rekrunner wrote:
Well, I guess it's settled then. We are blind and yet we can see.
Well, yes - you are blind to everything except yourselves. Real world data confirms that.
rekrunner wrote:
Well, I guess it's settled then. We are blind and yet we can see.
Well, yes - you are blind to everything except yourselves. Real world data confirms that.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
If by everyone you mean you, Jon and Renato, then yes.
So everyone else can see my arguments are credible?
I think you and Armstronglivs should get together and get your story straight, as it seems far from settled.
Far from settled only to someone who can't keep up.
Well guess never know ,
just how so filthy track was .
Still talking about Epo when no
Explanation for what happening in sprints etc .in longer distance too but not point.
Seems not giving up on
The Speed Peptide igf-1 just yet.
Hopefully some wont be able to get it from China on dark web if continues.
Not just track but many sports .
For me european football beyond obvious now that doping whole teams.
The made man klopp and Liverpool are filthy .
And before them had the unexplainable without dope that is season of Leicester who got on dope before others and where timing is always important in doping.
15 points from bottom one season to 15 points at top with almost same squad is just not doable unless other factors involved.
Guess never know how all these speedsters from Jamaica to South Africa and in many events did what did.
even steroids don't explain what seeing but all is fine.
Mr seb Coe will say how bad Russians are
and ignore real elephant in room
To many actors and money involved especially in other sports to pull back that curtain
rekrunner wrote:
Well, I guess it's settled then. We are blind and yet we can see.
Yes, with your fingers. Is your favorite color corduroy?
physics defiant wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Well, I guess it's settled then. We are blind and yet we can see.
Yes, with your fingers. Is your favorite color corduroy?
It's unfair to play word games with rekrunner. He's like the kid at school who couldn't play catch.
I can't thank you enough for the continued opportunities to respond.
Even when I agree with you, it seems I am still wrong.
To recap, here is what "we" settled:
- Armstrong and I both agreed that athletes believe in doping, but he wants me to say more
- Armstrong (and others) declares athletes dope because they *know* it works
- I asked him for foundation for his views
- His foundation appears to be another unfounded belief: a rationalization that they wouldn't dope, or continue to dope, if they didn't know it worked
- Now, you both speak in the past tense as if the question has already been proven, and I'm too blind to see that
What about my views?
- I didn't come here to argue my views, but was repeatedly trolled, much like the childish comments on this page
- The views I did argue are:
- 1) Lacking foundation, Armstrong's (and others') views are not more than unfounded beliefs
- 2) When asked what I believe, I do not argue any single position, but say there is not enough information to rule out any possibility
- 3) I did recently summarize my views in another thread, but Armstrong didn't read it, preferring instead to keep building strawmen, and insulting me
What about data that backs up my views?
- My ideas about performance comes from lists of all time performances dating back to the 1960s
- My ideas about doping prevalence come from official sources, like WADA and USADA websites, and also a handful of studies attempting to estimate prevalence
- My ideas about lack of correlation essentially come from ranking these two lists by country and comparing them, observing doping is widespread, while the best performances are not widespread
- My ideas about the weakness of current studies come from (at least) two meta-studies that showed that the best studies look at the wrong thing on the wrong subjects, and even then tend to over-value the effect. This is re-inforced by critical assessment of lacking basic features of good studies, like controls and control groups and double blinding
rekrunner wrote:
I can't thank you enough for the continued opportunities to respond.
Even when I agree with you, it seems I am still wrong.
To recap, here is what "we" settled:
- Armstrong and I both agreed that athletes believe in doping, but he wants me to say more
- Armstrong (and others) declares athletes dope because they *know* it works
- I asked him for foundation for his views
- His foundation appears to be another unfounded belief: a rationalization that they wouldn't dope, or continue to dope, if they didn't know it worked
- Now, you both speak in the past tense as if the question has already been proven, and I'm too blind to see that
What about my views?
- I didn't come here to argue my views, but was repeatedly trolled, much like the childish comments on this page
- The views I did argue are:
- 1) Lacking foundation, Armstrong's (and others') views are not more than unfounded beliefs
- 2) When asked what I believe, I do not argue any single position, but say there is not enough information to rule out any possibility
- 3) I did recently summarize my views in another thread, but Armstrong didn't read it, preferring instead to keep building strawmen, and insulting me
What about data that backs up my views?
- My ideas about performance comes from lists of all time performances dating back to the 1960s
- My ideas about doping prevalence come from official sources, like WADA and USADA websites, and also a handful of studies attempting to estimate prevalence
- My ideas about lack of correlation essentially come from ranking these two lists by country and comparing them, observing doping is widespread, while the best performances are not widespread
- My ideas about the weakness of current studies come from (at least) two meta-studies that showed that the best studies look at the wrong thing on the wrong subjects, and even then tend to over-value the effect. This is re-inforced by critical assessment of lacking basic features of good studies, like controls and control groups and double blinding
No one is giving you the "opportunity to respond". That assumes people want to hear what you have to say. And what you have to say is an endless repetition of what you've already said. You think if you can restart the exchange you can change the outcome and be proven right. Ain't gonna happen.
You are wrong about what I think - you haven't understood what I have said. I don't agree with you about anything.
Your comments show that you live in an alternate universe. Your arguments are riddled with flaws of fact and logic but recognizing that is impossible for you. Your psychosis runs too deep. But feel free to carry on talking to the voices in your head. I'm not one of them.
I think of you, Jon and Renato as more of a triple blind study.
physics defiant wrote:
I think of you, Jon and Renato as more of a triple blind study.
more like the unholy trinity of stupidity and lies.
so awesome this thread got rekked and gary "believes" we asked for it....like really? why would anyone purposely ask to be sodomized by gary? no no one wants that yet he continues to blab on and on as if we "need" him to rek LR.
lets see if the brojos can make a poll...
"gary to be banned for life for his annoying rekking, yes or no"
my vote? YES
bannnedd i got wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
I think of you, Jon and Renato as more of a triple blind study.
more like the unholy trinity of stupidity and lies.
so awesome this thread got rekked and gary "believes" we asked for it....like really? why would anyone purposely ask to be sodomized by gary? no no one wants that yet he continues to blab on and on as if we "need" him to rek LR.
lets see if the brojos can make a poll...
"gary to be banned for life for his annoying rekking, yes or no"
my vote? YES
bump