rekrunner wrote:
sometimes with alternative legal means like homeopathy.
Nah, no data proves that.
rekrunner wrote:
sometimes with alternative legal means like homeopathy.
Nah, no data proves that.
rekrunner wrote:
So what is the point then? Sick people going to the doctor?
Why do you keep changing the subject?
Why aren't you committed to your own arguments?
The point is quite simple but that won't come easily to someone who struggles with argument by analogy or whose practise is obfuscation.
You talk as though "faith" and "hope" can't be expected to deliver reliable results in the way that "knowledge" can. It completely misses the point. It depends on who has the knowledge. Most of us aren't experts - but we rely on them. We would do this in medicine, as I said, but also law, business, engineering - the list is virtually endless. We do it because it gives us results.
Doping is no different in that respect. Athletes can rely on experts - whether they be physicians, coaches or trainers - just as they might for training advice; they do it because they get results. A multi-billion dollar enterprise - which is what international doping is - is not sustained through illusions. Further proof, if any were needed, that doping involves experts, is that it is extremely difficult to detect; the incidence of doping far exceeds the numbers caught. There is no way that a plausible argument can be maintained that the only reliable expertise in doping goes into avoiding detection and not its primary purpose, which is to deliver results.
Lastly, through experience, athletes and their coaches develop an understanding of what will optimize athletic performance; just as this includes training methods and competitive awareness, so it will extend to understanding how doping can help them, particularly with the advice of experts. For all involved, there is far more "knowledge" than "faith" or "hope". Doping is a science - not voodoo, or superstition.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
And then they keep on doping because they can feel the benefits.
Who are you trying to convince? Those who can be persuaded without data already are.
And you think results aren't data - or are less than data? Do you need data to know that you will burn your hand if you put it on a hot stove, or does experience teach you that? What data does an athlete need if they find they are running faster from doping? Would they continue to dope without such results? You talk as though they are naive simpletons - but then you consider yourself vastly superior to everyone, because you have "knowledge" through your "data". I suspect if you brought your attention to bear on medicine you would have found a cure for cancer - based on your data - or if rocket science was your passion you would know more than anyone at NASA about putting a man on the moon.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The point is quite simple but that won't come easily to someone who struggles with argument by analogy or whose practise is obfuscation.
You talk as though "faith" and "hope" can't be expected to deliver reliable results in the way that "knowledge" can. It completely misses the point. It depends on who has the knowledge. Most of us aren't experts - but we rely on them. We would do this in medicine, as I said, but also law, business, engineering - the list is virtually endless. We do it because it gives us results.
Doping is no different in that respect. Athletes can rely on experts - whether they be physicians, coaches or trainers - just as they might for training advice; they do it because they get results. A multi-billion dollar enterprise - which is what international doping is - is not sustained through illusions. Further proof, if any were needed, that doping involves experts, is that it is extremely difficult to detect; the incidence of doping far exceeds the numbers caught. There is no way that a plausible argument can be maintained that the only reliable expertise in doping goes into avoiding detection and not its primary purpose, which is to deliver results.
Lastly, through experience, athletes and their coaches develop an understanding of what will optimize athletic performance; just as this includes training methods and competitive awareness, so it will extend to understanding how doping can help them, particularly with the advice of experts. For all involved, there is far more "knowledge" than "faith" or "hope". Doping is a science - not voodoo, or superstition.
...
And you think results aren't data - or are less than data? Do you need data to know that you will burn your hand if you put it on a hot stove, or does experience teach you that? What data does an athlete need if they find they are running faster from doping? Would they continue to dope without such results? You talk as though they are naive simpletons - but then you consider yourself vastly superior to everyone, because you have "knowledge" through your "data". I suspect if you brought your attention to bear on medicine you would have found a cure for cancer - based on your data - or if rocket science was your passion you would know more than anyone at NASA about putting a man on the moon.
My point is even simpler -- if you wish to persuade me on any point, you need to do more than express your own unfounded beliefs of how you think things work. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you are wasting your time, and mine.
You paint a picture of the experience and motivation of thousands of dopers, yet have given me nothing to help me decide if this picture is fact or fiction, while at the same time, over the years, given me many reasons to doubt your credibility.
I think results are data.
One the contrary, a multi-billion dollar enterprise can be sustained by illusions -- in fact, some enterprises would be non-starters were it not for illusions.
Faith and hope can deliver results -- science calls that the placebo effect.
We're not actually trying to change your belief, we're telling you that you're a moran. And we have the data to back that up.
That's a predictable response from someone unable to provide support his arguments.
rekrunner wrote:
That's a predictable response from someone unable to provide support his arguments.
Incorrect. You provide the data with every response you make.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The point is quite simple but that won't come easily to someone who struggles with argument by analogy or whose practise is obfuscation.
You talk as though "faith" and "hope" can't be expected to deliver reliable results in the way that "knowledge" can. It completely misses the point. It depends on who has the knowledge. Most of us aren't experts - but we rely on them. We would do this in medicine, as I said, but also law, business, engineering - the list is virtually endless. We do it because it gives us results.
Doping is no different in that respect. Athletes can rely on experts - whether they be physicians, coaches or trainers - just as they might for training advice; they do it because they get results. A multi-billion dollar enterprise - which is what international doping is - is not sustained through illusions. Further proof, if any were needed, that doping involves experts, is that it is extremely difficult to detect; the incidence of doping far exceeds the numbers caught. There is no way that a plausible argument can be maintained that the only reliable expertise in doping goes into avoiding detection and not its primary purpose, which is to deliver results.
Lastly, through experience, athletes and their coaches develop an understanding of what will optimize athletic performance; just as this includes training methods and competitive awareness, so it will extend to understanding how doping can help them, particularly with the advice of experts. For all involved, there is far more "knowledge" than "faith" or "hope". Doping is a science - not voodoo, or superstition.
...
And you think results aren't data - or are less than data? Do you need data to know that you will burn your hand if you put it on a hot stove, or does experience teach you that? What data does an athlete need if they find they are running faster from doping? Would they continue to dope without such results? You talk as though they are naive simpletons - but then you consider yourself vastly superior to everyone, because you have "knowledge" through your "data". I suspect if you brought your attention to bear on medicine you would have found a cure for cancer - based on your data - or if rocket science was your passion you would know more than anyone at NASA about putting a man on the moon.
My point is even simpler -- if you wish to persuade me on any point, you need to do more than express your own unfounded beliefs of how you think things work. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you are wasting your time, and mine.
You paint a picture of the experience and motivation of thousands of dopers, yet have given me nothing to help me decide if this picture is fact or fiction, while at the same time, over the years, given me many reasons to doubt your credibility.
I think results are data.
One the contrary, a multi-billion dollar enterprise can be sustained by illusions -- in fact, some enterprises would be non-starters were it not for illusions.
Faith and hope can deliver results -- science calls that the placebo effect.
I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. You are beyond the reach of rational dialogue. Your delusions are immutable - as your latest response shows. My only intention is to expose the persistent absurdities in your arguments. It's dirty work but someone has to do it.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. You are beyond the reach of rational dialogue. Your delusions are immutable - as your latest response shows. My only intention is to expose the persistent absurdities in your arguments. It's dirty work but someone has to do it.
Again -- predictable response, to attack the messenger who merely shows you are unable to provide the kind of specific substantive information that would support your stated beliefs.
rekrunner wrote:
I think results are data.
.
Oh.
physics defiant wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I think results are data.
.
Oh.
Data is anything that confirms your prior beliefs.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. You are beyond the reach of rational dialogue. Your delusions are immutable - as your latest response shows. My only intention is to expose the persistent absurdities in your arguments. It's dirty work but someone has to do it.
Again -- predictable response, to attack the messenger who merely shows you are unable to provide the kind of specific substantive information that would support your stated beliefs.
Again -- predictable response, to attack a propagandist who shows repeatedly he is unable to grasp any kind of specific substantive information that would refute his stated beliefs.
Fixed
Armstronglivs wrote:
Again -- predictable response, to attack a propagandist who shows repeatedly he is unable to grasp any kind of specific substantive information that would refute his stated beliefs.
Fixed
Do you consider yourself a propagandist?
I would have thought that someone with more than half a century of experience would be in a position to share something more substantive than personal insults.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Again -- predictable response, to attack a propagandist who shows repeatedly he is unable to grasp any kind of specific substantive information that would refute his stated beliefs.
Fixed
Do you consider yourself a propagandist?
I would have thought that someone with more than half a century of experience would be in a position to share something more substantive than personal insults.
I once tried to argue with an apologist for the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in '68. There were no "substantive" arguments that would convince him that it was an invasion and not an invitation, either. Experience has taught me quite a lot about propagandists, so it doesn't surprise me to meet them here, as well. With you, it is deja vue all over again, as they say.
It might have gotten lost in the flood of childish personal attacks.
I have a suggestion that should help end these discussions once and for all.
Let's put my extremist "maybe, maybe not, need more data" viewpoints aside.
Let's put your personal attacks aside.
Here is an excellent chance for you to show what value added arguments you have to offer.
Can you re-summarize for all of us here and now, in one easy to find reference, the substantive arguments you have already provided that supports:
- that the experience of all of the thousands of athlete dopers was a positive one
- that their improvements were not from other effects like placebo, or improvements from training that would have occurred without doping
- that the motivations of thousands of dopers to dope was based on personal knowledge and experience and not third party anecdotes
- that the motivations of thousands of dopers to continue doping was from observed results they attributed to doping
- that only doping can produce elite times; other "legal" methods are inferior
As an added bonus, here are some further questions:
- Is EPO superior to altitude training or blood transfusions? I've seen two schools of thought here.
- Of these thousands of doped athletes, do any elite non-Africans dope?
- If not, why not? Don't they believe it would work?
- Can you suggest (can be your unsupported opinion) the best examples of doped performances non-African athletes from North, Central, South American, from UK and Europe, from Russia, from China, from India, from Australia and New Zealand? I'll give you sprinters, Cold-War women, Chinese women running in China, Russian women, Russian race-walkers, and Baumann.
rekrunner wrote:
It might have gotten lost in the flood of childish personal attacks.
I have a suggestion that should help end these discussions once and for all.
Let's put my extremist "maybe, maybe not, need more data" viewpoints aside.
Let's put your personal attacks aside.
Here is an excellent chance for you to show what value added arguments you have to offer.
Can you re-summarize for all of us here and now, in one easy to find reference, the substantive arguments you have already provided that supports:
- that the experience of all of the thousands of athlete dopers was a positive one
- that their improvements were not from other effects like placebo, or improvements from training that would have occurred without doping
- that the motivations of thousands of dopers to dope was based on personal knowledge and experience and not third party anecdotes
- that the motivations of thousands of dopers to continue doping was from observed results they attributed to doping
- that only doping can produce elite times; other "legal" methods are inferior
As an added bonus, here are some further questions:
- Is EPO superior to altitude training or blood transfusions? I've seen two schools of thought here.
- Of these thousands of doped athletes, do any elite non-Africans dope?
- If not, why not? Don't they believe it would work?
- Can you suggest (can be your unsupported opinion) the best examples of doped performances non-African athletes from North, Central, South American, from UK and Europe, from Russia, from China, from India, from Australia and New Zealand? I'll give you sprinters, Cold-War women, Chinese women running in China, Russian women, Russian race-walkers, and Baumann.
Nothing will "end these discussions once and for all". Nothing I or anyone else can say will alter your opinions in the slightest. I am well aware of your views, and I don't accept them. I am not going to futilely try to persuade you to a differing point of view.
The only useful point I might agree with, that you have made amongst the Niagara of words you have posted on this topic, is that there will be some significant variation in the effects that different forms of doping will have on individual athletes in different sports. But we know that already. You undercut the value of that observation by then choosing to infer, without sufficient evidence, that there is therefore no established relationship between certain forms of doping and performance - because that relationship cannot be measured with exactitude. And from there you disappear down your rabbit hole. I will decline your invitation to follow you there.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Again -- predictable response, to attack a propagandist who shows repeatedly he is unable to grasp any kind of specific substantive information that would refute his stated beliefs.
Fixed
Do you consider yourself a propagandist?
I would have thought that someone with more than half a century of experience would be in a position to share something more substantive than personal insults.
do you consider yourself an annoying narcissist? cause thats whatcha are gary
No Gary, we're not going to take your bait.
You'll just keep needing "more data".
Armstronglivs wrote:
Nothing will "end these discussions once and for all". Nothing I or anyone else can say will alter your opinions in the slightest. I am well aware of your views, and I don't accept them. I am not going to futilely try to persuade you to a differing point of view.
The only useful point I might agree with, that you have made amongst the Niagara of words you have posted on this topic, is that there will be some significant variation in the effects that different forms of doping will have on individual athletes in different sports. But we know that already. You undercut the value of that observation by then choosing to infer, without sufficient evidence, that there is therefore no established relationship between certain forms of doping and performance - because that relationship cannot be measured with exactitude. And from there you disappear down your rabbit hole. I will decline your invitation to follow you there.
I guess it is settled then.
As you have not provided any foundation for your views, I'm left with no other alternative but to consider that these are your just your personal views, which may or may not be linked to any real world events, in part or in whole, coming from an anonymous poster with no established credentials.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Nothing will "end these discussions once and for all". Nothing I or anyone else can say will alter your opinions in the slightest. I am well aware of your views, and I don't accept them. I am not going to futilely try to persuade you to a differing point of view.
The only useful point I might agree with, that you have made amongst the Niagara of words you have posted on this topic, is that there will be some significant variation in the effects that different forms of doping will have on individual athletes in different sports. But we know that already. You undercut the value of that observation by then choosing to infer, without sufficient evidence, that there is therefore no established relationship between certain forms of doping and performance - because that relationship cannot be measured with exactitude. And from there you disappear down your rabbit hole. I will decline your invitation to follow you there.
I guess it is settled then.
As you have not provided any foundation for your views, I'm left with no other alternative but to consider that these are your just your personal views, which may or may not be linked to any real world events, in part or in whole, coming from an anonymous poster with no established credentials.
No Gary, it is not settled and you did not win.