Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

5558 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Clean is not a fact. It is only an opinion because you dont - cannot - know who is clean and who isnt. There is a 50/50 chance they aren't.

OK, you really don't know what an opinion is.

I try to explain it to you:

It's completely laughable to do a statement like:

"In my opinion athlete A is clean" . A either is clean or A is not clean (apart from some grey areas) - which one holds true is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

A reasonable statement would be: "In my opinion they should raise the punishement for driving too fast". If they "should" do it is not a matter of fact (there can't be an definitive answer to this). It's an opinion.

All this looooong conversation with someone who doesn't know the difference between opinion and fact.

When you don't know whether someone is clean or not your view on that is only an opinion. It is also fact, that you don't know if they are clean. It is a further fact that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion. You have just shown it.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Of course. Your old trope that doping only works on Russian women and with a single drug like testosterone - despite that fact there is a whole pharmacy being used today and in every athletic discipline. But it never works for elite African distance runners, who continue to dope to the gills against your advice.

We were talking about:

"We need more facts, more controlled observations, and strong correlations, if not proof of causation."

and:

"There will never be enough to satisfy a doping denier such as yourself."

You should see now that you were completely wrong on two counts: I am not a doping denier, and I can be satisfied with evidence.

What I haven't seen from you are facts, observations, correlations, and causation -- only faith and fallacy and burden shifting, combined with arrogance, mockery and immature insults.

There have been thousands of athletes who have doped for decades. Apart from a confirmed doping violation, when have you ever been "satisfied with evidence"? If so, what was the "evidence"?

Someone who prattles incessantly about "correlations" etc. as you do, is merely a doping denier in drag. You construct tests that can be never be met. They never are. So no one - no named athlete - is ever doping. You always defend them - even as you dribble on about "prevalence". It rains but no one ever gets wet, in your world.

Your contrived and contorted appeals to logic and reason are merely the tools of a liar.

You have shown now several times that you really don't understand the meaning of opinion.

"When you don't know whether someone is clean or not your view on that is only an opinion. " - no, it is not an opinion. It's some valuation of the facts known to the person.

If the earth is flat or round is not a point of your personal opinion. You probably don't know the answer to this Armstrongr, and you might say: "In my opinion the earth is flat" - but, as so often in this thread and in this forum, your opinion has no influence on the facts.

Armstronglivs wrote:

There have been thousands of athletes who have doped for decades. Apart from a confirmed doping violation, when have you ever been "satisfied with evidence"? If so, what was the "evidence"?

Someone who prattles incessantly about "correlations" etc. as you do, is merely a doping denier in drag. You construct tests that can be never be met. They never are. So no one - no named athlete - is ever doping. You always defend them - even as you dribble on about "prevalence". It rains but no one ever gets wet, in your world.

Your contrived and contorted appeals to logic and reason are merely the tools of a liar.

You need to stop using me as a shield to hide your lack of ability to bring substantive arguments for things you want to say.

All of your questions have been answered many times, in many threads. But it is not about me, despite your best efforts to always make it about me.

If you want to say something about doping and performance, you need to show that those who are doping are the same who are performing -- without me.

It's clear you want to say it in many, many threads.

I think this reeks of insecurity, as if you desperately hope that if you say it often enough, it may eventually become true without any proof.

It is a fact that you don't know whether an athlete is clean.

I dont have to show that. Especially to you. But it is always about you and your delusions.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You need to stop using me as a shield to hide your lack of ability to bring substantive arguments for things you want to say.

All of your questions have been answered many times, in many threads. But it is not about me, despite your best efforts to always make it about me.

If you want to say something about doping and performance, you need to show that those who are doping are the same who are performing -- without me.

It's clear you want to say it in many, many threads.

I think this reeks of insecurity, as if you desperately hope that if you say it often enough, it may eventually become true without any proof.

I dont have to show that. Especially to you. But it is always about you and your delusions.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is a fact that you don't know whether an athlete is clean.

Who has said something different?

As always: instead of just accepting that you were completely wrong about "opinion" you have just changed the subject.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I dont have to show that. Especially to you. But it is always about you and your delusions.

I can't obligate you to do anything.

But in order to promote the faith-based status of your hypotheses, speculations, and beliefs, you must make the effort to link it to reality. And until then, it can only be considered your delusion.

5558 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is a fact that you don't know whether an athlete is clean.

Who has said something different?

As always: instead of just accepting that you were completely wrong about "opinion" you have just changed the subject.

I haven't changed the subject. You have only just grasped what I was saying. Your lecture about a word meaning was purely infantile.

Armstronglivs wrote:

5558 wrote:

Who has said something different?

As always: instead of just accepting that you were completely wrong about "opinion" you have just changed the subject.

I haven't changed the subject. You have only just grasped what I was saying. Your lecture about a word meaning was purely infantile.

You obviously still havn't got that you were completely wrong about the meaning of "opinion" (or you just can't agree to it because your are just on the level of some child playing in the sandpit). Don't know what is worse.

Some of you were saying that Joshua was defeated by a 3:30 guy. Yeah well that 3:30 guy just ran 3:36 in Doha. Such ignorance here. Such ubiquitous ignorance.

Killeriotttt wrote:

Some of you were saying that Joshua was defeated by a 3:30 guy. Yeah well that 3:30 guy just ran 3:36 in Doha. Such ignorance here. Such ubiquitous ignorance.

Why is that important?

The ignorance is demonstrated by over-interpretation of practice races in April in May, without considering the bigger picture.

rekrunner wrote:

Killeriotttt wrote:

Some of you were saying that Joshua was defeated by a 3:30 guy. Yeah well that 3:30 guy just ran 3:36 in Doha. Such ignorance here. Such ubiquitous ignorance.

Why is that important?

The ignorance is demonstrated by over-interpretation of practice races in April in May, without considering the bigger picture.

It is important because I, being smarter than you and the others, knew that Joshua’s 3:37 was significant. It is weak. Joshua is doping. I am not interested in arguing with you about this. You are too biased and stupid.

Killeriotttt wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Why is that important?

The ignorance is demonstrated by over-interpretation of practice races in April in May, without considering the bigger picture.

It is important because I, being smarter than you and the others, knew that Joshua’s 3:37 was significant. It is weak. Joshua is doping. I am not interested in arguing with you about this. You are too biased and stupid.

I love the fact that you have presented so much conclusive evidence.

Oh wait! You haven't!

Why? Because you are too biased and stupid.

5558 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I haven't changed the subject. You have only just grasped what I was saying. Your lecture about a word meaning was purely infantile.

You obviously still havn't got that you were completely wrong about the meaning of "opinion" (or you just can't agree to it because your are just on the level of some child playing in the sandpit). Don't know what is worse.

If you think I can't tell the difference between an opinion and a fact then you are even dumber than I realised. Maybe knowing the difference is a serious intellectual challenge for you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you think I can't tell the difference between an opinion and a fact then you are even dumber than I realised. Maybe knowing the difference is a serious intellectual challenge for you.

Well, you couldn't in this thread.

You absolutely clearly stated that something like "in my opinion A is a doper" or "in my opinion A is clean" are fair statements.

No question that you couldn't grasp the meaning of "opinion".

5558 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you think I can't tell the difference between an opinion and a fact then you are even dumber than I realised. Maybe knowing the difference is a serious intellectual challenge for you.

Well, you couldn't in this thread.

You absolutely clearly stated that something like "in my opinion A is a doper" or "in my opinion A is clean" are fair statements.

No question that you couldn't grasp the meaning of "opinion".

An opinion can have a factual basis to it - such as the 50/50 chance that a top athlete is clean or doped, while there may be more evidence that can be adduced to support either opinion. It doesn't become fact until it is proven beyond dispute. Your fixation on the meaning of the word takes the argument nowhere and you offer nothing to support any opinion you might hold about Cheptegei. That is because you aren't interested in the subject of the thread but only in trying to use a poorly understood linguistic point to prove me "wrong". Fail.

Maybe I have some problem to understand the complicated way you write (for me, of course), but I have some doubt : I'm with you that ALMOST nobody can know if an athlete is clean or not, and yourself wrote there are 50/50 chances.

So said, why you always don't consider the 50% chances that an athlete is clean, but always speak about 100% chances that everybody is doped ?

And, if you accept the possibility that 50% of athletes are clean (but you don't know who), how is it possible to justify the advantage they can have from doping, at the level considered by some "pseudo-scientist" speaking of 5"-7" for 1500m, 30" for 5000m, 1' for 10000m and 4' for marathon ?