The things you said I know are nonsense, because you said them. They were your nonsensical words, not mine.
I tend to rely on the words of athletes with personal experience, like Nick Willis and Ron Clarke and Roger Bannister.
But not the words of people like Armstrong or Jose Canseco, who said doping makes a top athlete like "superman".
What does Canseco say? In a 2010 ESPN interview "Steroids are overrated."
What did Armstrong's doping doctor/scientist Ferrari say about Armstrong? "Armstrong didn't need to dope." and "... the American cyclist could have been just as successful without doping."
Note that Armstrong was a cyclist, not an elite distance runner. Canseco played baseball using steroids. You keep losing sight of the point that has yet to be proved -- the alleged effect of blood doping for elite distance running performances. Or alternatively, is blood doping better than altitude training alone?
"Feeling like supermen" is an emotional expression suitable for propogating mythology among the gullible, not a measure of distance running performance. The emotional confirmation could also be a strong indication of placebo.
The fact is that in the '70s, you were young and naive and gullibly swayed by emotional myths by people you trusted because you thought they were smarter and more experienced than you. And here we are five decades later, and all of your psychological defense mechanisms are doubling down and tripling down on five decades of emotionally invested gullibility, unable to provide any substantial support or evidence for any of your gullible beliefs.
But not the words of people like Armstrong or Jose Canseco, who said doping makes a top athlete like "superman".
What does Canseco say? In a 2010 ESPN interview "Steroids are overrated."
What did Armstrong's doping doctor/scientist Ferrari say about Armstrong? "Armstrong didn't need to dope." and "... the American cyclist could have been just as successful without doping."
Note that Armstrong was a cyclist, not an elite distance runner. Canseco played baseball using steroids. You keep losing sight of the point that has yet to be proved -- the alleged effect of blood doping for elite distance running performances. Or alternatively, is blood doping better than altitude training alone?
"Feeling like supermen" is an emotional expression suitable for propogating mythology among the gullible, not a measure of distance running performance. The emotional confirmation could also be a strong indication of placebo.
The fact is that in the '70s, you were young and naive and gullibly swayed by emotional myths by people you trusted because you thought they were smarter and more experienced than you. And here we are five decades later, and all of your psychological defense mechanisms are doubling down and tripling down on five decades of emotionally invested gullibility, unable to provide any substantial support or evidence for any of your gullible beliefs.
Prove me wrong.
What a load of cr*p - as usual, from you.
Canseco's autobiography was called "Juiced", because that was what he was - and so were most of the other top baseball players in his era. Unlike you, they weren't idiots who persisted in an activity that didn't produce results. Doping worked for them - that's why they did it. According to Canseco, 85% of pro baseball players were doping. Here's what he said doping does:
"An average athlete who dopes becomes good, a good athlete becomes outstanding, and exceptional athlete becomes virtually unbeatable". He said for a top athlete who dopes they feel "invincible".
But then deniers like yourself pore over your selective statistics to try to prove to yourselves that a top athlete like Canseco doesn't know what he was talking about. One way you try to do that is to convince yourselves that somehow doping which works in baseball, cycling and indeed any other sport doesn't achieve those results for distance runners, despite the fact they share the same physiology and that there is an innumerable choice of drug to suit every kind of athletic requirement.
Sage Canaday was so right about you, when he said you are clueless about all of this.
But not the words of people like Armstrong or Jose Canseco, who said doping makes a top athlete like "superman".
Question for you AL-if tracks are faster [ they are ] and shoes are faster [they are] and allllll of the great African and non African runners , sprinters through marathoners, have allllll been doping [ which helps enormously, right?] these past 30 years, why have men's 800m times stagnated so much??? Coe's time from over 30 years ago has barely been approved upon! Was that small little 130 lb, not exactly jacked guy on so many steroids it beats any of the EPO- HGH -steroid regimens all of the top Africans and others have been fine-tuning and perfecting the last 30 years??? Shouldn't a bunch of them [ in super shoes and on super tracks and doped to the gils] be smashing 1:40 with ease? 1:44 still [ last few years] wins LOTS of big meets Hmmm.
I really don't think you can come up with a good, consistent [with your other views] answer for that. Good luck!
One way of trying to achieve the conclusion you prefer is to set up a straw man that you can easily shoot down.
Contrary to what you claim, I don't say all runners are doping. I can't say that. What I do think - and so do antidoping experts - is that doping is throughout sport and especially at the top level. If that is so then it follows that the best are amongst those likely to be doping. But we don't know what the exact numbers could be, because doping is a clandestine and thus largely invisible practice.
Improvements in tracks and shoes will probably have had some effect on performances but it is virtually impossible to determine exactly what that will be when doping has also been likely to be present.
Over the last half century, and not just the last thirty or so years, we have seen dramatic improvements in performances, throughout the sport. Doping has been a feature of the sport throughout that time so it will have been a contributing factor.
You say times have "stagnated" in the 800. They haven't. At the very top, the best performances are faster than what Coe ran, but what is also apparent is that since his era there are many more who are running in the 1:42-43 category. In every running event, the field has lifted in the last few decades. Although El Guerrouj's records still stand the numbers of runners who approach his times in the 1500 have increased. That is notwithstanding that the kind of drug that he had access to, EPO, for which there was no test, can now be tested for and that the biopassport will have inhibited doping. We are seeing that there are many ways to dope. Just look at the WADA list.
That there have been more dramatic improvements in the longer running events is because many of the drugs available enhance endurance, and so the effects of doping will be more conspicuous in those events. The improvements in the sprints or anaerobic events have been less dramatic - Flojo's and the E Bloc records still stand - because the drugs today that increase strength are probably no more effective than the steroids of yesteryear. The 800 finds itself at the nexus of the anaerobic and aerobic events, and so that may be a reason why endurance-based doping has had less of an effect on that event - for both men and women.
I might lastly turn your argument around against you, and ask why have the technological advances that you say have contributed to faster times in every event had no discernible effect in the 800, which you say has stagnated. So tracks aren't really faster and neither are shoes, or we would see that in the 800 as in the other longer running events?
What does Canseco say? In a 2010 ESPN interview "Steroids are overrated."
What did Armstrong's doping doctor/scientist Ferrari say about Armstrong? "Armstrong didn't need to dope." and "... the American cyclist could have been just as successful without doping."
Note that Armstrong was a cyclist, not an elite distance runner. Canseco played baseball using steroids. You keep losing sight of the point that has yet to be proved -- the alleged effect of blood doping for elite distance running performances. Or alternatively, is blood doping better than altitude training alone?
"Feeling like supermen" is an emotional expression suitable for propogating mythology among the gullible, not a measure of distance running performance. The emotional confirmation could also be a strong indication of placebo.
The fact is that in the '70s, you were young and naive and gullibly swayed by emotional myths by people you trusted because you thought they were smarter and more experienced than you. And here we are five decades later, and all of your psychological defense mechanisms are doubling down and tripling down on five decades of emotionally invested gullibility, unable to provide any substantial support or evidence for any of your gullible beliefs.
Prove me wrong.
What a load of cr*p - as usual, from you.
Canseco's autobiography was called "Juiced", because that was what he was - and so were most of the other top baseball players in his era. Unlike you, they weren't idiots who persisted in an activity that didn't produce results. Doping worked for them - that's why they did it. According to Canseco, 85% of pro baseball players were doping. Here's what he said doping does:
"An average athlete who dopes becomes good, a good athlete becomes outstanding, and exceptional athlete becomes virtually unbeatable". He said for a top athlete who dopes they feel "invincible".
But then deniers like yourself pore over your selective statistics to try to prove to yourselves that a top athlete like Canseco doesn't know what he was talking about. One way you try to do that is to convince yourselves that somehow doping which works in baseball, cycling and indeed any other sport doesn't achieve those results for distance runners, despite the fact they share the same physiology and that there is an innumerable choice of drug to suit every kind of athletic requirement.
Sage Canaday was so right about you, when he said you are clueless about all of this.
And what are these innumerable drugs then; name one that can’t be tested for.
Canseco's autobiography was called "Juiced", because that was what he was - and so were most of the other top baseball players in his era. Unlike you, they weren't idiots who persisted in an activity that didn't produce results. Doping worked for them - that's why they did it. According to Canseco, 85% of pro baseball players were doping. Here's what he said doping does:
"An average athlete who dopes becomes good, a good athlete becomes outstanding, and exceptional athlete becomes virtually unbeatable". He said for a top athlete who dopes they feel "invincible".
But then deniers like yourself pore over your selective statistics to try to prove to yourselves that a top athlete like Canseco doesn't know what he was talking about. One way you try to do that is to convince yourselves that somehow doping which works in baseball, cycling and indeed any other sport doesn't achieve those results for distance runners, despite the fact they share the same physiology and that there is an innumerable choice of drug to suit every kind of athletic requirement.
Sage Canaday was so right about you, when he said you are clueless about all of this.
What a crock of poo-poo.
You told me to listen to Canseco. He says "steroids are overrated". So much for "juiced".
You told me to listen to Armstrong -- a pathological liar. Ferrari is the brains of Armstrong's doping.
Whatever Sage said about me doesn't matter -- what does he know about blood doping and elite performances?
But not the words of people like Armstrong or Jose Canseco, who said doping makes a top athlete like "superman".
What does Canseco say? In a 2010 ESPN interview "Steroids are overrated."
What did Armstrong's doping doctor/scientist Ferrari say about Armstrong? "Armstrong didn't need to dope." and "... the American cyclist could have been just as successful without doping."
Hilarious!...that would have been something to see a clean Armstrong win 7 straight Tours over doped competition! 🤣 And why would have Ferrari accepted the million $$$ bucks from Armstrong to put him on a EPO/blood transfusion program if Armstrong could have been just successful without doping? 🤣
You're clearly clowning around & trolling big time if you believe that ridiculous statement made by Ferrari - who, btw, was considered one of the best "doping doctors" of all-time during cycling's full-throttle EPO era! 😉
And Ferrari's been proven wrong anyway - it would have been impossible for Armstrong to have the same success with just altitude training vs oxygen-vector doping.
Sport medicine doc Michael Puchowicz contests Michele Ferrari's claims that Lance Armstrong would have benefited equally from altitude training and EPO
This sounds like the views of one single poster who used to post under a registered name.
The assumptions from scientists regarding elite performance are baseless, regardless of what scientists say. But the honest ones usually say their assumptions are limited do not apply to elite performances.
The assumptions from coaches of elite athletes might not be baseless, but they don't say anything.
In 1970s, tracks changed from dirt and cinder to tartan. Expert estimates then were 1 second per 440y/400m lap. The East began using steroids for women. Sprinters and fielders also doped.
But if you want to continue to argue that sea-level athletes maxed out with doping in the '80s, before EPO, and that EPO didn't make them faster, and the East Africans are just that much more talented, I am always prepared to listen.
I don't get why I matters whether I am registered or not. The "views of a single poster"? Surely it's been well established that doping decreased in Europe (and arguably to a lesser extent in America) after the fall of the wall - do you not agree?
And now are calling the scientists who don't agree with your PEDs-don't-work-religion dishonest? And their views baseless? Who are you again?
"Expert estimates". Good one. Were they - gasp - maybe baseless from dishonest experts? How do they know? What's your source?
1 second per lap in the 70s, cool, let's go with that for now. Then why the further advancements in the 80s, and why did that basically stop in the 90s and 00s if not for less doping?
Finally, I never argued "that sea-level athletes maxed out with doping in the '80s" etc., so I cannot really continue with that, can I now?
All these distortions from you, when all I pointed out was that your unique conclusion about EPO is against scientists, coaches and athletes since decades, and can only be "justified" with your unsubstantiated beliefs about prevalence of doping in the 80s and 90s. Notably you keep distracting without ever saying what exactly are your beliefs here. Evidently because they are baseless and even you do not even attempt to defend your own strange beliefs.
Canseco's autobiography was called "Juiced", because that was what he was - and so were most of the other top baseball players in his era. Unlike you, they weren't idiots who persisted in an activity that didn't produce results. Doping worked for them - that's why they did it. According to Canseco, 85% of pro baseball players were doping. Here's what he said doping does:
"An average athlete who dopes becomes good, a good athlete becomes outstanding, and exceptional athlete becomes virtually unbeatable". He said for a top athlete who dopes they feel "invincible".
But then deniers like yourself pore over your selective statistics to try to prove to yourselves that a top athlete like Canseco doesn't know what he was talking about. One way you try to do that is to convince yourselves that somehow doping which works in baseball, cycling and indeed any other sport doesn't achieve those results for distance runners, despite the fact they share the same physiology and that there is an innumerable choice of drug to suit every kind of athletic requirement.
Sage Canaday was so right about you, when he said you are clueless about all of this.
What a crock of poo-poo.
You told me to listen to Canseco. He says "steroids are overrated". So much for "juiced".
You told me to listen to Armstrong -- a pathological liar. Ferrari is the brains of Armstrong's doping.
Whatever Sage said about me doesn't matter -- what does he know about blood doping and elite performances?
So you didn't listen to Canseco. You cherry-picked a comment - like you always do - and ignored his other comments and indeed the whole thrust of his autobiography. You argue like a scientific creationist who insists dinosaur footprints have been found that are contemporaneous with those of humans. A dumb ideologue.
Armstrong only lied about his doping - and before he was caught. A pathological liar is one who lies with everything he says. Fits you perfectly.
This sounds like the views of one single poster who used to post under a registered name.
The assumptions from scientists regarding elite performance are baseless, regardless of what scientists say. But the honest ones usually say their assumptions are limited do not apply to elite performances.
The assumptions from coaches of elite athletes might not be baseless, but they don't say anything.
In 1970s, tracks changed from dirt and cinder to tartan. Expert estimates then were 1 second per 440y/400m lap. The East began using steroids for women. Sprinters and fielders also doped.
But if you want to continue to argue that sea-level athletes maxed out with doping in the '80s, before EPO, and that EPO didn't make them faster, and the East Africans are just that much more talented, I am always prepared to listen.
I don't get why I matters whether I am registered or not. The "views of a single poster"? Surely it's been well established that doping decreased in Europe (and arguably to a lesser extent in America) after the fall of the wall - do you not agree?
And now are calling the scientists who don't agree with your PEDs-don't-work-religion dishonest? And their views baseless? Who are you again?
"Expert estimates". Good one. Were they - gasp - maybe baseless from dishonest experts? How do they know? What's your source?
1 second per lap in the 70s, cool, let's go with that for now. Then why the further advancements in the 80s, and why did that basically stop in the 90s and 00s if not for less doping?
Finally, I never argued "that sea-level athletes maxed out with doping in the '80s" etc., so I cannot really continue with that, can I now?
All these distortions from you, when all I pointed out was that your unique conclusion about EPO is against scientists, coaches and athletes since decades, and can only be "justified" with your unsubstantiated beliefs about prevalence of doping in the 80s and 90s. Notably you keep distracting without ever saying what exactly are your beliefs here. Evidently because they are baseless and even you do not even attempt to defend your own strange beliefs.
I don't get why I matters whether I am registered or not. The "views of a single poster"? Surely it's been well established that doping decreased in Europe (and arguably to a lesser extent in America) after the fall of the wall - do you not agree?
And now are calling the scientists who don't agree with your PEDs-don't-work-religion dishonest? And their views baseless? Who are you again?
"Expert estimates". Good one. Were they - gasp - maybe baseless from dishonest experts? How do they know? What's your source?
1 second per lap in the 70s, cool, let's go with that for now. Then why the further advancements in the 80s, and why did that basically stop in the 90s and 00s if not for less doping?
Finally, I never argued "that sea-level athletes maxed out with doping in the '80s" etc., so I cannot really continue with that, can I now?
All these distortions from you, when all I pointed out was that your unique conclusion about EPO is against scientists, coaches and athletes since decades, and can only be "justified" with your unsubstantiated beliefs about prevalence of doping in the 80s and 90s. Notably you keep distracting without ever saying what exactly are your beliefs here. Evidently because they are baseless and even you do not even attempt to defend your own strange beliefs.
So you didn't listen to Canseco. You cherry-picked a comment - like you always do - and ignored his other comments and indeed the whole thrust of his autobiography. You argue like a scientific creationist who insists dinosaur footprints have been found that are contemporaneous with those of humans. A dumb ideologue.
Armstrong only lied about his doping - and before he was caught. A pathological liar is one who lies with everything he says. Fits you perfectly.
You told me to listen to Canseco while providing none of his comments. What was I supposed to listen to exactly? I picked the top Google hit.
In any case, I never expressed any doubt about steroids for baseball. Canseco doesn't answer any question I have ever asked.
Do you really believe Armstrong only lied about his doping, and the lying is finished? That seems both naive and gullible. You are a pathological believer.
Canseco's autobiography was called "Juiced", because that was what he was - and so were most of the other top baseball players in his era. Unlike you, they weren't idiots who persisted in an activity that didn't produce results. Doping worked for them - that's why they did it. According to Canseco, 85% of pro baseball players were doping. Here's what he said doping does:
"An average athlete who dopes becomes good, a good athlete becomes outstanding, and exceptional athlete becomes virtually unbeatable". He said for a top athlete who dopes they feel "invincible".
But then deniers like yourself pore over your selective statistics to try to prove to yourselves that a top athlete like Canseco doesn't know what he was talking about. One way you try to do that is to convince yourselves that somehow doping which works in baseball, cycling and indeed any other sport doesn't achieve those results for distance runners, despite the fact they share the same physiology and that there is an innumerable choice of drug to suit every kind of athletic requirement.
Sage Canaday was so right about you, when he said you are clueless about all of this.
And what are these innumerable drugs then; name one that can’t be tested for.
That isn't the claim, you moron. If you see the list of prohibited substances it simply shows that there are many different ped's, and the choices available to athletes include the drugs WADA has yet to be able to identify.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
So you didn't listen to Canseco. You cherry-picked a comment - like you always do - and ignored his other comments and indeed the whole thrust of his autobiography. You argue like a scientific creationist who insists dinosaur footprints have been found that are contemporaneous with those of humans. A dumb ideologue.
Armstrong only lied about his doping - and before he was caught. A pathological liar is one who lies with everything he says. Fits you perfectly.
You told me to listen to Canseco while providing none of his comments. What was I supposed to listen to exactly? I picked the top Google hit.
In any case, I never expressed any doubt about steroids for baseball. Canseco doesn't answer any question I have ever asked.
Do you really believe Armstrong only lied about his doping, and the lying is finished? That seems both naive and gullible. You are a pathological believer.
I quoted Canseco above. He wasn't talking about steroids as such but doping, and not merely about baseball players but athletes. Doping benefits any kind of athlete, and even some who aren't athletes - like chess players. Doping is in every competitive activity and like the ph*qing moron you are you keep pretending that it either isn't significant in one of the sports that WADA has identified as being most at risk of doping or that somehow Kenyan distance runners alone amongst all these dopers can't find a drug that helps them run faster. But, by God, they try - as the stream of busts coming out of Kenya continues to show.
As for Armstrong, he lied to avoid getting caught. Once he was nailed as a doper there was nothing to gain from lying about how he went about it. You, on the other hand, have to lie to yourself continually about anything that threatens your world view. In that, you leave Armstrong in the dust.
And what are these innumerable drugs then; name one that can’t be tested for.
That isn't the claim, you moron. If you see the list of prohibited substances it simply shows that there are many different ped's, and the choices available to athletes include the drugs WADA has yet to be able to identify.
So what are these available drugs that Wada has yet to identify?
And what are these innumerable drugs then; name one that can’t be tested for.
That isn't the claim, you moron. If you see the list of prohibited substances it simply shows that there are many different ped's, and the choices available to athletes include the drugs WADA has yet to be able to identify.
Do you know which of the drugs on the Wada banned list are performance enhancing?
I don't get why I matters whether I am registered or not. The "views of a single poster"? Surely it's been well established that doping decreased in Europe (and arguably to a lesser extent in America) after the fall of the wall - do you not agree?
And now are calling the scientists who don't agree with your PEDs-don't-work-religion dishonest? And their views baseless? Who are you again?
"Expert estimates". Good one. Were they - gasp - maybe baseless from dishonest experts? How do they know? What's your source?
1 second per lap in the 70s, cool, let's go with that for now. Then why the further advancements in the 80s, and why did that basically stop in the 90s and 00s if not for less doping?
Finally, I never argued "that sea-level athletes maxed out with doping in the '80s" etc., so I cannot really continue with that, can I now?
All these distortions from you, when all I pointed out was that your unique conclusion about EPO is against scientists, coaches and athletes since decades, and can only be "justified" with your unsubstantiated beliefs about prevalence of doping in the 80s and 90s. Notably you keep distracting without ever saying what exactly are your beliefs here. Evidently because they are baseless and even you do not even attempt to defend your own strange beliefs.
How can you say that scientists don't agree with me when I largely agree with the peer-reviewed statements of scientists, within the limitations of their experiments? One area where Armstonglivs and I agree, despite his protests, is that the knowledge of scientists with respect to elite performance is quite limited, if not non-existant. I didn't say that scientists were dishonest for not agreeing with me, but that the honest ones usually admit their limitations.
In this thread, besides the 1s per lap, I have given around a half-dozen other factors why performances have improved in the last five decades, like training, professionalism, incentives, opportunity, improved shoes, in addition to improved tracks. There are many sources for all these changes and advances, and all of them are generally agreed upon by experienced coaches, athletes, and scientists alike.
As Armstronglivs prefers anecdotes and experience directly from elite athletes, I provided him several statements and opinions of several athletes.
My conclusion about EPO is that non-African men from 5-continents for nearly three decades, clean and dirty, did not run significantly faster during the EPO-era than their pre-EPO predecessors. Another conclusion is that legal altitude training also "works". Another conclusion is that scientific evidence (see above) on doping and elite running performance is lacking/wanting/inconclusive. Which scientist/coach/athlete disagrees with any of these conclusions? Your response was to effectively accuse, without basis or evidence, the fastest runners of the '80s, like Coe, Ovett, Cram, Jones, Moorcroft, Lopes, Mamede, Maree, Barrios, etc. of taking steroids and blood transfusions. Your speculation still lacks two types of evidence: 1) did these athletes dope? and 2) could steroids and blood tranfusions produce a superior elite result, compared to legal training, including altitude training? Arguably steroids "work" for women, but notable by their absence, where were the East German/Eastern Europe/Russian/Chinese men during the last five decades?
Not sure what you mean by distraction -- I made my answer to this thread quite clear in my very first post: "Wavelights and shoes". There is a widespread basis for wavelights (lots of science on optimal pacing and drafting already back in the days of Bannister's 4-minute mile) and the recent effect of the latest shoes are well documented. Both of these sources are generally agreed by scientists/athletes/coaches. Everything else since then seems to be the distraction, but not by me.
I quoted Canseco above. He wasn't talking about steroids as such but doping, and not merely about baseball players but athletes. Doping benefits any kind of athlete, and even some who aren't athletes - like chess players. Doping is in every competitive activity and like the ph*qing moron you are you keep pretending that it either isn't significant in one of the sports that WADA has identified as being most at risk of doping or that somehow Kenyan distance runners alone amongst all these dopers can't find a drug that helps them run faster. But, by God, they try - as the stream of busts coming out of Kenya continues to show.
As for Armstrong, he lied to avoid getting caught. Once he was nailed as a doper there was nothing to gain from lying about how he went about it. You, on the other hand, have to lie to yourself continually about anything that threatens your world view. In that, you leave Armstrong in the dust.
I quoted Canseco above too. That makes us even. I would listen to Canseco's experience with steroids and baseball, but not about things he did not experience.
Curiously, you quoted Canseco and Armstrong, in a running forum, in a thread about EPO-era records being broken today, and I'm still wondering why you think that would be the least bit compelling. What are their 5K and 10K times?
You are still falling for Armstrong's deception. Fool you once, shame on him. Fool you twice, shame on you. Ferrari was the doping/performance brains of that pair. Armstrong still has his reputation and public opinion to gain.
I don't lie and don't have to lie. My statements are consistent with historical performances, and track history. If doping was the magic elixir you believe it to be, we would have seen worldwide improvements back in the '90s, like we did with the shoes in recent years, rather than small regions consistently producing the best performers.
Rekrunner... literally everything you wrote is a distraction from the fact that you made baseless assumptions about who doped how when "concluding" that EPO didn't work because Willis + Rupp etc. barely ran faster than Coe and Moorcroft.
Now you are turning it around again and again and accuse the scientists of being dishonest and me of speculating instead of explaining and justifying your assumptions. Remember you started this with your assumptions.
So what exactly are your assumptions about say the top 10 non-African 1500 m runners pre 1990? How many of them used blood doping and steroids?
Next what exactly are your assumptions about say the top 10 non-African 1500 m runners post 1990? How many of them used blood doping and EPO and steroids and HGH?
I don't expect you to response because then you would have to admit that your "conclusions" about EPO are baseless at best. More realistically they are either PR or just trolling. Given how you started accusing me, and distracting with registered posters' opinions and "dishonest" scientists instead of just briefly answering the questions in 2 sentences, I bet it's the latter.
So distract away. But then you are officially admitting that your speculations are unjustifiable and therefore plain wrong.
