tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447231911472953681.post8592947383156675220..comments2023-10-10T09:13:36.708-07:00Comments on Meyrick Jones Racing: "What do you think about that South African guy?"MJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00534776540520644883noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447231911472953681.post-15465642561946587472008-05-18T09:57:00.000-07:002008-05-18T09:57:00.000-07:00Thanks for coming over to read my post Adam. You ...Thanks for coming over to read my post Adam. <BR/><BR/>You make a few great points: especially questioning me on why I believe the IAAF should bear the burden of proof. When I try to answer I am not sure why I believe that... maybe Oscar should bear it, or a running shoe maker, or an oxygen tent manufacturer etc.<BR/><BR/>I also totally agree with your statement about "unequal preparation"...<BR/><BR/>In the end, Oscar can only run 400 metres as fast as he can run it... and so can everyone else.... maybe it is the general public, fans of the sport and commentators like you and I that will decide where his accomplishment rates. Because no matter what Court A or Court B says everyone will have a different opinion about it.<BR/><BR/>I will be racing in Vancouver - thanks for cheering if you are there!<BR/><BR/>MeyrickMJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00534776540520644883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447231911472953681.post-62999912090196105072008-05-18T09:02:00.000-07:002008-05-18T09:02:00.000-07:00Hey Meyrick,Thanks for checking out Muddy Socks an...Hey Meyrick,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for checking out Muddy Socks and for your POV. Your site is pretty awesome, as are your accomplishments. <BR/><BR/>I fully agree that the IAAF seems to have put forward a shoddy case and it cost them the verdict.I agree that in order to ensure fairness, that the CAS must adhere to the legal process, judging only on the facts before them and it seems as though, in this case, the facts used by the IAAF fell short of proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the blades offer an advantage.<BR/><BR/>My bigger beef is with the precedent that this sets. It would seem, from my lay understanding of it all, that the evidence used by Pistorius was equally flawed (namely its lack of peer review prior to the arbitration). I realize that this issue is slightly time sensitive, with the qualification period for the Games <BR/>fast approaching,but it seems like the same standard of care was not applied to both parties in this case and that the evidence used by the defendant should probably not have been admissible, or should at least have been more strongly attacked.<BR/><BR/>I also don't understand why the burden of proof law with the IAAF? Surely it should have been up to Pistorius to prove that his new technology offered no adavtange. This procedural element bothers me. Does this now mean that the IAAF must anticipate and prove that all new technology coming into the sport has or will have an unfair advantage? This seems like an impossible proposition.As the Science of sport states:<BR/>"the only approach for the scientist to this matter is to look for differences that imply advantage - to actually confirm advantage is impossible".<BR/><BR/>While I strongly disagree with Ross Tucker's (Science of Sport) stance on criticizing Hugh Herr (Pistorius' science team), because he is a double amputee and would have a bias, that is simply a weak logical argument, I do agree that <BR/>the CAS should not get in the habit of allowing scientific evidence that would not pass academic standards, as this is a dangerous slippery slope. However it was up to the IAAF lawyers to attack the case on this fact and they didn't.<BR/><BR/><BR/>While I can only begin to imagine the struggles that Pistorius has had to endure and I do marvel at the level of mastery that he seems to have over his sport, the judgment should not (and did not)take these adversities into consideration, because that would open up a whole new Pandora's Box. Imagine if you could appeal an athletic outcome based on unequal preparation? I would have multiple world titles under appeal right now :) <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I imagine that this outcome will remain very controversial and I am sure that it will have some very interesting implications down the road.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and perspective on it, as I can only speculate on all the points.<BR/><BR/>Good luck with your upcoming races (North Shore tri) and I imagine that I will get to watch you race Tri World's in Vancouver? <BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/>Adam (aka www.muddysocks.com)Adamohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05616913998029566385noreply@blogger.com