Originally Posted by jojo
My point was that running down a street is not evidence of a crime. Having a career year concerning HR's is not evidence of any kind concerning PEDs. In other words, here is no crime scene. Just a guy running down the street and someone's supposition that it's possible that he's running from a crime.
In other words, THATS not evidence. It's a conclusion based upon incomplete information. It's pure supposition that then gets used as a premise for a conclusion that player X is cheating. And it's an argument that those who make it seem willing to defend with a vigor not deserving.
Running down the street is "evidence" that the person may have commited a crime. It might be the most flimsy shread of evidence imaginable, but it is still "evidence". You are confused as to what "evidence" means.
No one is saying that someone running down the street has commited a crime, and that's the conclusion you are jumping to. You are equating "evidence" as meaning "enough evidence to convict someone".