Dope Hardstrong wrote:
I never initiate. I merely toy with your flailing efforts to use them somehow as '"evidence".
Rocinante is dead.
I dont debate the issue with you. You have shown you have nothing to offer on the subject of the thread. The only "evidence" your responses afford is of your pedestrian intellect. Rocinante may be dead but it doesn't stop you from trying to ride her. Take that how you will.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
I never initiate. I merely toy with your flailing efforts to use them somehow as '"evidence".
Rocinante is dead.
I dont debate the issue with you. You have shown you have nothing to offer on the subject of the thread. The only "evidence" your responses afford is of your pedestrian intellect. Rocinante may be dead but it doesn't stop you from trying to ride her. Take that how you will.
Hey stupid, Rocinante was a male horse. Your pedestrian intellect could use a ride on it.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
I never initiate. I merely toy with your flailing efforts to use them somehow as '"evidence".
Rocinante is dead.
I dont debate the issue with you. You have shown you have nothing to offer on the subject of the thread. The only "evidence" your responses afford is of your pedestrian intellect. Rocinante may be dead but it doesn't stop you from trying to ride her. Take that how you will.
I take that as you being unfamiliar with your own story and possibly distinguishing of males and females.
Rocinante was a stallion. And you should leave his lifeless corpse be.
Armstronglivs wrote:
An utterly disingenuous observation. No one has argued on these threads that there was doping in the former E Bloc or in China in the '90's. Those are known facts of life.
You have never accepted an argument here about any individual athlete since that era - especially a distance runner - who hadn't incurred a doping violation. No one in 30-odd years. You're a doping denier - and part of your denial is to deny even that fact. In common parlance it's called being a liar. As you are.
Since you frequently arrive at wrong and demonstrably false conclusions, I tend to discard your name-calling conclusions.
It don't really understand what "doping denier" means to you. Maybe it is different in the southern hemisphere.
If you mean "use" (or prevelance), I do not deny that many athletes use banned drugs.
This is supported by data -- I can be persuaded by data.
If you try to make an argument about any individual athlete, it should be trivial to figure out what I will accept: facts, data, and logic.
It should also be trivial by now to figure out what I take with a grain of salt: faith and fallacy, and in extreme cases, demonstrable falsehoods.
In the end, when faith and fallacy are stripped, we are often left with nothing, and the "argument" is similar to: I believe that performance was magic, and I believe only drugs can explain magic.
Taking for example the case of Nadal, I rejected all of your faith based claims and fallacies, leaving the fact that an aging, #2 in the world clay specialist, beat an aging, #1 in the world, in a tournament on clay.
Have you checked the corpse yet, Don?
Don?
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I dont debate the issue with you. You have shown you have nothing to offer on the subject of the thread. The only "evidence" your responses afford is of your pedestrian intellect. Rocinante may be dead but it doesn't stop you from trying to ride her. Take that how you will.
Hey stupid, Rocinante was a male horse. Your pedestrian intellect could use a ride on it.
Like yours has. Enjoy it?
Dixon Hurbutt wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I dont debate the issue with you. You have shown you have nothing to offer on the subject of the thread. The only "evidence" your responses afford is of your pedestrian intellect. Rocinante may be dead but it doesn't stop you from trying to ride her. Take that how you will.
I take that as you being unfamiliar with your own story and possibly distinguishing of males and females.
Rocinante was a stallion. And you should leave his lifeless corpse be.
I can easily distinguish male and female when it matters. In your case, it doesn't.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Have you checked the corpse yet, Don?
Don?
I will leave that to the necrophiliac that you are.
Armstrongliv wrote:-
You have never accepted an argument here about any individual athlete since that era - especially a distance runner - who hadn't incurred a doping violation. No one in 30-odd years.[/quote]
You have nothing to say that can refute that. The rest of your comment is the usual irrelevant drivel. But you at least have found your level amongst the chorus of deniers here. A dog pound isn't as barking as what can be heard here.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Armstrongliv wrote:-
You have never accepted an argument here about any individual athlete since that era - especially a distance runner - who hadn't incurred a doping violation. No one in 30-odd years.
You have nothing to say that can refute that. The rest of your comment is the usual irrelevant drivel. But you at least have found your level amongst the chorus of deniers here. A dog pound isn't as barking as what can be heard here.
Again, I grow more and more concerned for your short term memory.
I've already said two things that refute it:
- The Chinese women were in the last 30-odd years -- I have accepted these arguments without contest
- As end performance is a poor indicator of doping with no obvious correlation, especially for distance runners, we will not find dopers concentrated at the top, like we did in the Tour de France or in the fastest 100m or in all time women's 400m and 800m -- among the elite athletes, the minority of dopers will be anonymously camouflaged by the majority of non-dopers across the spectrum of performance.
If the "individual athlete" allegations are purely faith based speculation, then it is correct that I haven't accepted the argument as anything but baseless speculation, because the method of alleging doping for the individual athlete is intellectually defective.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dixon Hurbutt wrote:
I take that as you being unfamiliar with your own story and possibly distinguishing of males and females.
Rocinante was a stallion. And you should leave his lifeless corpse be.
I can easily distinguish male and female when it matters. In your case, it doesn't.
It matters with your horse, Don. If you can't tell horses apart, how can we trust you to identify dopers?
We can't.
I do like how your ad hominem remarks are getting worse.
Did you do a lot of calling people fagg*t? Do you still?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Armstrongliv wrote:-
You have never accepted an argument here about any individual athlete since that era - especially a distance runner - who hadn't incurred a doping violation. No one in 30-odd years.
You have nothing to say that can refute that. The rest of your comment is the usual irrelevant drivel. But you at least have found your level amongst the chorus of deniers here. A dog pound isn't as barking as what can be heard here.
Again, I grow more and more concerned for your short term memory.
I've already said two things that refute it:
- The Chinese women were in the last 30-odd years -- I have accepted these arguments without contest
- As end performance is a poor indicator of doping with no obvious correlation, especially for distance runners, we will not find dopers concentrated at the top, like we did in the Tour de France or in the fastest 100m or in all time women's 400m and 800m -- among the elite athletes, the minority of dopers will be anonymously camouflaged by the majority of non-dopers across the spectrum of performance.
If the "individual athlete" allegations are purely faith based speculation, then it is correct that I haven't accepted the argument as anything but baseless speculation, because the method of alleging doping for the individual athlete is intellectually defective.
You are so tediously repetitious - as well as thick as a bunch of planks. No one is asking whether doping has occurred amongst nationalities like the Chinese, but whether a case can be made that a given individual athlete has doped. Absent a confirmed violation you have never have accepted that on these boards. That is the only issue when we are discussing an individual athlete - like Nadal. Your mind has never been changed on that. Your reasons are immaterial. It says that your position is immovable. You have nothing to offer except the rigidity of your asinine convictions. You will never see a doper even while sports are full of them.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I can easily distinguish male and female when it matters. In your case, it doesn't.
It matters with your horse, Don. If you can't tell horses apart, how can we trust you to identify dopers?
We can't.
I do like how your ad hominem remarks are getting worse.
Did you do a lot of calling people fagg*t? Do you still?
No I don't. Are you wishing here to come out? But you clearly have a thing for horses - especially dead ones. Each to their own - or horses for courses, as they say.
But you're doing it now in your usual clumsy fashion.
And that's because you have still failed to prove your thread title.
Armstronglivs wrote:
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Hey stupid, Rocinante was a male horse. Your pedestrian intellect could use a ride on it.
Like yours has. Enjoy it?
You make a mistake, you are corrected, and you try to come out on top with a ridiculous reply?
Sorry "mate", the real world doesn't work like that, and the real world thinks your comebacks are childish and lame.
You were wrong about the horse, you are wrong all over this thread with your explanation about why Nadal is/was doping and others aren't.
Enjoy your loneliness and stop beating a dead horse, you lost this "debate" (it was never going to be a debate when you always insult those who disagree with you).
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
But you're doing it now in your usual clumsy fashion.
And that's because you have still failed to prove your thread title.
+1
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
But you're doing it now in your usual clumsy fashion.
And that's because you have still failed to prove your thread title.
That would require comprehension skills you don't have. Go clean out your stables and leave thinking for those who can.
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Like yours has. Enjoy it?
You make a mistake, you are corrected, and you try to come out on top with a ridiculous reply?
Sorry "mate", the real world doesn't work like that, and the real world thinks your comebacks are childish and lame.
You were wrong about the horse, you are wrong all over this thread with your explanation about why Nadal is/was doping and others aren't.
Enjoy your loneliness and stop beating a dead horse, you lost this "debate" (it was never going to be a debate when you always insult those who disagree with you).
Another dog joins the barking.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are so tediously repetitious - as well as thick as a bunch of planks. No one is asking whether doping has occurred amongst nationalities like the Chinese, but whether a case can be made that a given individual athlete has doped. Absent a confirmed violation you have never have accepted that on these boards. That is the only issue when we are discussing an individual athlete - like Nadal. Your mind has never been changed on that. Your reasons are immaterial. It says that your position is immovable. You have nothing to offer except the rigidity of your asinine convictions. You will never see a doper even while sports are full of them.
Make up your mind -- you said no athletes in the last 30 years, and I referred to a half-dozen or so individual athletes from two events in 1993 and 1997, both within the last 30 years.
This is just one of many things you say that were already disproven before you even said it.
My position can be moved by data and facts, but not by excessive speculation and circular arguments that assume the conclusion to conclude the assumption.
My conviction is that your facts are too sparse and as such cannot connect doping to the individual athlete.
Don't fault me if you cannot form a fact filled argument, and tend to fill the fact gaps with your own personal faith.
Armstronglivs wrote:
ek87o78o78o wrote:
You make a mistake, you are corrected, and you try to come out on top with a ridiculous reply?
Sorry "mate", the real world doesn't work like that, and the real world thinks your comebacks are childish and lame.
You were wrong about the horse, you are wrong all over this thread with your explanation about why Nadal is/was doping and others aren't.
Enjoy your loneliness and stop beating a dead horse, you lost this "debate" (it was never going to be a debate when you always insult those who disagree with you).
Another dog joins the barking.
Dogs are necessary to keep stupid sheep like you under control.