Ye Shewen

[BuffaloRules]

The difference is that the US never had a proven government sponsored doping program in place.

Americans dont have government sponsored anything.....

They have had some pretty sophisticated private sponsored doping programs in place over the years...( Balco comes to mind...)

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Americans dont have government sponsored anything.....

They have had some pretty sophisticated private sponsored doping programs in place over the years...( Balco comes to mind...)

What's your point? The difference between US and Chinese doping incidents is a pretty big one, and the sole reason this young swimmer's improvement is being doubted as genuine.

 

[BuffaloRules]

What's your point? The difference between US and Chinese doping incidents is a pretty big one, and the sole reason this young swimmer's improvement is being doubted as genuine.

Well, there are a couple of points...

1.Americans have cheated just as much as anyone else over the years and I dont particular care if they have got their drugs from a lab that is paid with governement money or not...

2. Americans break world records and improve their personal bests all the time to similar extent as Shewin has here, and are not immeadiately treated with suspicion...

Is that plain enough for you?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Well, there are a couple of points...

1.Americans have cheated just as much as anyone else over the years and I dont particular care if they have got their drugs from a lab that is paid with governement money or not...

You may not care how the cheating is supported, but it doesn't diminish the very distinct difference of a state sponsored doping program that delivered no less than 40 positive test results, and proven intent at government level to cheat by using drugs. The fact that you can't (or won't) understand this distinction reflects poorly on your argument.

2. Americans break world records and improve their personal bests all the time to similar extent as Shewin has here, and are not immeadiately treated with suspicion...

Again, if the Americans had proven systemic state intent to cheat the system through doping, they would come under the same scrutiny as the Chinese swimmers.

Is that plain enough for you?

Plain, and very very simple minded.

 

[BuffaloRules]

You may not care how the cheating is supported, but it doesn't diminish the very distinct difference of a state sponsored doping program that delivered no less than 40 positive test results, and proven intent at government level to cheat by using drugs. The fact that you can't (or won't) understand this distinction reflects poorly on your argument.

Really? Because you say so? To me cheating is cheating whether it is state sponsored or not.

Again, if the Americans had proven systemic state intent to cheat the system through doping, they would come under the same scrutiny as the Chinese swimmers.

What scrutiny are the Chinese swimmers coming under exactly? Dont confuse sour grapes with scrutiny...

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Really? Because you say so? To me cheating is cheating whether it is state sponsored or not.

Nope, not because I say so. Because logic dictates it. What creates more suspicion? Individuals cheating the system through doping, or a nation cheating the system through doping?

What scrutiny are the Chinese swimmers coming under exactly?

Media and public scrutiny. The very same scrutiny that has your knickers in a twist.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Nope, not because I say so. Because logic dictates it. What creates more suspicion? Individuals cheating the system through doping, or a nation cheating the system through doping?

You have a funny definition of logic.....

I prefer to believe in "innocent until proven guilty"

Media and public scrutiny. The very same scrutiny that has your knickers in a twist

You seem the one getting worked up Frank...

 

[Frank_Grimes]

You have a funny definition of logic.....

I prefer to believe in innocent until proven guilty

Indeed, and I'm not labeling anyone guilty. Merely pointing out the valid cause for suspicion over the dramatic improvement in her performance.

You seem the one getting worked up Frank...

How so? I've outlined the valid reasons why the media and public have doubts over the validity of this performance and the logic behind them. Not my problem if you choose to ignore or get upset about them.

 

[BuffaloRules]

double post

 

[BuffaloRules]

Indeed, and I'm not labeling anyone guilty. Merely pointing out the valid cause for suspicion over the dramatic improvement in her performance..

I'm glad we agree on something then Frank...

I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise...

How so? I've outlined the valid reasons why the media and public have doubts over the validity of this performance and the logic behind them. Not my problem if you choose to ignore or get upset about them.

Not upset in the slightest, and Im not sure why you think I am...

Dont confuse your opinion as logic though...

I am disappointed however with some of the media attitudes, and I do think there are some double standards at work here for the reasons I have outlined, but it appears that we are not going to agree this point are we Frank?

 

[Mr Angry]

To be fair so do the Americans, Marion Jones etc, and has anybody gotten anywhere near Flo Jo's record yet?

Good point, a USA sprinter breaks a record, we get sus, due to form cheating.

Must be cause they are black......

Eastern Europe 80s all sports
China 90s mainly female swimmers
USA sprinters 00's

All guilty via hindsight.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Not upset in the slightest, and Im not sure why you think I am...

Dont confuse your opinion as logic though...

I am disappointed however with some of the media attitudes, and I do think there are some double standards at work here for the reasons I have outlined, but it appears that we are not going to agree this point are we Frank?

Indeed. I disagree with your suggestion that there are double standards at play, as I have pointed out that the standards are different. You believe that the doped up Chinese swimmers of the past are unrelated to the current batch, but I disagree as they are a product of the same system.

For example - an American athlete under the training of a coach who also trained a disgraced athlete caught doping in previous events would not escape the same scrutiny.

Another example - Flo Jo was dogged with drug rumours throughout her entire career despite passing every single test. Hell, the coroner even requested that she be tested for steroids after her death.

The Chinese swimmers aren't doubted solely because they are Chinese. They are doubted because their government has been proven to cheat the system by doping repeatedly in the past.

Their past is tainted by their government's actions and game plans. It is unfortunate but as I stated in my first post, it is simply a product of their government's intent to put the rules aside and cheat. An intent that is as evidently current as six weeks ago.

This fact cannot be escaped by passing it off as opinion.

 

[kmav23]

http://www.smh.com.au/olympics/swim...t-12-months-fina-confirms-20120802-23g56.html

Ye's clean: swimmer passed four tests in past 12 months, FINA confirms
Date



Swimming's world governing body has defended under-fire Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen, saying there is "no factual basis" to the speculation surrounding her performance.

The 16-year-old burst onto the scene with a final freestyle lap of 28.93 seconds in the 400m individual medley, a time faster than US star Ryan Lochte in the corresponding men's event.

In other countries, other swimmers have won multiple golds and nobody has said anything. How come people criticise me just because I have won multiple golds?

She continued to perform in the 200m IM, winning the event in an Olympic record time of 2min 07.57secs, fuelling speculation she was taking performance enhancing drugs.


Australia's Alicia Coutts, left, has backed China's Ye Shiwen. Photo: AP
FINA released a statement on Wednesdy addressing "insinuations" related to Ye's performances, saying she had undergone four drugs test in the past 12 months.

Advertisement
"Following recent comments reported in the media, FINA would like to clearly state that there is no factual basis to support this kind of insinuations related to the performances of the Chinese swimmer, Shiwen Ye," the statement read.

"This athlete has fulfilled all of the FINA Doping Control obligations, having been tested on four occasions in the last twelve months, including twice before the Chinese Olympic Trials in 2012."

Australian swimmer Alicia Coutts, who won the silver medal behind Ye, defended her rival after their race on Tuesday night.

"I like to believe innocent until proven guilty. As far as I'm concerned I think she is an amazing swimmer and it's just amazing that I got to be as close as I was with how amazing she is," Coutts said.

"I have never been in that position myself, I have never been accused [of doping] but I'm sure it would be tough for the athlete knowing people are saying things like that about you. It wouldn't be a nice feeling. As I said, innocent until proven guilty. You can't speculate something about someone if you don't know."

Ye was also forced to defend herself after the race, responding to a direct question on whether she had ever used performance enhancing drugs: "Absolutely not".

"In other countries, other swimmers have won multiple golds and nobody has said anything," Ye said.

"How come people criticise me just because I have won multiple golds?"

 

[BuffaloRules]

Indeed. I disagree with your suggestion that there are double standards at play, as I have pointed out that the standards are different. You believe that the doped up Chinese swimmers of the past are unrelated to the current batch, but I disagree as they are a product of the same system.

For example - an American athlete under the training of a coach who also trained a disgraced athlete caught doping in previous events would not escape the same scrutiny.

Another example - Flo Jo was dogged with drug rumours throughout her entire career despite passing every single test. Hell, the coroner even requested that she be tested for steroids after her death.

The Chinese swimmers aren't doubted solely because they are Chinese. They are doubted because their government has been proven to cheat the system by doping repeatedly in the past.

Their past is tainted by their government's actions and game plans. It is unfortunate but as I stated in my first post, it is simply a product of their government's intent to put the rules aside and cheat. An intent that is as evidently current as six weeks ago.

This fact cannot be escaped by passing it off as opinion.

What has happened previously has no bearing on this girls case in my "opinion"...

You are entitled to your different opinion, but it is not a "fact"...

 

[Twizzle]

I must say the Aussie camp have been very gracious, the head coach right down to the swimmers she beat have defended her.

They may think different in private but compared to the yanks blowing up deluxe in the media we've taken it well. I cant believe some of the accusations coming from the American camp, they certainly dont sugar coat anything.

The best comment I heard was from Keiran Perkins regarding a 15 year old girl beating their 2 best male swimmers, Perkins said, "they should be questioning as to why their best swimmers can't beat a 15 year old girl, rather than accuse the girl of cheating.".

 

[WaznTheGreat]

These young female swimmers are coming home with faster sectionals then Kingston Town,nothing suss here,move along.:sarcasm:

 

[Horrie Is God]

These young female swimmers are coming home with faster sectionals then Kingston Town,nothing suss here,move along.:sarcasm:

:lol:

I'd love to believe that she is clean,& just the biggest freak to pull on a pair of budgie smugglers (or whatever they call girls trunks),but i'm waaay too cynical..

It's very sus to me..

 

[gryphonz]

1. Not every moment, just this one very suspect moment where a slip of a 16 year old girl swam a final leg faster than an elite male swimmer who in turn beat the greatest swimmer of all time.

2. The past, particularly with unrepentant repeat offenders, is an excellent predictor of future behaviour. That's why its brought up. That and Occam's Razor. You tell me what the simplest explanation is for Ye's inexplicable feats of power and endurance.

3. Most Westerners think that way hey. Who's making racial generalisations now then? Hypocrite. The difference is - no-one here is making any generalisations about Asians, they are making informed and educated guesses at specific conduct by a specific group of athletes and administrators from one particular country in one particular sport. And they have a good, objective and reasonable basis for the speculation.

I'll watch with interest a few things - how seriously the IOC actually look into the swim and the athlete and the squad, how much they are intimidated by the Chinese playing the race card and flexing their influence muscles, how Ye continues to perform now that the spotlight is on her with suspicion of doping making it even more difficult to dodge the killer bullet test, how open the Chinese are in terms of co-operation etc, and what happens in the future as current samples get tested with better and more targeted tests looking at things the testing bodies don't know about yet but which will come to light in due time.

Improper use of Occam's razor. Occam's Razor means that you use known entities rather than throw in an unknown one to explain a result.
In this case, if a swimmer passed the drug test, then she is either not doping, or using an undetectable drug. In this case, assumption of an undetectable drug, x, is multiplication of entities and so we should take the hypothesis that she is not doping.

"no-one here is making any generalisations about Asians, they are making informed and educated guesses at specific conduct by a specific group of athletes and administrators from one particular country in one particular sport."
Did you just make a massive generalization after calling someone a hypocrite for making a generalization? Logical fallacies, false generalization tu quoque and ad hominem. Note that I do the same, but it still invalidates your specific point.

 

[gryphonz]

I'll actually take notice of the opinion of a bloke like John Leonard, the executive director of the World Swimming Coaches Association, before an antagonistic know-nothing like you AG.

And he's not the only one, among people who know what they're talking about. "Leonard, who has been executive director of the WSCA since 1989, claimed that the consensus in the coaching community was that the swim was “unbelievable”. He said: “I use that word in its precise meaning. At this point it is not believable to many people.”

From The Australian:



Its all a matter of opinion and speculation, but the opinions come from people who know their shit and the speculation is pretty well founded. Its all well and good to jump to her defense on principles, and she is being afforded all such benefits, but failing to question the situation when there are so many good reasons to do so would be ridiculous.

Like I said, it'll be interesting to see how things pan out and how she goes in the future.

Logical fallacy, appeal to authority.
Argument from authority only works when the majority of respected swimmers, swim coaches and sports officials have that opinion, rather than a minority, like Leonard. Leonard claims consensus, but it's not on public record and so must be discounted.

In that case, the majority of swimmers, swim coaches, and sports officials like Phelps, Bowman, Moynihan, Coutts et al. have come out in support of Ye. (For the sake of political correctness or whatever). In any case, the published opinion of the majority of respected swimmers and swim coaches is that she didn't dope, making a strong inductive argument that she didn't dope.

Sorry, had to register after seeing all that bad use of logic.

 

[lockyno1]

All the swimmers have said is "innocent till proven". They cannot say whether she is doping or not. That said watch her fall off the radar after this and suddenly "retire"