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

[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.

To quote a very wise person 'I think there is a legitimate spotlight to shine on Salazar's athletes' this is surely questioning the innocence of the athletes?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

But that's the whole point - they haven't been found guilty.

However to imply that simply because of their association with Salazar that these athletes are now 'questionable/less likely to be innocent/more likely to be guilty'* (delete as appropriate, they all in effect the same thing)' as you have done is clearly considering them guilty by association.

[Nearly Sane]

But that's the whole point - they haven't been found guilty.

However to imply that simply because of their association with Salazar that these athletes are now 'questionable/less likely to be innocent/more likely to be guilty'* (delete as appropriate, they all in effect the same thing)' as you have done is clearly considering them guilty by association.

And I haven't said they are guilty.

[ProfessorDavey]

To quote a very wise person 'I think there is a legitimate spotlight to shine on Salazar's athletes' this is surely questioning the innocence of the athletes?

All top level professional athletes have a spotlight shone on them - that is why their is regular and routine testing.

But once again you are selectively quoting - the whole sentence was:

'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.'

Which is pretty clear that I expect them to continue to engage in the routine testing and that I see no reason to consider them more likely to be guilty/less likely to be innocent/questionable (delete as appropriate) due to their association. Their guilt or otherwise is determined by the evidence of their test results and not their association.

Would really be nice if you would actually quote the whole relevant piece, not an edited version which is used to imply exactly the opposition of what is clear from the whole quote.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I haven't said they are guilty.

You have said they must 'always be questionable now' - how on earth is anyone expected to interpret this other than a view that they are more likely to be guilty/less likely to be innocent (delete as appropriate) now because of their association with Salazar.

[Nearly Sane]

You have said they must 'always be questionable now' - how on earth is anyone expected to interpret this other than a view that they are more likely to be guilty/less likely to be innocent (delete as appropriate) now because of their association with Salazar.

I see you have introduced the term likely as opposed to the absolute of guilty. And yes, I think it is always more likely but that does not mean they are guilty. Glad you got rid of your false dichotomy.

[Nearly Sane]

All top level professional athletes have a spotlight shone on them - that is why their is regular and routine testing.

But once again you are selectively quoting - the whole sentence was:

'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.'

Which is pretty clear that I expect them to continue to engage in the routine testing and that I see no reason to consider them more likely to be guilty/less likely to be innocent/questionable (delete as appropriate) due to their association. Their guilt or otherwise is determined by the evidence of their test results and not their association.

Would really be nice if you would actually quote the whole relevant piece, not an edited version which is used to imply exactly the opposition of what is clear from the whole quote.

I hadn't selectively quoted previously as I pointed out at the time. The point is the first part of the quote shows you think they should be thought more likely to be guilty, it's analogous to your example ''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.'' So why you are questioning me about something you actually feel the same on, I find baffling.

[ProfessorDavey]

I see you have introduced the term likely as opposed to the absolute of guilty. And yes, IU think it is always more leiekly but that does not mean they are guilty. Glad you got rid of your false dichotomy.

No false dichotomy - my starting point was 'guilt by association' - that relates to people who actually aren'y guilty but are considered to be questionable/more likely to be guilty/less likely to be innocent (delete as appropriate) due to their association with someone who is guilty.

[Nearly Sane]

No false dichotomy - my starting point was 'guilt by association' - that relates to people who actually aren'y guilty but are considered to be questionable/more likely to be guilty/less likely to be innocent (delete as appropriate) due to their association with someone who is guilty.

And since you think 'there is a legitimate spotlight to shine on Salazar's athletes' you agree with the idea that they are questionable. You seem hopelessly confused. So I will leave you unless we can move onto something more substantive.

[ProfessorDavey]

And since you think 'there is a legitimate spotlight to shine on Salazar's athletes' you agree with the idea that they are questionable. You seem hopelessly confused. So I will leave you unless we can move onto something more substantive.

Stop selectively quoting:

'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.'

Which means that they should be no more, nor less in the spotlight than any other elite athletes and whether they are deemed to be guilty or otherwise should be based on the evidence of their test results not on their association with Salazar. You are trying to imply exactly the opposite of what I actually said and selectively quoted part of a sentence as that was the only way you could imply I mean the opposite to what I actually said.

There is a term for that ...

[Outrider]

And since you think 'there is a legitimate spotlight to shine on Salazar's athletes' you agree with the idea that they are questionable. You seem hopelessly confused. So I will leave you unless we can move onto something more substantive.

I think it rather depends on what substances Salazar has been dealing with - if it's something with a short metabolic life then the confidence interval of periodic testing might be low enough that there are serious questions.  If that were the case, you'd like to think it would have been mentioned, but I can understand that perhaps WADA doesn't want to do anything that might call into question its own capabilities and processes.

Unfortunately, to an extent, there's always a question about the validity of any successful athlete these days, purely because it's an area of human endeavour in which the arms race between dopers and the authorities has been so well-documented and so extensive and so clear for such an extended period of time.

There's nothing in the evidence, I know, and I genuinely like the guy, but I find I can't help but look at Usain Bolt's record (for instance) and the Jamaican sprinters of that era in general, and think that it feels like something weird was going on.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it rather depends on what substances Salazar has been dealing with - if it's something with a short metabolic life then the confidence interval of periodic testing might be low enough that there are serious questions.  If that were the case, you'd like to think it would have been mentioned, but I can understand that perhaps WADA doesn't want to do anything that might call into question its own capabilities and processes.

Unfortunately, to an extent, there's always a question about the validity of any successful athlete these days, purely because it's an area of human endeavour in which the arms race between dopers and the authorities has been so well-documented and so extensive and so clear for such an extended period of time.

There's nothing in the evidence, I know, and I genuinely like the guy, but I find I can't help but look at Usain Bolt's record (for instance) and the Jamaican sprinters of that era in general, and think that it feels like something weird was going on.

O.

There is a spotlight on all athletes these days and the approach is non discriminatory and relentless. So all top athletes are tested regularly during the training as well as the competition parts of the season. And with A and B samples and storage 'getting away with it' is no longer time limited.

This last point is important as the arms race between dopers and the authorities now can only be (ultimately) won by cheats if dopers are sure that they wont get caught not only by current testing methods, but also by the better methods that will appear 10 years or more down. And they cannot be. Now I know it doesn't produce the ideal result of a current athlete being caught and banned, but the notion that you might be stripped of all your medals and championships years later and ostracised by the sporting community must surely cause some to think carefully before cheating. You might not be found out now but you may well be much later.

[jeremyp]

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

It's your writing.

Perhaps you should have considered wording it in such a way that it didn't misrepresent your position.