rekrunner wrote:
Which evidence? I don't ever ignore the evidence. All my statements and doubts are consistent with all the evidence that everyone one of the "lots of people" provided. I just disregard any over-interpretations from non-experts.
The evidence "that you either ignore or deflect from with ridiculous what-if scenarios" such as provided here, including
- improving performances across the east and west once (blood) doping increased such as with Cold war doping - you "disregard" that wondering if training methods have improved
- improving performances across Africa once EPO became available - you "disregard" that wondering if training methods have improved
- the overwhelming science since decades including peer reviewed articles that blood doping works since decades - you "disregard" that wondering if the science would work differently on elite athletes
- the statements from experienced scientists that EPO works - you "disregard" that claiming that they don't have the right experience
- the statements from experienced athletes/coaches that EPO works - you "disregard" that claiming that that is only their "belief"
- the countless examples of EPO users at the very top - you "disregard" that wondering if they benefited from it
- the countless examples of EPO users at the very top who improved to PRs, NRs, CRs, WRs - you "disregard" that wondering if their training improved
- the countless examples of EPO users at the very top who improved to PRs, NRs, CRs, WRs without changing their training - you "disregard" that wondering if they also used steroids
- the stagnation in several events once the ABP was established (until wavelights and superspikes) - you "disregard" that wondering if that is coincidence
In conclusion, there is literally no way to ever convince you. You will troll this board with your mythical claims forever, just like Jon O (who just started posting again here).
And if all those deflections of yours weren't enough, you have the audacity to turn around and literally claim utter nonsense such as "which evidence" or even "there is no evidence" - when you actually mean that there is no 100% proof beyond the tiniest, most ridiculous doubt ("so there is a chance?"), so it all can start from the very beginning, over and over again.
