3 ms·
> Did you read the article I sure did. And I can distinguish which data points are suspicious or incriminatory, and which are empty of meaning. > naturally th
by inopinatus 7y ago
> Did you read the article
I sure did. And I can distinguish which data points are suspicious or incriminatory, and which are empty of meaning.
> naturally this furthers suspicion.
No, it doesn’t. This is my point: claiming it is so only reveals the low standards of evidence of the claimant.
- koboll 7y agoWell, it's a lot of circumstantial evidence that he cut or disappeared during suspiciously fast splits. Meanwhile there is no definitive evidence that he's actually able to finish races as fast as he says he is -- not a single instance in which an observer or tamper-resistant GPS tracker can verify his splits. Until we have that evidence, the balance seems to tip toward him likely being a cheater.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- inopinatus 7y agoThat’s true. What’s untrue is that being absent from one opportunity to build that counter-claim somehow, and I quote, “says it all”. It doesn’t. It doesn’t add to the weight of evidence one way or another. Believing otherwise demonstrates poor judgement. If there was an evidentiary record of the participant specifically avoiding that event to avoid being definitely found incapable, that would be a different data point.