Three more Kenyans busted

All the "rekbot" accounts are parodies coming from posters who don't like being asked why non-Africans didn't run faster than they did in the EPO era.

Editing error (too late to correct): "... extreme opposite of lying".

If there are any lies, it must be the AIU's, or alternatively Armstronglivs'.

The allegations were of doping violations. So you have added nothing that changes that fact. But you will do anything to avoid accepting the athletes were doping. As you also know, doping is a strict liability offence - which you have complained of many times - so once they test positive the offence is confirmed; the onus therefore falls on the athlete to rebut their guilt. Very very few can - as over hundreds of busted Kenyans now show. As I have said, your arguments are the slimiest and most evasive on these boards.

They aren't allegations in the sense of charges made in a criminal court, in which the onus of establishing guilt falls upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt; they are positive tests, which constitute a strict liability offence - which you have endlessly bitched about in these threads. They are therefore guilty until they prove themselves innocent. They won't. So you are lying, as usual, through partial truths and leaving out essential facts, which is your modus operandi.

They didn't run faster than they did because they hadn't caught up with the doping occurring in African countries. As we see, Kenya still leads that race.

Sorry Boss! Where did I go wrong? I tried to say exactly that with the Coe/Willis comparison.

The beat goes on...

This is your groundless and deeply unscientific value assumption that every continent dopes as much as Africans. European countries that clearly did go full-throttle in the EPO era like Spain and Portugal did show huge improvements. It also ignores facts such as that the end of the Cold War meant certain countries had less incentive or had less State sponsored help to dope, for example re-unified Germany as compared to West and obviously East Germany.

Your 'argument' against EPO is as stupid as arguing that because 'African times' haven't increased as much as European times since 2019, that super shoes don't work.

Oh moderators, please don't ban me again for criticising Rekrunner. Please. I know you feel he provides an invaluable service here derailing every doping thread. It's just that sometimes I can't help criticizing his trolling genius.

But you called them "conclusions". They are allegations. Nothing changes that fact.

Now you seem to want to change our roles.

First you were the one with questions. I gave you the answers to all of your questions straight from the AIU, showing you the fundamental misunderstandings in your questions. My answers were prompt, and you said I was evasive. My answers were accurate, and you said I was lying.

In any case, they are not my answers so much as the AIU's. You are right to say I added nothing because they come straight from the AIU.

Now you want to pretend to be the one with all the answers, but I asked you no questions. I have all the answers to my questions from the AIU.

To the extent you are saying something more, or something different, than the AIU, this is not important, and just products of a misinformed imagination.

To the extent you are saying it is the same thing, then you are getting hysterically emotional over nothing.

Asking questions is scientific. It is answering them with insufficient evidence and baseless assumptions that is groundless and unscientific.

However, I did not ask that question here, and I have seen all of these answers before. I received a wide variety of answers inconsistent with each other, and lacking consensus not to mention sense. I interpreted them all as personal speculation.

African times have gotten faster since 2018, with men's world records shattered from 5000m to the marathon, and women's world records shattered from 1500m to the marathon.

Or just the tip of a very large iceberg ....

Because they would obviously be sub 2hr marathon runners without EPO. Think about it: red blood cells are produced in the bones of the feet. Red blood cells contain hemoglobin which is basically made of iron. Now think how all that iron in the foot bones will be weighing the runner down. Basically just imagine running with iron-soled shoes; we are talking about running at least several minutes slower over a marathon ..

Well said, rekrunner. Your explanations are always the bestest.

Since doping offences are strict liability, as you have so often complained, that these athletes tested positive for banned drugs established they have committed an offence. That will be the finding unless the results of the tests can be changed or they produce a defence that there was no intention to breach the rules and they took due care. The chances are they won't be able to do that. So we can say that unless they win that lottery they were caught doping.

Again, I asked no questions. The AIU alleged rule violations and provisionally suspended the athletes. That is where we are today.

Once this process plays out, we may still never be able to completely answer your questions. This streamlined process which places heavy financial, legal, and scientific burdens on poor athletes means we may never get the information we need to answer some of the more meaningful questions.

So what do you assume from a confirmed positive test - which under the strict liability rules says a violation occurred?

I wouldn't like to assume without any further information, but the questions I would ask today are: did the WADA Lab correctly determine an AAF? Is the athlete guilty of fault, negligence, intent, and/or knowing use? Is someone exploiting these athletes? What/who is the source of these AAFs? Were any substances labelled properly?

I assume under the process of strict liability, we will not get the answers to these important questions, because the process permits findings of rule violations without these answers based on presumptions. I also assume these three women aged 30, 32, 35, worldwide ranked 266, 693 and 156, do not have the 5-figure sums required to mount their best legal and scientific defense that would be necessary to adequately meet their burdens of proof. They may even opt to accept the charge without contest, and get a 1-year reduction, and the public will remain no wiser.

Wonderfully predictable. The one thing you won't assume from a confirmed positive test is that they were doping.

When you understand the process, the outcome should be predictable.

Assuming is something you do when you have no knowledge. A "confirmed positive test" already looks like an unconfirmed assumption.

Anyone with any familiarity of the process should predictably understand that an "adverse analytical finding (AAF)" is not a confirmed "anti-doping rule violation (ADRV)".

Anyone who reads WADA reports also knows that many AAFs do not result in ADRVs. In 2019 (pre-COVID) WADA reported 57% of AAFs (i.e. "confirmed positive tests") were confirmed as ADRVs. Keep in mind this is from a process that has already been tilted against the athletes, who are often not be able to afford sufficient representation, by shifting the burden to the athletes from the anti-doping organizations, lowering both the costs of prosecution, and the required burdens of proof, by permitting favorable presumptions of guilt.

It boggles my mind that someone like you, who is so passionate about this topic of doping use, who says he passed the bar, wants to remain uninformed, or can ignore all these relevant facts, and the consequences of recent changes to the "law".