But not on doping - as he has admitted. But if he is an expert then so is Sage, so you will respect him as well, no doubt. And Sage is certainly expert about you.
You have weird logic. Canova is a proven expert. Sage? Not yet.
I guess donkey is the right call because you get so many things bass-ackwards.
Sage might know more about running than Canova does. He doesn't even run. But it doesn't take much to see that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to doping.
I do - but not for the reasons you think. You are the board's resident doping apologist and propagandist and it is my role not to let you spout that incessant rubbish unchallenged. At a more modest level, it's a bit like sweeping dogsh*t off the pavement.
Maybe now you can understand Renato was simply not letting you spout that incessant rubbish unchallenged, like sweeping dogsh*t off the pavement.
I would be more than happy if you, or anyone, could challenge any of my statements with facts and evidence and observations. But you offer only baseless conclusions and personal insults.
Your views have been challenged time and again over years of posting on these threads. That is quite apart from the reality outside these boards that defies your interpretations. It says everything that you haven't recognised any view other than your own as possessing "facts, evidence and observations". Yours is a mind impervious to anything you don't already believe. You could be a cult leader, except no one follows you.
"Athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians may be rational actors, but, like everyone else, can only guess."(copy)
False - again. They aren't "like everyone else" - they are using the drugs - we aren't - and can see first-hand what it does. If drugs had no effect they wouldn't be used and doping wouldn't exist as a problem.
Is it false?
So when you said "everyone", you didn't really mean "everyone"?
It would be different if we had some of these first-hand accounts of their experience. Without them, ignorant fans like you are left just guessing.
Even then, these first-hand experiences will unlikely have taken the time and effort to establish an accurate base for a clean performance, and since drug use is not blinded, these first-hand accounts will potentially be biased by placebo effect.
You expect athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians to supply a first-hand account of what they are doing that would see them banned if we knew they were doing it? You are beyond clueless.
But we don't need them to say what it does for them; the fact they choose to do it and have done so for decades tells us everything we need to know - it gives them an edge beyond what talent, training and technique can achieve. If it didn't do that doping would have been discontinued long ago. A billion dollar world-wide enterprise, as doping is, is not going to be sustained by a placebo effect. A placebo might make someone feel subjectively better if they were feeling unwell; it will not make an athlete faster, stronger or tireless. And it will not make thousands of athletes risk their reputations and livelihoods.
You hold on to the "placebo" effect because - unlike the athletes who use the drugs - you hope doping doesn't actually improve performance. How ironic. Yours is the wishful thinking. Athletes are guided by results.
You have weird logic. Canova is a proven expert. Sage? Not yet.
I guess donkey is the right call because you get so many things bass-ackwards.
Sage might know more about running than Canova does. He doesn't even run. But it doesn't take much to see that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to doping.
Maybe, but probably not. In any case, it is not relevant. Sage didn't talk about running. Nor doping.
I do know one or two things about performance trends.
Your views have been challenged time and again over years of posting on these threads. That is quite apart from the reality outside these boards that defies your interpretations. It says everything that you haven't recognised any view other than your own as possessing "facts, evidence and observations". Yours is a mind impervious to anything you don't already believe. You could be a cult leader, except no one follows you.
But have they been challenged with "with facts and evidence and observations"? That is what would make me happy.
You allude to reality outside these boards, but you are never specific.
You expect athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians to supply a first-hand account of what they are doing that would see them banned if we knew they were doing it? You are beyond clueless.
But we don't need them to say what it does for them; the fact they choose to do it and have done so for decades tells us everything we need to know - it gives them an edge beyond what talent, training and technique can achieve. If it didn't do that doping would have been discontinued long ago. A billion dollar world-wide enterprise, as doping is, is not going to be sustained by a placebo effect. A placebo might make someone feel subjectively better if they were feeling unwell; it will not make an athlete faster, stronger or tireless. And it will not make thousands of athletes risk their reputations and livelihoods.
You hold on to the "placebo" effect because - unlike the athletes who use the drugs - you hope doping doesn't actually improve performance. How ironic. Yours is the wishful thinking. Athletes are guided by results.
That is what happened in cycling.
Of course you don't need anyone to say anything to form and hold on to your beliefs. You don't aspire to leave your fantastic mythological world of imagination.
But, without these first-hand confirmations, like you said, you are just guessing.
Sage might know more about running than Canova does. He doesn't even run. But it doesn't take much to see that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to doping.
Maybe, but probably not. In any case, it is not relevant. Sage didn't talk about running. Nor doping.
I do know one or two things about performance trends.
He talked about both. In relation to doping in the sport he said you are the least informed poster on these boards. If you think he wasn't saying that then what was he saying about you?
This post was edited 29 seconds after it was posted.
Your views have been challenged time and again over years of posting on these threads. That is quite apart from the reality outside these boards that defies your interpretations. It says everything that you haven't recognised any view other than your own as possessing "facts, evidence and observations". Yours is a mind impervious to anything you don't already believe. You could be a cult leader, except no one follows you.
But have they been challenged with "with facts and evidence and observations"? That is what would make me happy.
You allude to reality outside these boards, but you are never specific.
You could be a cult follower.
If you would be "happy" to be challenged with facts and evidence you must be amongst the most miserable of men because in all the years you have come here no one has presented what you recognise are facts and evidence.
That you think I am only "alluding" to reality when talking about the sport show how far your head is buried in your own compost. I have only talked about what I see happening in the outside world, including the views of those who live in it. It isn't my world or my imagination. An imaginary world is your domain.
You expect athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians to supply a first-hand account of what they are doing that would see them banned if we knew they were doing it? You are beyond clueless.
But we don't need them to say what it does for them; the fact they choose to do it and have done so for decades tells us everything we need to know - it gives them an edge beyond what talent, training and technique can achieve. If it didn't do that doping would have been discontinued long ago. A billion dollar world-wide enterprise, as doping is, is not going to be sustained by a placebo effect. A placebo might make someone feel subjectively better if they were feeling unwell; it will not make an athlete faster, stronger or tireless. And it will not make thousands of athletes risk their reputations and livelihoods.
You hold on to the "placebo" effect because - unlike the athletes who use the drugs - you hope doping doesn't actually improve performance. How ironic. Yours is the wishful thinking. Athletes are guided by results.
That is what happened in cycling.
Of course you don't need anyone to say anything to form and hold on to your beliefs. You don't aspire to leave your fantastic mythological world of imagination.
But, without these first-hand confirmations, like you said, you are just guessing.
It isn't "what happened in cycling". We have the solitary case of Lance Armstrong, whose doping practices were disclosed by his busted team mates. That isn't "cycling" but one case. There is no equivalent in running because athletes don't work together and compete as teams as did in the "US Postal Service". But we do see the continuous stream of doping violations in running to know that it is throughout the sport.
The information that is available about doping confirms that it is a longstanding practice that is increasingly sophisticated and could only continue if it produced results for those who use it. That isn't "guessing". No one has to lie as much to themselves as you do to not see what is in front of your face.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Of course you don't need anyone to say anything to form and hold on to your beliefs. You don't aspire to leave your fantastic mythological world of imagination.
But, without these first-hand confirmations, like you said, you are just guessing.
It isn't "what happened in cycling". We have the solitary case of Lance Armstrong, whose doping practices were disclosed by his busted team mates. That isn't "cycling" but one case. There is no equivalent in running because athletes don't work together and compete as teams as did in the "US Postal Service". But we do see the continuous stream of doping violations in running to know that it is throughout the sport.
The information that is available about doping confirms that it is a longstanding practice that is increasingly sophisticated and could only continue if it produced results for those who use it. That isn't "guessing". No one has to lie as much to themselves as you do to not see what is in front of your face.
I love it when you babies start throwing your toys out of the cot.
It isn't "what happened in cycling". We have the solitary case of Lance Armstrong, whose doping practices were disclosed by his busted team mates. That isn't "cycling" but one case. There is no equivalent in running because athletes don't work together and compete as teams as did in the "US Postal Service". But we do see the continuous stream of doping violations in running to know that it is throughout the sport.
The information that is available about doping confirms that it is a longstanding practice that is increasingly sophisticated and could only continue if it produced results for those who use it. That isn't "guessing". No one has to lie as much to themselves as you do to not see what is in front of your face.
I love it when you babies start throwing your toys out of the cot.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.