Words do hurt you - despite your trite adage about "stick and stones". You cannot leave it alone but insist on trying to defend yourself. As you show - when your self esteem is in the line you never stop. As for debating the doping study with you - that isn't necessary. It would be a complete waste of time. Sage Canaday summed you up neatly enough for me. He read you like a book.
You are clearly projecting. You just hope he is hurt and you can't stand the fact that he isn't. I am sure that hurts you.
It always amuses when the likes of you speak of "projection". You are invariably describing yourself. And meanwhile, rekrunner defends his ego to the death.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Words do hurt you - despite your trite adage about "stick and stones". You cannot leave it alone but insist on trying to defend yourself. As you show - when your self esteem is in the line you never stop. As for debating the doping study with you - that isn't necessary. It would be a complete waste of time. Sage Canaday summed you up neatly enough for me. He read you like a book.
Nope. Wrong again. Sticks and stones. In fact, now it is you who won't leave it alone, as you keep attacking me. I never want to talk about me -- it is always you desperately trying to make it about me.
As for debating the doping study (the amateur one that didn't measure running), I agree it isn't necessary, and it would be a waste of time, primarily because that study is irrelevant.
Regarding the meta-study, I guess there is also no need for debate, as we both seemed to be in full agreement with Heuberger's conclusion, when you conceded that there was a lack of scientific evidence, either way, full stop.
You have just confirmed what I said about you. And what Sage said of course, as it was his opinion of you that I was referring to.
You have just confirmed what I said about you. And what Sage said of course, as it was his opinion of you that I was referring to.
In your mind, you will always find confirmation. It's hard to compete against your imagination.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence for efficacy remains lacking, despite your feeble attempt to -- ooh look squirrel -- change the subject.
Wrong - again. The scientific evidence for INEFFICACY remains lacking. Such evidence simply doesn't - and can't - show that doping doesn't work. But there is a wealth of empirical evidence, that ranges from the widespread use of drugs, to anecdotal accounts of its effects from athletes and their trainers and from experts in the stimulant properties of drugs used. An exact figure for performance enhancement does need to be demonstrated in order to see that some degree of performance enhancement is attainable through drugs. Nor can an exact figure for performance enhancement be provided because there will be a variation amongst different athletes. But no so-called "scientific" study - of the kind that you refer to - can refute any of that when it cannot rely for data on a pool of elite athletes who were doping. I expect countless athletes, coaches and trainers and physicians would know more about about the effects of drugs than a few boffins with no such experience and no athletes they could ask. You are like an expert in white collar crime who has never met a white collar criminal - and so you think white collar crime isn't a problem and doesn't pay. It does - big time. Just like doping.
Wrong - again. The scientific evidence for INEFFICACY remains lacking. Such evidence simply doesn't - and can't - show that doping doesn't work. But there is a wealth of empirical evidence, that ranges from the widespread use of drugs, to anecdotal accounts of its effects from athletes and their trainers and from experts in the stimulant properties of drugs used. An exact figure for performance enhancement does need to be demonstrated in order to see that some degree of performance enhancement is attainable through drugs. Nor can an exact figure for performance enhancement be provided because there will be a variation amongst different athletes. But no so-called "scientific" study - of the kind that you refer to - can refute any of that when it cannot rely for data on a pool of elite athletes who were doping. I expect countless athletes, coaches and trainers and physicians would know more about about the effects of drugs than a few boffins with no such experience and no athletes they could ask. You are like an expert in white collar crime who has never met a white collar criminal - and so you think white collar crime isn't a problem and doesn't pay. It does - big time. Just like doping.
You said "lacks comprehensive evidence either way, full stop." And here you are still going after "full stop".
Neither Heuberger nor I say "doping doesn't work", but only that the science is of poor quality. To be clear, he was only talking about EPO and elite cycling performance.
Lacking comprehensive evidence either way, we are left with your collection of "empirical evidence" which, in its totality, is essentially gossip and collective belief. You believe because you misinterpret the beliefs of countless athletes, coaches and trainers and physicians as knowledge.
You are clearly projecting. You just hope he is hurt and you can't stand the fact that he isn't. I am sure that hurts you.
It always amuses when the likes of you speak of "projection". You are invariably describing yourself. And meanwhile, rekrunner defends his ego to the death.
But you are hurt he is not hurt by your or Sage's words. And why should he? No reason. Sage offered no explanation, and you are just a narcissist looking for attention.
In your mind, you will always find confirmation. It's hard to compete against your imagination.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence for efficacy remains lacking, despite your feeble attempt to -- ooh look squirrel -- change the subject.
Wrong - again. The scientific evidence for INEFFICACY remains lacking. Such evidence simply doesn't - and can't - show that doping doesn't work. But there is a wealth of empirical evidence, that ranges from the widespread use of drugs, to anecdotal accounts of its effects from athletes and their trainers and from experts in the stimulant properties of drugs used. An exact figure for performance enhancement does need to be demonstrated in order to see that some degree of performance enhancement is attainable through drugs. Nor can an exact figure for performance enhancement be provided because there will be a variation amongst different athletes. But no so-called "scientific" study - of the kind that you refer to - can refute any of that when it cannot rely for data on a pool of elite athletes who were doping. I expect countless athletes, coaches and trainers and physicians would know more about about the effects of drugs than a few boffins with no such experience and no athletes they could ask. You are like an expert in white collar crime who has never met a white collar criminal - and so you think white collar crime isn't a problem and doesn't pay. It does - big time. Just like doping.
The intellectual depth of a below average 14 yr old.
One who thinks that the bladder is part of the digestive system and medical books are just wrong.
The man who argues that because he has had seen no side effects from drugs he takes then there thus can be no possible side effects.
Perhaps a sub average 14 year old would not have spotted the errors in that thinking.
Wrong - again. The scientific evidence for INEFFICACY remains lacking. Such evidence simply doesn't - and can't - show that doping doesn't work. But there is a wealth of empirical evidence, that ranges from the widespread use of drugs, to anecdotal accounts of its effects from athletes and their trainers and from experts in the stimulant properties of drugs used. An exact figure for performance enhancement does need to be demonstrated in order to see that some degree of performance enhancement is attainable through drugs. Nor can an exact figure for performance enhancement be provided because there will be a variation amongst different athletes. But no so-called "scientific" study - of the kind that you refer to - can refute any of that when it cannot rely for data on a pool of elite athletes who were doping. I expect countless athletes, coaches and trainers and physicians would know more about about the effects of drugs than a few boffins with no such experience and no athletes they could ask. You are like an expert in white collar crime who has never met a white collar criminal - and so you think white collar crime isn't a problem and doesn't pay. It does - big time. Just like doping.
The intellectual depth of a below average 14 yr old.
One who thinks that the bladder is part of the digestive system and medical books are just wrong.
The man who argues that because he has had seen no side effects from drugs he takes then there thus can be no possible side effects.
Perhaps a sub average 14 year old would not have spotted the errors in that thinking.
The patient has returned. But forgotten his medication.
Wrong - again. The scientific evidence for INEFFICACY remains lacking. Such evidence simply doesn't - and can't - show that doping doesn't work. But there is a wealth of empirical evidence, that ranges from the widespread use of drugs, to anecdotal accounts of its effects from athletes and their trainers and from experts in the stimulant properties of drugs used. An exact figure for performance enhancement does need to be demonstrated in order to see that some degree of performance enhancement is attainable through drugs. Nor can an exact figure for performance enhancement be provided because there will be a variation amongst different athletes. But no so-called "scientific" study - of the kind that you refer to - can refute any of that when it cannot rely for data on a pool of elite athletes who were doping. I expect countless athletes, coaches and trainers and physicians would know more about about the effects of drugs than a few boffins with no such experience and no athletes they could ask. You are like an expert in white collar crime who has never met a white collar criminal - and so you think white collar crime isn't a problem and doesn't pay. It does - big time. Just like doping.
You said "lacks comprehensive evidence either way, full stop." And here you are still going after "full stop".
Neither Heuberger nor I say "doping doesn't work", but only that the science is of poor quality. To be clear, he was only talking about EPO and elite cycling performance.
Lacking comprehensive evidence either way, we are left with your collection of "empirical evidence" which, in its totality, is essentially gossip and collective belief. You believe because you misinterpret the beliefs of countless athletes, coaches and trainers and physicians as knowledge.
My "full stop" is what conclusions can be drawn from academic studies. It doesn't apply to pointing out the fallacies in your thinking.
You said "lacks comprehensive evidence either way, full stop." And here you are still going after "full stop".
Neither Heuberger nor I say "doping doesn't work", but only that the science is of poor quality. To be clear, he was only talking about EPO and elite cycling performance.
Lacking comprehensive evidence either way, we are left with your collection of "empirical evidence" which, in its totality, is essentially gossip and collective belief. You believe because you misinterpret the beliefs of countless athletes, coaches and trainers and physicians as knowledge.
My "full stop" is what conclusions can be drawn from academic studies. It doesn't apply to pointing out the fallacies in your thinking.