Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Work with statistics when it comes to cycling; the rate of positive tests to drugged up cyclists is terrible. If you had a similar conviction rate in every day court cases, well, we wouldn't have a problem with prison overcrowding!
The brushing under the carpet of Puerto hasn't helped.
Of course, that would also require a full revision of the anti doping procedure, and its agencies, with full transparency, independence, etc...
Not an easy task by any mean.
"They made 10 tests in about 13 legs - two were positive and in theory all the tests should have been positive. Therefore the method needs to be checked," he said.
That's a 20% success rate for a drug that they can actually detect!
When the dopers are not capable of being caught, then yes, it's perfectly reasonable to speculate as to who's dirty based on a range of factors. That's why we debate who's dirty and who's not.
I think I'm using your same logic in saying: if you see a cyclist taking drugs even though they never fail a test, they're innocent because they haven't failed a test?
Francois- Do you live your whole life by double standards?
What would you think of a person on trial for rape who refuses to do a DNA test?
You know, if I were on an internet site and found myself making cheap shots and getting into arguments with almost every poster, I might reconsider some of my points of view and at the very least, how I am articulating my responses.
No, my post shows that those who dope don't always come up positive.
We are arguing the case here. He's not. It's a discussion. The outcome will not have any major effect for him.
Of course, it would have helped his case if he'd had his DNA sampled to prove he wasn't involved with Puerto...
Your comparison about 'testing every day' doesn't hold water. My initial analogy was simply to point out that if there is a way to significantly reduce doubt and show that you're clean, why not do it?