) She refused to take the test.

"if she remains eligible" - hahaha, athletes who refuse to take a test don't remain eligible. Hence the suspension. You can cast doubt on that by pretending - against strong evidence - that she just "missed a test", but that only further contributes to your poor reputation here, and it will not help restoring the image of this cheat.

rekrunner wrote:

You said there was ample evidence I could not accept.

I'll take your failure to provide evidence that I couldn't accept as a concession that there was no evidence presented that I did not accept.

Incorrect. No failure on my part, I described the evidence correctly, as I just proved with a direct quotation.

You did not accept the evidence that she refused to take the test, and still pretend it didn't happen.

rekrunner wrote:

The evidence I did see says she missed a test. That evidence I accepted.

Incorrect. She refused to take that test, not just "missed" it. Missing one test does not lead to a four year ban, or a suspension, unless it's evasion/refusal on purpose, such as here.

Will this turn into another infinite loop? You were wrong again, just admit it already.

egg on the face wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You said there was ample evidence I could not accept.

I'll take your failure to provide evidence that I couldn't accept as a concession that there was no evidence presented that I did not accept.

Incorrect. No failure on my part, I described the evidence correctly, as I just proved with a direct quotation.

You did not accept the evidence that she refused to take the test, and still pretend it didn't happen.

rekrunner wrote:

The evidence I did see says she missed a test. That evidence I accepted.

Incorrect. She refused to take that test, not just "missed" it. Missing one test does not lead to a four year ban, or a suspension, unless it's evasion/refusal on purpose, such as here.

Will this turn into another infinite loop? You were wrong again, just admit it already.

Is rekrunner trying to spin this again? If she "refused" to take a test then you're absolutely right it's a major 4-yr ban - the same penalty for any first time doping positive. That's why anti-doping decided to implement a 4-yr ban for refusing a test because common sense would dictate that the athlete has something to hide (i.e. "glowing").

Refusal the same as a positive wrote:

Is rekrunner trying to spin this again?

Does the sun rise in the east?

casual obsever wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Just shows when you level the playing field and allow an elite European to dope, they leave the East Africans in the dust, sending them home devastated to weep and wail at their Iten pharmacists.

Lol - no, she didn't exactly win by a huge margin. 4th place...

That guy’s an idiot.

egg on the face wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You said there was ample evidence I could not accept.

I'll take your failure to provide evidence that I couldn't accept as a concession that there was no evidence presented that I did not accept.

Incorrect. No failure on my part, I described the evidence correctly, as I just proved with a direct quotation.

You did not accept the evidence that she refused to take the test, and still pretend it didn't happen.

rekrunner wrote:

The evidence I did see says she missed a test. That evidence I accepted.

Incorrect. She refused to take that test, not just "missed" it. Missing one test does not lead to a four year ban, or a suspension, unless it's evasion/refusal on purpose, such as here.

Will this turn into another infinite loop? You were wrong again, just admit it already.

This combination of dishonesty and arguing with half-the-facts reminds me of someone who appears to now be hiding his true face.

Here's is what full honesty and all the facts look like:

- I actually accepted the evidence that she missed two tests, then and now, as everyone can verify for yourself.

- A high court had lifted the provisional ban, creating an ambiguity.

- When I made the non-commital statement, she was not suspended, nor under a 4-year ban

By conditioning my statement with an "if", not taking a position either way, this makes the statement right no matter what the outcome.

Now I see vague claims about her not "being clean" or an "obvious cheat", attributing to me ideas and thoughts I did not express. I cannot be wrong about something when I never said it.

This side-show distinction between "refusing" a test and "missing" a test, does nothing to establish that she actually took any banned substances. Was there evidence that she actually doped? If you have evidence, contrary to ignoring it, I will give it full consideration. I will again interpret your failure to provide such evidence as a tacit concession that I was not wrong.

I note you said "if", as if you are not sure of the outcome. I also said "if" but before there was this outcome, and was accused of not accepting evidence. I wonder, will you be accused of not accepting evidence too?

Refusal the same as a positive wrote:

Is rekrunner trying to spin this again? If she "refused" to take a test then you're absolutely right it's a major 4-yr ban - the same penalty for any first time doping positive. That's why anti-doping decided to implement a 4-yr ban for refusing a test because common sense would dictate that the athlete has something to hide (i.e. "glowing").

sbeefyk2 wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

The 4-year ban for her and her husband have been upheld so I presume that means she'll lose the NR.

However, she called the hearing a "masquerade" and is appealing.

https://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Athletics/french-marathon-runner-to-fight-4-year-doping-ban-20191212

El K went home DEVASTATED. After arguing for months she will get away with it because she's white, she gets banned. It must be a bad feeling to go home that devastated.

Tell us how you feel El K? How devastated are you on a scale of 1-10 when your made up agenda about whites get away doping is proven false time and time again?

This isn't over. She's appealing.

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...

El Keniano wrote:

sbeefyk2 wrote:

El K went home DEVASTATED. After arguing for months she will get away with it because she's white, she gets banned. It must be a bad feeling to go home that devastated.

Tell us how you feel El K? How devastated are you on a scale of 1-10 when your made up agenda about whites get away doping is proven false time and time again?

This isn't over. She's appealing.

They always appeal Cleo. The ban is always upheld.

Bad Mama had a bad day here.

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.

you ruin every thread you are in.