Mo Katir suspended for whereabouts failures

You are way too superficial. I wrote "Katir was one of the most obvious dopers" while you repeatedly pretend I said "the most obvious doper of all".

Katir was so obvious because of his extreme progression to 3:28. I referred to that thread where that was discussed to show you that I wasn't the only one who noticed that. Neither Henrik nor Jakob nor El G had a progression like that. Nordas is somewhat close but not quite there, as discussed in the corresponding Nordas thread.

There are over 1000 runners at Worlds every time; bringing up 5 - 10 to show that Katir was not a lot more suspicious than most seems like a waste of time. Of course other runners are also suspicious.

I really do not know what you want here. You are acting more and more like rekrunner.

Yes, we defend Doper Houlihan and doper Katir. But I hope we defend them on the right things and not the wrong ones (think we both are very conscious about that), and when it comes to the latter I think we both accuse him for the right things (the whereabouts violations…)

Personally I have this duality attitude to all athletes -they may be dirty, they may be clean, and whereabouts failures may be only that or they may be a masking of drug use.

I enjoy watching the un caught (meaning presumably clean -innocent to proven something else) athletes race, and I will only raise a suspicious finger if it’s obvious that WA, Wada, AIU, CAS don’t do their job (firm enough). Likewise -I will defend the athlete (even a somewhat guilty one) if the organisations clearly have been unjust or superficial.

I don’t find anything to criticise Houlihan for. That doesn’t mean that I know she is innocent. I just don’t see the guilt in the presented facts… But this may also be me that isn’t knowledgeable enough here -but then somebody (guys on your side) should provide me with the missing facts…

When it comes to Katir I may have been a little harsh -his whereabouts failures both look and smell suspicious (meaning drugs). But I think rekrunner is right: Katir has only been accused (by AIU) of three whereabouts failures, and has admitted to this. I still think there’s a theoretical chance that his whereabouts aren’t masking, but is clumsiness or wrong attitude / ability to tackle everything around the Adams correctly. If I myself should have used the whereabouts to mask drug I would have been better with the Adams and also done the whole Portugal trip thing in a more refined way (no sick girlfriend, correct Adams, but myself sick on the travel day back). But he sure has messed up, and it’s not that strange that people are suspicious… But I’m irritated on AIU who couldn’t wait a couple of hours extra around the third thereabouts -if Katir didn’t return then from a training run things would then been even clearer, and if he did he could have been tested with very likely a hit if he was doped… Now we don’t know…

Houlihan 4 years of ban and drugs detected (I don't say she was cheating)

This suffice to shut your mouths hater with different degree.

Your two first sentences are just word salad. -I think you cite your own sentence totally OK, and I think we both understand this sentence in the same way: “one of the most obvious dopers”.

Yes, Katir had one seconds larger progression in the 1500m (7.8 vs Nordås’ 6.8). But Katir ran 3.36 low not only the year before his 3.28 but also a 3.36 low two years before. He had thus even a less steeper progression than Narve Nordås who had no such result two years before. But I shall be gracious and pose they are very much the same in progression, even with Nordås’ huge (r) 2 years improvement…

Other posters than me (f.ex automorphic) have shown that even bigger progression isn’t unusual. And Jakob is neither here a perfect example (but a fun one), because of age: He progressed one year from 3.39 high to 3.31 low -8.8 seconds! (One more than Katir).

Progression is a stupid doping indicator. -Most of the popped athletes haven’t progressed all that much; we don’t even know if most of the dope have all that much effect (see rekrunner’s and Canova’s posts on the matter). And even with effect; used in the wrong way may give the opposite of intended effect. -It’s complicated…

Of course Katir was more suspicious than most in many posters eyes -his progress was way above average, and his background in Morocco and Spain didn’t help (in many’s eyes). I just point out that others also have had huge progress, so this indicator seems superficial and bias.

I myself started racing when I was seventeen. I trained a little with my brother for some time, and then I did a training 800m pretty much all out, just to see. -Not just that impressive, but I got a time. After that I started training after a programme by a coach, and one month after the mentioned first all out 800m I raced my first real competition: My improvment was 23.6 seconds -in the 800m! Quite impressive don’t you think -I must have been doped…Yeah, yeah, I wasn’t elite, but you get my point…

Every athlete may be doped, or none. -There’s no superficial way of telling who is what. Only tests and investigation can tell. Let’s stick to these two…

Acting like rekrunner -thanks for the nice words!

I don’t understand what you are saying here…

This all happened very quickly and his explanations were demolished

It's safe to assume he was doping

Katir puts himself in a position where it’s hard to reach him /test him (more than once and for several days.) And he does this in a deliberate and deceptive way. And he lies in his explanations…

Does this make him a drug doper? Well, I think the majority would say yes. But what if they are wrong?

I get it that people assume he was doping -this is natural to do when we don’t know what’s behind the deception… But do we have to assume.? Why not stop and just conclude with a severe breach of three whereabouts. And be irritated over AIU that didn’t travel to where he was abroad for testing when he presumably was gloving. Or at least waited a little longer at the third whereabouts and tested him there (home in Spain)….

I won’t buh at Katir when or if he’s back after two years. -I will buh at AIU that didn’t do more to get him tested when it mattered -a test then could have sorted him out as dirty or innocent with much more credence…

Posts like these are pure emotional rhetoric. For some reason, you feel the need to attach emotional labels to help make points emotionally that you cannot make intellectually. These labels are inapplicable if not dishonest.

Is it correct to call me a pro-doper? No. There are a few extremists here who lobby to "let them all dope" and "see what is humanly possible". I am not one of these. I would be concerned about the increased health risks in addition to any artificial unfair performance benefits, and more generally the attack on the spirit of clean competition. If there is conclusive evidence of attempted intentional doping for performance enhancement, regardless if such attempted doping could even work, I am among those who say that bans within the rules are appropriate, for this attempted offense against the sport.

Is it correct to call Katir a doper? No. I don't mean in the frivolous sense that WADA calls all violations doping, including those that do not involve any banned substances or methods. According to WADA and the AIU, Katir is guilty of three "whereabouts failures" within twelve months. It is not defending "Doper Katir" to be accurate on this point derived from the official sources. There are unofficial "suspicions" and "attacks" from the popular masses. It is not defending "doping" to point out these attacks have no factual basis. It is appropriate and even good for the sport to "defend" against these baseless attacks.

Is it correct to call Houlihan a doper? It is still too early to tell without more evidence. Contrary to popular belief, this emotional conclusion still remains ambiguous without first identifying the source -- something the CAS ruled did not happen. Do I think Houlihan should be banned within the rules? This requires a rich understanding of what the rules permit. Based on all of the facts found in the CAS report, and the Code and Standards downloadable from WADA's website, this ranges from: 1) no ADRV, to 2) a 4-year ban for the unexplained "presence" presumed intentional by the WADA Code and deemed intentional by the CAS, to 3) anywhere in between. I have explained elsewhere at length that there are several reasons for me to doubt the completeness and even accuracy of the testimony and the mathematics of the WA/AIU "experts", and even from the "expert" testimony, several reasons to doubt several of the CAS findings.

It is an assumption, but is it really a safe one?

LOL you literally proved my case with your emotional troll posts.

Let's see:

Is it correct to call you a pro-doper? Yes. Your feeble attempt to redefine "pro-doper" to mean "let them all dope" is nothing but a lame distraction. On the other hand, your repeated lame excuses for Doper Houlihan along with your typical attacks on the experts and WA and AIU and CAS in that very post of yours speak volumes (f. ex. you pretend to "doubt the completeness and even accuracy of the testimony and the mathematics of the WA/AIU "experts"").

Is it correct to call Katir a doper? Yes. Your feeble attempt to redefine "doper" is nothing but a lame distraction. Read the rules, and then use the proper wording: he was literally banned for doping, and accepted the ruling and admitted to his wrongdoings.

Is it correct to call Houlihan a doper? Yes. Your feeble attempt to attack the authorities is nothing but a lame distraction. Read the decisions, and then use the proper wording: she was literally banned for doping, and lost appeal after appeal.

Bye bye rek

Initially (after reading some of your posts) I thought you only were trolling, and that your unregistered and special username was in accordance with that…

But then you wrote a couple of answers to me, where you seemed to reason and argument for a point of view you had (shared by quite a lot). And although I wasn’t too impressed (f.ex how you skipped over my argument about Henrik being a more obvious doper, superficially viewed that is of course, but anyway -he was after all, for internal Wada use, labelled “likely doping” whereas Katir wasn’t leaked to be; meaning how you so easily put progression rate above a fact like that), I thought I saw that you at least tried to reason… (F,ex the argument that Katir had one second larger 1500m progress than Nordås - really looked like that before closer scrutiny…)

But in this current post / answer to rekrunner you seem to have regressed back to only trolling. Because everything you accuse him of here are views he has thoroughly backed up with reasoning and arguments. And you pretend like these arguments/reasonings don’t exist. And you never confront them. That is trolling…

By writing posts like this you are giving rekrunner (and me) easy wins. But we could use some opposition forcing us to elaborate our views. So please pull your self together! Bye bye…

More emotional name-calling -- how predictable.

I did also add in my anti-doper definition that I'm against intentional doping for performance enhancement reasons. Considering that, I'm wondering what kind of doping remains, that you believe I am promoting by calling me "pro-doper".

You accused me of defending "Doper Katir", but even if you mean "doping" in the frivolous sense to include "whereabouts failures", I did not defend Katir's "whereabouts failures". I supported the 2-year ban for his repeated negligence. What I correctly pointed out is that any and all fan-based suspicions or allegations beyond these three missed tests and filing failures from 2023 are baseless. For example, the basis of three missed tests in 2023 cannot explain his allegedly suspicious progression and performance in 2021. Here it is these fans who need to read the rules and use the proper wording.

In the case of Houlihan, it would be different if there were any credible evidence of intent, and credible evidence of the use of an exogenous source of nandrolone, rather than a conviction for 4-years based on a set of presumptions. For example, if it were reasonably established that she intentionally ingested exogenous oral nandrolone, then I would agree that the ban was appropriate on that basis. But, I wouldn't consider the ingestion of a low amount of nandrolone from pork "exogenous" (nor an AAF nor an ADRV nor "doping"), and neither does WADA. As unlikely as pork ingested nandrolone seems, the alternative suggested possibility of the use of pseudo-endogenous oral nandrolone precursors was not shown to be more likely. I have read the decisions, and the reasoning, and the applicable rules and standards, and there still remain several inconsistencies that form the basis of my persistant doubts about the correctness of the verdict not to mention any allegations that go beyond that verdict.

Defending people against accusations of f.ex being rule breakers or criminals doesn’t mean you are pro rule breaking or pro crime. On the contrary -one can be so passionately against the violations and crime that it becomes really important to assure that no innocent is condemned / convicted for that…

When I defend Houlihan and Katir this doesn’t mean that I know (or is saying) they are clean, not at all…

I have very little bias when it comes to defending these two athletes: Houlihan is a fierce competitor of the woman I root for (Norwegian Grøvdal), and Katir clashes against my rooting for Jakob and Nordås. But for me this is about principles and justice (athletes’ human rights -not being unjustly convicted) over bias…

I want dirty athletes to be popped -doping is quite severe in my eyes (not only the cheating, but also the health risk). But I’m also passionate about as few false positives as possible…

I don’t know enough about the crucial facts in the Houlihan case, because there seems to be a lack of reasoning from Wada / CAS made public…

My criticism is (among other things) built on this: Wada’s food expert seemed very certain in his testimony when it comes to prevalence of uncastrated boars (fed on more than the usual percentage of soya) in the US human food chain: “less than 1:10000”, “close to zero”… But for me his testimony here is a red flag! -My experience is that scientists that are very certain on very complex and uncertain areas often are very wrong!

The food scientist may have given details and reasoning for his conclusions that are not included in the CAS papers. But without details of what kind of factual research he bases his conclusions upon we are left to trust him on his good face and name. But I (among others) don’t do this when it comes to scientists, or doping claimers like yourself for that matter… I need to see the underlying facts.

“Less than 1:10000”, “close to zero” -doesn’t that mean they have 10000 tests of pork meat and found no contamination? Or does it mean f.ex 12000 tests and one hit? And how were the tests executed -mostly in grocery stores, and not so specifically in burrito wagons and smaller private shops, and which areas, and what years? And were the stores notified about the testing in advance? And is there any motivation or reasons for sometimes more soya in the fodder than usual, and (illegal) mingling of uncastrated cheap boars (meant as dog food) into the human food chain..? Or is the 1:10000 and close to zero estimates the expert throws out based only on his gut feeling..?

I could launch a theory I don’t know is correct at all (but it might be?): The burrito wagon regularly gave customers pig burritos (despite orders of beef burritos) because this was cheaper raw material / illegal cheap uncastrated boars. -The testimonies from Houlihan’s friends who cheered her meal that actual day surely don’t rule this out…

So the Katir case: I wouldn’t have acted the way he did if I was a drug cheater. But that doesn’t of course mean that he is clean. Wada /AIU has restricted his ban to be about 3 whereabouts violations, and given the lack of good enough proof of something more I have to give the authorities right here.. But I really understand the wave of suspicion…

You can call me a pro doping guy based on my claim of proper and just investigation and justice. And you can go for a low bar in the Wada / AIU /CAS “courts”. But then you support the risk of increased false positives…

Not sheered the food, but shared it…