Sifan Hassan is the best of you all haters and she is CLEAN

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yes, you would. 4 years. Like every other major convicted doper.

Yes.

Salazar.

No NOP athletes.

Glowing Endorsements wrote:

I thought Sleazy got banned for creeping the girls out?

The details haven't been published (yet), but we know that he was banned for life for "sexual misconduct" and "emotional misconduct". Unfortunately even such a person still has many defenders, as one can see here.

In 2019, he was banned for four years for three anti-doping rule violations, which is the ban discussed here.

Both bans are currently running. Lol.

casual obsever wrote:

Glowing Endorsements wrote:

I thought Sleazy got banned for creeping the girls out?

The details haven't been published (yet), but we know that he was banned for life for "sexual misconduct" and "emotional misconduct". Unfortunately even such a person still has many defenders, as one can see here.

In 2019, he was banned for four years for three anti-doping rule violations, which is the ban discussed here.

Both bans are currently running. Lol.

At least we should all be comforted by the fact that no NOP athlete was ever banned.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yes, you would. 4 years. Like every other major convicted doper.

Yes.

Salazar.

No NOP athletes.

Absence of evidence doesn't mean absence of doping. Except to a denier. Most dopers are never caught - but they are still doping.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

The details haven't been published (yet), but we know that he was banned for life for "sexual misconduct" and "emotional misconduct". Unfortunately even such a person still has many defenders, as one can see here.

In 2019, he was banned for four years for three anti-doping rule violations, which is the ban discussed here.

Both bans are currently running. Lol.

At least we should all be comforted by the fact that no NOP athlete was ever banned.

If that is so you would also be comforted by the fact that most dopers are never caught. Even though in this case the coach was.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yes.

Salazar.

No NOP athletes.

Absence of evidence doesn't mean absence of doping. Except to a denier. Most dopers are never caught - but they are still doping.

That's pretty cool. I can make up "facts" just like you. Did you know that 9 out 10 obese people don't overeat? Those that believe obese people overeat are deniers. A denier is person who requires evidence to accept a stated "fact".

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yes.

Salazar.

No NOP athletes.

Absence of evidence doesn't mean absence of doping. Except to a denier. Most dopers are never caught - but they are still doping.

This is a classic example of “argument from ignorance”. Comforting to worshippers, but also a fallacy.

Since I tend to favor knowledge over ignorance, I agree with the statement of the one person who probably knows the most outside of NOP, about Salazar and NOP, after 5 years of investigation and 2 years of litigation, leaving no stone unturned, speaking with 30 witnesses (current and former NOP athletes and staff), more than 2000 exhibits, and 5780 pages of transcripts.

Given that OOC testing pools are limited, and testing in-competition is random, unless you are a medalist, I wonder if most dopers are even tested. Some dopers are caught. Yet after all this heightened scrutiny, no NOP athletes were.

You choose to ignore those with knowledge and use ignorance as the foundation for something you want to believe.

I find that reliance on the ignorance of knowledge sad, for the doping worshipper and for the sport.

bladerunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Absence of evidence doesn't mean absence of doping. Except to a denier. Most dopers are never caught - but they are still doping.

That's pretty cool. I can make up "facts" just like you. Did you know that 9 out 10 obese people don't overeat? Those that believe obese people overeat are deniers. A denier is person who requires evidence to accept a stated "fact".

I didn't make up a "fact". It is known - as a fact - that the incidence of doping far exceeds its detection and that only a very small percentage of dopers are caught. That means the absence of evidence of doping in any athletes does not establish they are clean. The chances are high that a substantial number aren't. A denier refuses to acknowledge that and maintains there is no doping except for those who are caught.

You exemplify the argument from ignorance.