I see this alot in the forum in that the substance of a statement in parsed for intricate meanings that are really not relevant.onefastgear said:Oustide magazine has posted a link from Catlin's Blog rebutting some of the evidence presented in the SI article.
The link to Catlin's blog and detailed rebuttal is below:
It doesn't strike me as a particularly strong rebuttal of the SI article. I'm also not sure how the Armstrong camp will take this. Is Catlin a credible or discredited source according to team Pharmstrong?
An anti-doping expert will always leave open the possibulity that doping has occured. In making a denial of a positive, he or she will look at the evidence and conclude that the evidence does not support the conclusion that doping IS present. That does not exclude the possibility that it is.
Anti-doping requires a struct objectivity, one that ALWAYS leaves open the possibility of both doping and ... not doping. The final determiner at any point is made on evidence alone.
Those who are charged with fighting doping must, and indeed should, coach their language in terms exactly like Don Caitlin's. They would not be professinals if they did not.