"To paraphrase an aging travelling preacher, I'll just go with the conclusions reached by the professionals whose business it is to conduct these cases, not a pretentious troll on a social media site".(quote)
But only when it suits. Otherwise you will play your time-honored role of the pretentious troll.
"To paraphrase an aging travelling preacher, I'll just go with the conclusions reached by the professionals whose business it is to conduct these cases, not a pretentious troll on a social media site".(quote)
But only when it suits. Otherwise you will play your time-honored role of the pretentious troll.
It always suits me to disregard pretentious trolls, and go straight to the source.
"To paraphrase an aging travelling preacher, I'll just go with the conclusions reached by the professionals whose business it is to conduct these cases, not a pretentious troll on a social media site".(quote)
But only when it suits. Otherwise you will play your time-honored role of the pretentious troll.
It always suits me to disregard pretentious trolls, and go straight to the source.
You have come up with no credible reason why he would fail to meet his obligations not once but three times. But in your book no one dopes.
It is not up to me to come up with these reasons -- the AIU published these reasons in their decision.
Maybe Manangoi doped, or maybe not, but there is no way to infer that from missed tests or filing failures, without making a bunch of assumptions.
One of the appropriate assumptions is that missing three tests is likely doping, and hence the doping violation. Because you don't see that three failures suggest something that one or two failures don't you are unable to understand why three failures becomes a breach of the antidoping rules. You treat each excuse individually, when it is the fact they are collective that is relevant. If you weren't wilfully blind one would think you were as thick as a bunch of bricks.
It is not up to me to come up with these reasons -- the AIU published these reasons in their decision.
Maybe Manangoi doped, or maybe not, but there is no way to infer that from missed tests or filing failures, without making a bunch of assumptions.
One of the appropriate assumptions is that missing three tests is likely doping, and hence the doping violation. Because you don't see that three failures suggest something that one or two failures don't you are unable to understand why three failures becomes a breach of the antidoping rules. You treat each excuse individually, when it is the fact they are collective that is relevant. If you weren't wilfully blind one would think you were as thick as a bunch of bricks.
These look like just your assumptions, and you are not one of the professionals we both agreed should be regarded.
Similarly, your self-serving conclusions that your assumptions are appropriate and your suggestions of likely doping and your speculation of the relevance of three reasons considered collectively do not come from professionals.
I can understand why 3 whereabouts failures within 12 months is a breach of anti-doping rules, because these rules were written by professionals.
I'll concede I am not as fast as I was in my younger days, but it has been some 40 years and 40 pounds ago since I competed on the track in my prime.
Your unprofessional speculation is highly predictable given your long history of burning effigies that you built rather than disputing with merit.
If I made any mathematical errors, I'd be delighted if you are able to point them out. Until then, the absolute numbers I gave are both undisputed, and rather straightforward indisputable results derived directly from the published figures of the professionals you choose to side with, as well as the indisputable result of a statement from "casual obsever", who apparently you also choose to side with, even though he has reluctantly broken his policy of silence to acknowledge his obvious omission, no longer standing with you.
I neutrally chose neither side, but quantified and juxtaposed both with each other, in the terms of a distinction brought to us by "casual obsever".
Meanwhile you play your usual games disagreeing with something you cannot put into words.
I'll concede I am not as fast as I was in my younger days, but it has been some 40 years and 40 pounds ago since I competed on the track in my prime.
Your unprofessional speculation is highly predictable given your long history of burning effigies that you built rather than disputing with merit.
If I made any mathematical errors, I'd be delighted if you are able to point them out. Until then, the absolute numbers I gave are both undisputed, and rather straightforward indisputable results derived directly from the published figures of the professionals you choose to side with, as well as the indisputable result of a statement from "casual obsever", who apparently you also choose to side with, even though he has reluctantly broken his policy of silence to acknowledge his obvious omission, no longer standing with you.
I neutrally chose neither side, but quantified and juxtaposed both with each other, in the terms of a distinction brought to us by "casual obsever".
Meanwhile you play your usual games disagreeing with something you cannot put into words.
Of course you must be right. You say so. Ad nauseam.
I'll concede I am not as fast as I was in my younger days, but it has been some 40 years and 40 pounds ago since I competed on the track in my prime.
Your unprofessional speculation is highly predictable given your long history of burning effigies that you built rather than disputing with merit.
If I made any mathematical errors, I'd be delighted if you are able to point them out. Until then, the absolute numbers I gave are both undisputed, and rather straightforward indisputable results derived directly from the published figures of the professionals you choose to side with, as well as the indisputable result of a statement from "casual obsever", who apparently you also choose to side with, even though he has reluctantly broken his policy of silence to acknowledge his obvious omission, no longer standing with you.
I neutrally chose neither side, but quantified and juxtaposed both with each other, in the terms of a distinction brought to us by "casual obsever".
Meanwhile you play your usual games disagreeing with something you cannot put into words.
Of course you must be right. You say so. Ad nauseam.
Small retraction -- the "mathematical" and "chose neither side" paragraphs don't belong in this thread.
Since there is really nothing to add I will vacate the ground.
That was a prediction you made 3 weeks and 14 pages ago in this thread that failed almost as spectacularly as just about everything else you post.
At that time, others were saying this about you:
"Almost all of your ad hominem attacks are on the level of junior high school kids. And you are so predictable. Not a good troll dude."
"Another "witty" one liner when your faulty logic is revealed."
"Again, where is your science, man? It's not enough to "think" somebody is doping, such public claims are called defamation of character.
Just for once in the history of your presence on letsrun provide a substantial source that could prove any of your doping claims."
And I predicted:
"You won't ever get the science or any substantial source from Armstronglivs, just allegations, readings from his own gospels, occasional advice to do your own research, combined with arrogance, and condescension."
Since there is really nothing to add I will vacate the ground.
That was a prediction you made 3 weeks and 14 pages ago in this thread that failed almost as spectacularly as just about everything else you post.
At that time, others were saying this about you:
"Almost all of your ad hominem attacks are on the level of junior high school kids. And you are so predictable. Not a good troll dude."
"Another "witty" one liner when your faulty logic is revealed."
"Again, where is your science, man? It's not enough to "think" somebody is doping, such public claims are called defamation of character.
Just for once in the history of your presence on letsrun provide a substantial source that could prove any of your doping claims."
And I predicted:
"You won't ever get the science or any substantial source from Armstronglivs, just allegations, readings from his own gospels, occasional advice to do your own research, combined with arrogance, and condescension."
But when the board's chief doping denier turns up I regard that as a personal invitation. Someone has to p*ss on the endless propaganda that he spouts on every thread where he is present.
When the slop hits the trough ya come running. Like a moth to a flame. Are you sure you're done, Wilbur?
That'll do pig, that'll do. lol
Are you accusing rekrunner of "slop hitting the trough"? - because if you are I'll have to agree. It's his chosen role - and there doesn't appear to be anyone else in sight you might be referring to.