tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post8445554861580845670..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: The Winnowing: Maurice Suh and Daniel WeissDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-61449556415353697602009-01-01T06:53:00.000-08:002009-01-01T06:53:00.000-08:00blogger, If I may express the balance of the si...blogger,<BR/><BR/> If I may express the balance of the situation in Southern redneck english:<BR/><BR/>less say fair process is fair somma de time.<BR/><BR/> Wrapped up in that, to translate, is that if the system is not bending over backwards to make sure of fairness, it is a poor system that claims to be just<BR/>or fair.<BR/><BR/> Also there is some slight indication that Floyd's case has partially achieved its objective of improving the system. Perhaps Latasha has been the beneficiary of Floyd's efforts.<BR/><BR/>RussRusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00725508645675310008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-56179451958646699502008-12-29T10:13:00.000-08:002008-12-29T10:13:00.000-08:00SYI, the Jenkins example was directly prefaced by ...SYI, the Jenkins example was directly prefaced by Suh's comments about how presumption of innocence is not maintained in the anti-doping process, so I think my comment is legitimate.<BR/><BR/>I don't know how you can argue that the system is unfair in the case of testing error when there are numerous examples of how athletes have indeed been cleared when error is proven: therefore no presumption of guilt. Presumption of guilt would only be confirmed when the athlete isn't cleared in the case of testing error. <BR/><BR/>Your interpretation of the Landis case is not the same as that of the two arbitration panels that worked in a "fair" system, at least fair in the context that Jenkins was cleared by the same system thus "proving" it's fairness. That is your right to have a different interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily mean the system is unfair or that the arbitrator's conclusions in the Landis case were wrong. It just means that you don't agree.bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403871990545353639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-72060545295575130642008-12-29T09:16:00.000-08:002008-12-29T09:16:00.000-08:00I think you didn't read Suh's piece too carefully....I think you didn't read Suh's piece too carefully. He didn't use Jenkins case to directly support his argument about "innocent until proven guilty." He used it to support his argument that the tests are not infallible. His point is that the presumption of guilt based on fallible tests creates an unfair system.<BR/><BR/>Also, if you don't think Suh was able to demonstate that the testing standards were not followed in the Landis case, you need to go back and read the AAA majority decision. There are lots of ways the standards were not followed, although the majority ruled that they didn't affect the outcome of the tests.<BR/><BR/>syiMike Solberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11784753552166129987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-36955668510904974762008-12-29T07:53:00.000-08:002008-12-29T07:53:00.000-08:00Interesting that Suh uses the Latasha Jenkins case...Interesting that Suh uses the Latasha Jenkins case as an example of how the "innocent until proven guilty" principle isn't applied in the anti-doping process when in fact she was cleared by that same process due to the standards not being followed. This would show that the system does work, not that it doesn't work as Suh suggests. Only if her appeal failed despite the standards violations could we conclude that the process doesn't work, and this wasn't the case.<BR/><BR/>Although it is only right that Latasha Jenkins was cleared, it doesn't mean that she was unfairly charged. There is still the possibility that she took doping substances, but according to the procedures she is considered not to have done so.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, Suh was unable to demonstrate that the testing standards were not followed in the Landis case, this is why the Landis positive was confirmed. This is a totally different situation than the Jenkins case.bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403871990545353639noreply@blogger.com