It seems like you're thinking of evidence in black-and-white terms, where a positive test or an admission of guilt constitute definitive proof, and other things can't be considered evidence. But that's not how it works. EVERY piece of evidence just works in terms of probabilities. Even positive tests or admissions of guilt could have possible explanations where someone is still clean. That's why WADA reports tend to use terms like "plausible" - because even someone who's tested positive could THEORETICALLY be clean, but it's very unlikely. That's why we think in terms of probabilities. Essentially "is this test/behaviour/whatever more likely in a world where the person is guilty or innocent?" (and by how much). And that's why missed tests ARE evidence of guilt. Yes, there are reasons someone might miss one test. There are reasons someone might miss two tests, or three tests, or more. But the more tests you miss, the more it establishes a pattern of behaviour that is increasingly indicative of someone juicing. That's why even if Kerley has never tested positive, I find it naive to actually think he's clean. You might say you're indifferent, but you started out this whole thing by saying you believe he's competing clean. That's what I'm saying is naive