With Salazar's ban, is Farah's reputation Slytherin down?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't see how a coach can get a ban for drugs, yet the athletes he trained be almost completely untouched.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/49853029

[jeremyp]

I don't see how a coach can get a ban for drugs, yet the athletes he trained be almost completely untouched.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/49853029

Because there is no evidence against him. He's never failed a drug test as far as I know. Also, he has broken no world records. He was dominant in a period where the competition wasn't that good.

[Nearly Sane]

Because there is no evidence against him. He's never failed a drug test as far as I know. Also, he has broken no world records. He was dominant in a period where the competition wasn't that good.

My point was a more generalised one that the athletes he trained must always be questionable now because he has been punished, not severely enough imo, for his involvement in athletes using drugs. Who are the athletes using drugs that he was involved with?

[jeremyp]

My point was a more generalised one that the athletes he trained must always be questionable now because he has been punished, not severely enough imo, for his involvement in athletes using drugs. Who are the athletes using drugs that he was involved with?

Well they are questionable, in the sense that they likely will face further investigation - as Wikipedia puts it on Mo Farah's page.

[Nearly Sane]

Well they are questionable, in the sense that they likely will face further investigation - as Wikipedia puts it on Mo Farah's page.

And in the mean time the athletes achievements will be doubted. I think Sifan Hassan was still working with him up to the ban.

To take your point about Farah's reputation, one of the great winners of Olympic long distance races, Lasse Viren, didn't have incredibly fast times but he won important races. There was always a question about his use of what would have been at the time not against the rules use of blood transfusions. An issue which then became a breach under the EPO rules. Working with a coach banned for drug offences has not helped Farah's reputation even before the actual ban. 

[jeremyp]

And in the mean time the athletes achievements will be doubted.

Yes as you insinuated in your opening post.

To take your point about Farah's reputation, one of the great winners of Olympic long distance races, Lasse Viren, didn't have incredibly fast times but he won important races.

He held the 10,000 metre world record and the 5,000 metre world record.

There was always a question about his use of what would have been at the time not against the rules use of blood transfusions. An issue which then became a breach under the EPO rules. Working with a coach banned for drug offences has not helped Farah's reputation even before the actual ban.

You can only beat the people who race against you. Nevertheless, his best 10,000 metre time is nearly thirty seconds slower than the world record. For context, Haile Gebrselassie's world record time set in 1995 is faster than Farah's best ever time.

I kind of think that this is evidence that Farah is clean.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes as you insinuated in your opening post.
He held the 10,000 metre world record and the 5,000 metre world record.
You can only beat the people who race against you. Nevertheless, his best 10,000 metre time is nearly thirty seconds slower than the world record. For context, Haile Gebrselassie's world record time set in 1995 is faster than Farah's best ever time.

I kind of think that this is evidence that Farah is clean.

My bad on Viren. That the achievements of the athletes will be doubted isn't an insinuation, it's what is going to apply because Salazar has been banned.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because there is no evidence against him. He's never failed a drug test as far as I know. Also, he has broken no world records. He was dominant in a period where the competition wasn't that good.

I think that is right - you cannot be found guilty simply by association, you need to be found guilty in your own right. I think there is a legitimate spotlight to shine on Salazar's athletes, but if they have routinely had tests, not missed them and all have come back negative then there is no reason to find the athlete guilty simply because he was coached them.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that is right - you cannot be found guilty simply by association, you need to be found guilty in your own right. I think there is a legitimate spotlight to shine on Salazar's athletes, but if they have routinely had tests, not missed them and all have come back negative then there is no reason to find the athlete guilty simply because he was coached them.

I don't think anyone has suggested that they should.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think anyone has suggested that they should.

I beg to differ. I think the comments:

'... yet the athletes he trained be almost completely untouched'
and
'My point was a more generalised one that the athletes he trained must always be questionable now because he has been punished ...'

implies otherwise.

[Nearly Sane]

I beg to differ. I think the comments:

'... yet the athletes he trained be almost completely untouched'
and
'My point was a more generalised one that the athletes he trained must always be questionable now because he has been punished ...'

implies otherwise.

Which doesn't imply that they should be found guilty.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which doesn't imply that they should be found guilty.

I said they shouldn't be found 'guilty by association' - your comments implied (certainly to me, and I think also to Jeremy P) that they should regardless of being found actually guilty.

I cannot read 'My point was a more generalised one that the athletes he trained must always be questionable now because he has been punished ...' in any other way. If his athletes 'must always be questionable' because he has been punished regardless of whether they have individually failed any kind of test, then they are being considered guilty by association.

[Nearly Sane]

I said they shouldn't be found 'guilty by association' - your comments implied (certainly to me, and I think also to Jeremy P) that they should regardless of being found actually guilty.

I cannot read 'My point was a more generalised one that the athletes he trained must always be questionable now because he has been punished ...' in any other way. If his athletes 'must always be questionable' because he has been punished regardless of whether they have individually failed any kind of test, then they are being considered guilty by association.

questionable is not saying guilty.

[ProfessorDavey]

questionable is not saying guilty.

Nice selective quoting NS. What I actually said was Salazar's athletes shouldn't be considered 'guilty by association' - guilt by association means that they are considered suspect (i.e. questionable) not on the basis of any actual evidence against them but because of whom they associated with (i.e. Salazar).

To be considered guilty by association is effectively exactly the same (albeit with slightly different wording) to your view that 'the athletes he trained must always be questionable now because he has been punished' - that is pretty well textbook guilty by association.

[jeremyp]

questionable is not saying guilty.

No it's not saying it, but your OP does insinuate it (hence my previous use of that word to which you objected).

[ProfessorDavey]

No it's not saying it, but your OP does insinuate it (hence my previous use of that word to which you objected).

And saying that 'the athletes he trained must always be questionable now because he has been punished' is clearly implying guilt by association.

[Nearly Sane]

Nice selective quoting NS. What I actually said was Salazar's athletes shouldn't be considered 'guilty by association' - guilt by association means that they are considered suspect (i.e. questionable) not on the basis of any actual evidence against them but because of whom they associated with (i.e. Salazar).

To be considered guilty by association is effectively exactly the same (albeit with slightly different wording) to your view that 'the athletes he trained must always be questionable now because he has been punished' - that is pretty well textbook guilty by association.

It It wasn't quoting. And i disagree with your 'textbook' . If people are unsure that someone is innocent, they are not saying they are guilty. 

[Nearly Sane]

No it's not saying it, but your OP does insinuate it (hence my previous use of that word to which you objected).

I don't intend to insinuate that. That's your reading.

[Nearly Sane]

And saying that 'the athletes he trained must always be questionable now because he has been punished' is clearly implying guilt by association.

Oh no, it's not!

[ProfessorDavey]

It It wasn't quoting. And i disagree with your 'textbook' . If people are unsure that someone is innocent, they are not saying they are guilty.

Then why mention it in relation to Salazar's athletes specifically - either you think all athletes may not be innocent (in which case there is no relevance of bringing it up in relation to Salazar's athletes) or you think that because Salazar is guilty that there is less chance of his athletes being innocent, which unless there is actual evidence relating to the individual athlete, means you are considering them guilty by association. Note that the whole point about someone being considered guilty by association is that they aren't actually guilty.

And on textbooks - here are a list of 'textbook' examples of guilty by association (from an on-line textbook):

'Having close family members who are in a terrorist organization and thus being thought of by everyone to also be a part of the terrorist organization.

Having a lot of friends who cheat on their spouses and thus having your spouse fear that you will also be a cheater just like your friends.

Hanging out with troublemakers who never do their homework and thus being disliked by your teacher because of who your friends are even though you tend to do OK in school and do your homework.

Not standing up to speak out against an unpopular political idea with all detractors and thus being considered a part of that political group even though you aren't really a part of it.

Going out to the back of the schoolyard to smoke with your friends even though you don't smoke and then getting in trouble when they do just because you are out there.

Being a part of a gang of people that commit thefts and being viewed as a thief even if you do not actually go out and commit any crimes yourself.

Having a lot of friends who speak out in a prejudiced way and not distancing yourself from their statements so you are thought to be prejudiced as well.

Spending a large portion of your day at work with slackers who do not do what the boss asks them to do and then being disliked by your boss because you are friends with the slackers even though you do your work.

Being a part of an unpopular religion that advocates violence and thus being viewed as violent yourself even though you personally do not have any violent tendencies or desires.

Viewing someone who is part of the school band as a nerd because you think that most people on the school band are nerds even if they aren't and even if that particular individual is not a nerd at all.

Being on the football team and being considered a bully and a dumb jock as a result even though you are really a very nice and very smart person and not a bully at all.

Viewing a criminal defense lawyer as an evil and dishonest criminal himself because he defends criminals as a living, even if he is just doing his job and has never actually done anything wrong or broken any laws.

Viewing someone as dishonest simply because he is a politician and you believe that all politicians are dishonest even if the individual politician isn't bad.


Can't you see how viewing an athlete as 'questionable' in terms of use of performance enhancing drugs because their coach has been convicted of drugs offences even if there is no evidence he has used performance enhancing drugs would be a perfect additional example.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh no, it's not!

I'm sorry but it is.

When in a hole stop digging.

[Nearly Sane]

Then why mention it in relation to Salazar's athletes specifically - either you think all athletes may not be innocent (in which case there is no relevance of bringing it up in relation to Salazar's athletes) or you think that because Salazar is guilty that there is less chance of his athletes being innocent, which unless there is actual evidence relating to the individual athlete, means you are considering them guilty by association. Note that the whole point about someone being considered guilty by association is that they aren't actually guilty.

And on textbooks - here are a list of 'textbook' examples of guilty by association (from an on-line textbook):

'Having close family members who are in a terrorist organization and thus being thought of by everyone to also be a part of the terrorist organization.

Having a lot of friends who cheat on their spouses and thus having your spouse fear that you will also be a cheater just like your friends.

Hanging out with troublemakers who never do their homework and thus being disliked by your teacher because of who your friends are even though you tend to do OK in school and do your homework.

Not standing up to speak out against an unpopular political idea with all detractors and thus being considered a part of that political group even though you aren't really a part of it.

Going out to the back of the schoolyard to smoke with your friends even though you don't smoke and then getting in trouble when they do just because you are out there.

Being a part of a gang of people that commit thefts and being viewed as a thief even if you do not actually go out and commit any crimes yourself.

Having a lot of friends who speak out in a prejudiced way and not distancing yourself from their statements so you are thought to be prejudiced as well.

Spending a large portion of your day at work with slackers who do not do what the boss asks them to do and then being disliked by your boss because you are friends with the slackers even though you do your work.

Being a part of an unpopular religion that advocates violence and thus being viewed as violent yourself even though you personally do not have any violent tendencies or desires.

Viewing someone who is part of the school band as a nerd because you think that most people on the school band are nerds even if they aren't and even if that particular individual is not a nerd at all.

Being on the football team and being considered a bully and a dumb jock as a result even though you are really a very nice and very smart person and not a bully at all.

Viewing a criminal defense lawyer as an evil and dishonest criminal himself because he defends criminals as a living, even if he is just doing his job and has never actually done anything wrong or broken any laws.

Viewing someone as dishonest simply because he is a politician and you believe that all politicians are dishonest even if the individual politician isn't bad.


Can't you see how viewing an athlete as 'questionable' in terms of use of performance enhancing drugs because their coach has been convicted of drugs offences even if there is no evidence he has used performance enhancing drugs would be a perfect additional example.

And none of those rather tedious repetitions of the same mistake are helpful since as already pointed out being unsure of innocence isn't the same as saying guilty.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry but it is.

When in a hole stop digging.

He's behind you!

[ProfessorDavey]

And none of those rather tedious repetitions of the same mistake are helpful since as already pointed out being unsure of innocence isn't the same as saying guilty.

Did you actually read them, in many cases the point about being 'guilty by association' is that you are considered to have done wrong, or your innocence of wrong-doing is questioned because of the company you associate with. That's the point about being considered guilty by association, hence:

'Being a part of a gang of people that commit thefts and being viewed as a thief (i.e your innocence being questioned) even if you do not actually go out and commit any crimes yourself'

'Having a lot of friends who cheat on their spouses and thus having your spouse fear that you will also be a cheater (i.e your innocence being questioned) just like your friends.'

But the clear implication of your statement was that you are more unsure of innocence of athletes due to the association with Salazar - if you were no more unsure of their innocence compared to athletes with other coaches it would be completely pointless to mention it.

[Nearly Sane]

Did you actually read them, in many cases the point about being 'guilty by association' is that you are considered to have done wrong, or your innocence of wrong-doing is questioned because of the company you associate with. That's the point about being considered guilty by association, hence:

'Being a part of a gang of people that commit thefts and being viewed as a thief (i.e your innocence being questioned) even if you do not actually go out and commit any crimes yourself'

'Having a lot of friends who cheat on their spouses and thus having your spouse fear that you will also be a cheater (i.e your innocence being questioned) just like your friends.'

But the clear implication of your statement was that you are more unsure of innocence of athletes due to the association with Salazar - if you were no more unsure of their innocence compared to athletes with other coaches it would be completely pointless to mention it.

Given that we have a convicted coach guilty of being involved in the doping of athletes, then they could have been doped without their knowledge. People aren't found innocent, they are found not guilty. Again you are making this a false dichotomy.