As did you. Your response to "no one has the data" is to say I "have no data". Classic Headstronglivs.
What I can say with full authority is that it will remain an unconfirmed hypothesis, and popular belief, until such data is provided, regardless of my experience.
If "no one" has any data that necessarily includes you. And of course you have no experience. You have "full authority" of nothing in this discussion. You are a joke.
Likewise: If "no one" has any data that necessarily includes you. And of course you have no experience. You have "full authority" of nothing in this discussion. You are a joke.
What you don't dispute, because you simply cannot, is that no data means the speculation/hypothesis/belief remains unconfirmed.
If "no one" has any data that necessarily includes you. And of course you have no experience. You have "full authority" of nothing in this discussion. You are a joke.
Likewise: If "no one" has any data that necessarily includes you. And of course you have no experience. You have "full authority" of nothing in this discussion. You are a joke.
What you don't dispute, because you simply cannot, is that no data means the speculation/hypothesis/belief remains unconfirmed.
Equally, there is no data that disproves the moon is made of green cheese, so that, too, remains "unconfirmed" by the light of the same argument. So, as we see, you make an empty claim and then suggest it has credibility because there isn't any data that confirms it. You are a complete dolt. Your "hypothesis" about doping not aiding performance in elites is in the realm of pure fancy; it has nothing to support it. By contrast, the data I have is that doping is known to be present in the sport and is known to be far more prevalent than those caught and includes the very best athletes, as doping positives and violations have shown. It is also known to have been a feature in all sports and not just athletics for decades and is expertly estimated to be at least a billion dollar industry world-wide. In that context, when countless athletes in all sports have doped for decades, only a fool would insist doping doesn't enhance performance in top athletes. You are that kind of fool, as there is no data from studies of doped athletes which shows doping doesn't enhance performance. Nor do you have any experience of doping that might back up your claim that those top athletes who have doped either historically or in the present day don't benefit from it. Because you are such a stupid ph*q you don't realise that yours is the argument without evidence.
This post was edited 15 minutes after it was posted.
Likewise: If "no one" has any data that necessarily includes you. And of course you have no experience. You have "full authority" of nothing in this discussion. You are a joke.
What you don't dispute, because you simply cannot, is that no data means the speculation/hypothesis/belief remains unconfirmed.
Equally, there is no data that disproves the moon is made of green cheese, so that, too, remains "unconfirmed" by the light of the same argument. So, as we see, you make an empty claim and then suggest it has credibility because there isn't any data that confirms it. You are a complete dolt. Your "hypothesis" about doping not aiding performance in elites is in the realm of pure fancy; it has nothing to support it. By contrast, the data I have is that doping is known to be present in the sport and is known to be far more prevalent than those caught and includes the very best athletes, as doping positives and violations have shown. It is also known to have been a feature in all sports and not just athletics for decades and is expertly estimated to be at least a billion dollar industry world-wide. In that context, when countless athletes in all sports have doped for decades, only a fool would insist doping doesn't enhance performance in top athletes. You are that kind of fool, as there is no data from studies of doped athletes which shows doping doesn't enhance performance. Nor do you have any experience of doping that might back up your claim that those top athletes who have doped either historically or in the present day don't benefit from it. Because you are such a stupid ph*q you don't realise that yours is the argument without evidence.
The uneducated troll strikes again.
Does he not realise that his Dad brought moon samples back ( July 1969)and many others have brought many varieties of Green Cheese back from the Moon.
Equally, there is no data that disproves the moon is made of green cheese, so that, too, remains "unconfirmed" by the light of the same argument. So, as we see, you make an empty claim and then suggest it has credibility because there isn't any data that confirms it. You are a complete dolt. Your "hypothesis" about doping not aiding performance in elites is in the realm of pure fancy; it has nothing to support it. By contrast, the data I have is that doping is known to be present in the sport and is known to be far more prevalent than those caught and includes the very best athletes, as doping positives and violations have shown. It is also known to have been a feature in all sports and not just athletics for decades and is expertly estimated to be at least a billion dollar industry world-wide. In that context, when countless athletes in all sports have doped for decades, only a fool would insist doping doesn't enhance performance in top athletes. You are that kind of fool, as there is no data from studies of doped athletes which shows doping doesn't enhance performance. Nor do you have any experience of doping that might back up your claim that those top athletes who have doped either historically or in the present day don't benefit from it. Because you are such a stupid ph*q you don't realise that yours is the argument without evidence.
I think there is not one single accurate statement here.
Actually we have quite a bit of data about the composition of the moon. I'll just note that you compare your own beliefs to the moon being made of green cheese.
You don't understand my claim, and cannot dispute it, so you invent a straw one and attack it like Don Quijote attacking windmills. My claim is that there is a lack of the data necessary to support popular beliefs about the hypothesized relation between blood doping and elite distance performance. If there truly were data, nothing would be easier than disproving my claim by simply providing this data. Tellingly, you find it impossible, so you resort to awkward analogies and personal insults. This only confirms that it is pure hypothesis and speculation.
The limited data you say you do have also confirms my claim. You effectively argue that generic doping in all sports is worse than the data you have, and you need better data. Furthermore, none of your data actually includes any performance data. The link to performance is speculative hypothesis because you lack the necessary data. Once again, where you end up with your data is where my claim starts.
Equally, there is no data that disproves the moon is made of green cheese, so that, too, remains "unconfirmed" by the light of the same argument. So, as we see, you make an empty claim and then suggest it has credibility because there isn't any data that confirms it. You are a complete dolt. Your "hypothesis" about doping not aiding performance in elites is in the realm of pure fancy; it has nothing to support it. By contrast, the data I have is that doping is known to be present in the sport and is known to be far more prevalent than those caught and includes the very best athletes, as doping positives and violations have shown. It is also known to have been a feature in all sports and not just athletics for decades and is expertly estimated to be at least a billion dollar industry world-wide. In that context, when countless athletes in all sports have doped for decades, only a fool would insist doping doesn't enhance performance in top athletes. You are that kind of fool, as there is no data from studies of doped athletes which shows doping doesn't enhance performance. Nor do you have any experience of doping that might back up your claim that those top athletes who have doped either historically or in the present day don't benefit from it. Because you are such a stupid ph*q you don't realise that yours is the argument without evidence.
I think there is not one single accurate statement here.
Actually we have quite a bit of data about the composition of the moon. I'll just note that you compare your own beliefs to the moon being made of green cheese.
You don't understand my claim, and cannot dispute it, so you invent a straw one and attack it like Don Quijote attacking windmills. My claim is that there is a lack of the data necessary to support popular beliefs about the hypothesized relation between blood doping and elite distance performance. If there truly were data, nothing would be easier than disproving my claim by simply providing this data. Tellingly, you find it impossible, so you resort to awkward analogies and personal insults. This only confirms that it is pure hypothesis and speculation.
The limited data you say you do have also confirms my claim. You effectively argue that generic doping in all sports is worse than the data you have, and you need better data. Furthermore, none of your data actually includes any performance data. The link to performance is speculative hypothesis because you lack the necessary data. Once again, where you end up with your data is where my claim starts.
Equally, there is no data that disproves the moon is made of green cheese, so that, too, remains "unconfirmed" by the light of the same argument. So, as we see, you make an empty claim and then suggest it has credibility because there isn't any data that confirms it. You are a complete dolt. Your "hypothesis" about doping not aiding performance in elites is in the realm of pure fancy; it has nothing to support it. By contrast, the data I have is that doping is known to be present in the sport and is known to be far more prevalent than those caught and includes the very best athletes, as doping positives and violations have shown. It is also known to have been a feature in all sports and not just athletics for decades and is expertly estimated to be at least a billion dollar industry world-wide. In that context, when countless athletes in all sports have doped for decades, only a fool would insist doping doesn't enhance performance in top athletes. You are that kind of fool, as there is no data from studies of doped athletes which shows doping doesn't enhance performance. Nor do you have any experience of doping that might back up your claim that those top athletes who have doped either historically or in the present day don't benefit from it. Because you are such a stupid ph*q you don't realise that yours is the argument without evidence.
I think there is not one single accurate statement here.
Actually we have quite a bit of data about the composition of the moon. I'll just note that you compare your own beliefs to the moon being made of green cheese.
You don't understand my claim, and cannot dispute it, so you invent a straw one and attack it like Don Quijote attacking windmills. My claim is that there is a lack of the data necessary to support popular beliefs about the hypothesized relation between blood doping and elite distance performance. If there truly were data, nothing would be easier than disproving my claim by simply providing this data. Tellingly, you find it impossible, so you resort to awkward analogies and personal insults. This only confirms that it is pure hypothesis and speculation.
The limited data you say you do have also confirms my claim. You effectively argue that generic doping in all sports is worse than the data you have, and you need better data. Furthermore, none of your data actually includes any performance data. The link to performance is speculative hypothesis because you lack the necessary data. Once again, where you end up with your data is where my claim starts.
The claim, you moron, is yours, that doping does not enhance performance in top distance runners. Yet there is nothing that confirms that. It is your mere speculation. In fact it is as substantiated as that the moon is made of green cheese (yes, you didn't get that either).
However, when generations of top athletes have doped and continue to do so it is a fair assumption that they do that because it does work for them. Athletes, coaches, physicians and trainers are not insane. Antidoping agrees, which is one of the key reasons (after health and sportsmanship) that peds are banned. The evidence that drugs enhance performance for everyone who uses them is with the athletes, their teams and antidoping, not an ignoramus like yourself (as Sage Canaday has aptly observed of you).
I think there is not one single accurate statement here.
Actually we have quite a bit of data about the composition of the moon. I'll just note that you compare your own beliefs to the moon being made of green cheese.
You don't understand my claim, and cannot dispute it, so you invent a straw one and attack it like Don Quijote attacking windmills. My claim is that there is a lack of the data necessary to support popular beliefs about the hypothesized relation between blood doping and elite distance performance. If there truly were data, nothing would be easier than disproving my claim by simply providing this data. Tellingly, you find it impossible, so you resort to awkward analogies and personal insults. This only confirms that it is pure hypothesis and speculation.
The limited data you say you do have also confirms my claim. You effectively argue that generic doping in all sports is worse than the data you have, and you need better data. Furthermore, none of your data actually includes any performance data. The link to performance is speculative hypothesis because you lack the necessary data. Once again, where you end up with your data is where my claim starts.
The claim, you moron, is yours, that doping does not enhance performance in top distance runners. Yet there is nothing that confirms that. It is your mere speculation. In fact it is as substantiated as that the moon is made of green cheese (yes, you didn't get that either).
However, when generations of top athletes have doped and continue to do so it is a fair assumption that they do that because it does work for them. Athletes, coaches, physicians and trainers are not insane. Antidoping agrees, which is one of the key reasons (after health and sportsmanship) that peds are banned. The evidence that drugs enhance performance for everyone who uses them is with the athletes, their teams and antidoping, not an ignoramus like yourself (as Sage Canaday has aptly observed of you).
The Green cheese moon man trolls once more.
Has he read anything the updated Karl Poppers ideas …. No, the Troll has yet to read the rules.
See you are trying to swivel on a pointed bit of moon cheese.
I think there is not one single accurate statement here.
Actually we have quite a bit of data about the composition of the moon. I'll just note that you compare your own beliefs to the moon being made of green cheese.
You don't understand my claim, and cannot dispute it, so you invent a straw one and attack it like Don Quijote attacking windmills. My claim is that there is a lack of the data necessary to support popular beliefs about the hypothesized relation between blood doping and elite distance performance. If there truly were data, nothing would be easier than disproving my claim by simply providing this data. Tellingly, you find it impossible, so you resort to awkward analogies and personal insults. This only confirms that it is pure hypothesis and speculation.
The limited data you say you do have also confirms my claim. You effectively argue that generic doping in all sports is worse than the data you have, and you need better data. Furthermore, none of your data actually includes any performance data. The link to performance is speculative hypothesis because you lack the necessary data. Once again, where you end up with your data is where my claim starts.
The claim, you moron, is yours, that doping does not enhance performance in top distance runners. Yet there is nothing that confirms that. It is your mere speculation. In fact it is as substantiated as that the moon is made of green cheese (yes, you didn't get that either).
However, when generations of top athletes have doped and continue to do so it is a fair assumption that they do that because it does work for them. Athletes, coaches, physicians and trainers are not insane. Antidoping agrees, which is one of the key reasons (after health and sportsmanship) that peds are banned. The evidence that drugs enhance performance for everyone who uses them is with the athletes, their teams and antidoping, not an ignoramus like yourself (as Sage Canaday has aptly observed of you).
If you bothered to read the rules it says potentially improve performance.
Bet you have been spending too much time engaging with Green Moon cheese.
You are such an uneducated troll.And one that has just dug the most remarkable deep intellectual hole and one that indicates your opposition is fully correct.
The claim, you moron, is yours, that doping does not enhance performance in top distance runners. Yet there is nothing that confirms that. It is your mere speculation. In fact it is as substantiated as that the moon is made of green cheese (yes, you didn't get that either).
However, when generations of top athletes have doped and continue to do so it is a fair assumption that they do that because it does work for them. Athletes, coaches, physicians and trainers are not insane. Antidoping agrees, which is one of the key reasons (after health and sportsmanship) that peds are banned. The evidence that drugs enhance performance for everyone who uses them is with the athletes, their teams and antidoping, not an ignoramus like yourself (as Sage Canaday has aptly observed of you).
No, that is not my claim. My claim is that you lack conclusive data to support your beliefs.
When many athletes dope, the only fair assumption is one of athletes (or coaches, managers, etc.) acting on belief and hope.
The true measure of performance requires actually measuring performance, and not wishful self-serving inference.
The claim, you moron, is yours, that doping does not enhance performance in top distance runners. Yet there is nothing that confirms that. It is your mere speculation. In fact it is as substantiated as that the moon is made of green cheese (yes, you didn't get that either).
However, when generations of top athletes have doped and continue to do so it is a fair assumption that they do that because it does work for them. Athletes, coaches, physicians and trainers are not insane. Antidoping agrees, which is one of the key reasons (after health and sportsmanship) that peds are banned. The evidence that drugs enhance performance for everyone who uses them is with the athletes, their teams and antidoping, not an ignoramus like yourself (as Sage Canaday has aptly observed of you).
No, that is not my claim. My claim is that you lack conclusive data to support your beliefs.
When many athletes dope, the only fair assumption is one of athletes (or coaches, managers, etc.) acting on belief and hope.
The true measure of performance requires actually measuring performance, and not wishful self-serving inference.
Performance doesn't need to be measured by academics who have no data from doped athletes in order to know the athletes' performances will improve through the use of drugs - and that is proven by the continued use of these drugs by thousands of athletes over decades in every sport. If it didn't do what they thought or believed it did it would have long been discontinued. You are seriously the most stupid commenter ever on this subject - and the most arrogant, because you presume to know better than the countless athletes who use the drugs, their coaches, trainers and physicians, the experts who develop the drugs, and the antidoping experts who are trying to do something about this scourge in the sport. You are a truly brainless narcissist.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
No, that is not my claim. My claim is that you lack conclusive data to support your beliefs.
When many athletes dope, the only fair assumption is one of athletes (or coaches, managers, etc.) acting on belief and hope.
The true measure of performance requires actually measuring performance, and not wishful self-serving inference.
Performance doesn't need to be measured by academics who have no data from doped athletes in order to know the athletes' performances will improve through the use of drugs - and that is proven by the continued use of these drugs by thousands of athletes over decades in every sport. If it didn't do what they thought or believed it did it would have long been discontinued. You are seriously the most stupid commenter ever on this subject - and the most arrogant, because you presume to know better than the countless athletes who use the drugs, their coaches, trainers and physicians, the experts who develop the drugs, and the antidoping experts who are trying to do something about this scourge in the sport. You are a truly brainless narcissist.
Low level uneducated drivel.
Have you not realised the experts who develop the drugs are major pharmaceutical companies who have developed them for health.
You insult at a whim; indeed it is your default position.
Then you say there is no evidence that the moon is not made of Cheese.
The claim, you moron, is yours, that doping does not enhance performance in top distance runners. Yet there is nothing that confirms that. It is your mere speculation. In fact it is as substantiated as that the moon is made of green cheese (yes, you didn't get that either).
However, when generations of top athletes have doped and continue to do so it is a fair assumption that they do that because it does work for them. Athletes, coaches, physicians and trainers are not insane. Antidoping agrees, which is one of the key reasons (after health and sportsmanship) that peds are banned. The evidence that drugs enhance performance for everyone who uses them is with the athletes, their teams and antidoping, not an ignoramus like yourself (as Sage Canaday has aptly observed of you).
If you bothered to read the rules it says potentially improve performance.
Bet you have been spending too much time engaging with Green Moon cheese.
You are such an uneducated troll.And one that has just dug the most remarkable deep intellectual hole and one that indicates your opposition is fully correct.
