I didn't. I gave my default position(convicted liar/cheat has the burden of proof shifted to them) which was challenged by a bunch of legalistic arguments which, as we all know, has nothing to do with common sense. Criminal vs civil so to speak.
I didn't. I gave my default position(convicted liar/cheat has the burden of proof shifted to them) which was challenged by a bunch of legalistic arguments which, as we all know, has nothing to do with common sense. Criminal vs civil so to speak.
in gatlin's case, he had -ve tests etween '02 - '06 & no mention of any missed tests during that period
what more do you have expected him to have done to have "shifted the burden of proof" ?
EPelle wrote:Followed properly...by whom, the athletes? You weren:t interested in Rule 167-0, which is in direct relation to Gatlin:s.
from the authorities
from dissenter's statement :
The specific instruction of USAFT and USADA for athletes with ADD regarding the standard of care (i.e., merely stop taking your medication before competition) would override the general language of IAAF Rule 55 (5.1). This is particularly the case because IAAF Rule 55 (5.3) creates an ambiguity when its states that a TUE would not be granted for Out-of-Competition use.
what more do you have expected him to have done to have "shifted the burden of proof" ?
To have not taken drugs at any time during his career, perhaps?
you mean prescribed medication ?
If he followed the rules that's fine, of course. I really am curious about this next question. As a fan of T&F are you interested in seeing Gatlin compete again, after all the legal stuff has been resolved? Assuming his best case scenario and he's back on the track this year.
el, forget the first bust, the second bust is enough for us to feel that burden of proof AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED has shifted to him. Are you not getting that is what we are saying? Neither one of us isn't saying the legal process shouldn't play itself out.
if he's served the ban, then i have as much objection to him competing as any european/african/asian who also returns to competition after serving the appropriate punishment for a drug +ve
eldrick wrote:if he's served the ban, then i have as much objection to him competing as any european/african/asian who also returns to competition after serving the appropriate punishment for a drug +ve
That wasn't my question, apologies if I was less than clear. Do you, personally, as a fan of T&F, have an interest in watching him run on the track again?
MJD wrote:el, forget the first bust, the second bust is enough for us to feel that burden of proof AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED has shifted to him. Are you not getting that is what we are saying? Neither one of us isn't saying the legal process shouldn't play itself out.
& what precisely is your time-frame for this burden of proof ?
'02 - '06 : all -ve tests, so has that satisfied the burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?
if/when he returns & the remainder of his career until retirement has -ve tests, does that satisfy your burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?
eldrick wrote:if he's served the ban, then i have as much objection to him competing as any european/african/asian who also returns to competition after serving the appropriate punishment for a drug +ve
That wasn't my question, apologies if I was less than clear. Do you, personally, as a fan of T&F, have an interest in watching him run on the track again?
MJD wrote:I am not going to repeat myself about the negative tests. You keep bringing up legalistic arguments and that isn't what I am talking about here.
marknhj wrote:That wasn't my question, apologies if I was less than clear. Do you, personally, as a fan of T&F, have an interest in watching him run on the track again?
Not that you asked, but put me down for a yes. At this level I believe that most participants in most pro sports are guilty of PED use, some regularly, some circumstantially (injury rehabs, etc.) Gatlin was one of the unlucky ones who got caught. He deserved a two year vacation (the initial test failure being a clerical issue) and should be back on the track later this year.
MJD wrote:I am not going to repeat myself about the negative tests. You keep bringing up legalistic arguments and that isn't what I am talking about here.
then suggest something constructive
We are talking about something to change my view which seem to bother you. I say again, not my problem.
marknhj wrote:That wasn't my question, apologies if I was less than clear. Do you, personally, as a fan of T&F, have an interest in watching him run on the track again?
Not that you asked, but put me down for a yes. At this level I believe that most participants in most pro sports are guilty of PED use, some regularly, some circumstantially (injury rehabs, etc.) Gatlin was one of the unlucky ones who got caught. He deserved a two year vacation (the initial test failure being a clerical issue) and should be back on the track later this year.
"Gatlin was one of the unlucky ones to get caught"? You can't be serious in writing that, surely?
eldy - I think I just realised something. You want him and others back so you can get legit, un-PEded times, to stick in your formulas, right?!
I could care less if anyone caught, even once, ever sets foot on a track again. These people are ruining our sport and I resent them for it.
MJD wrote:I am not going to repeat myself about the negative tests. You keep bringing up legalistic arguments and that isn't what I am talking about here.
then suggest something constructive
We are talking about something to change my view which seem to bother you. I say again, not my problem.
believe you me, i have no bother whatsoever on your views on this matter
eldrick wrote:& what precisely is your time-frame for this burden of proof ?
'02 - '06 : all -ve tests, so has that satisfied the burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?
if/when he returns & the remainder of his career until retirement has -ve tests, does that satisfy your burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?
Seriously, does 167-0 mean nothing to you with respect to your particular point-of-view and presumptions?
i got my answer from 55(5.3)
This is why MJD thought it was funny, and, incedentally, so do I. Rule 167-0 trumps 55(5,3) any time day or night year after year... as a matter of fact, it was written in the spring of 1997.
