Armstronglivs wrote:
the_rocket wrote:
I have little doubt about this.
You have offered nothing more in the whole thread.
And you have offered?
Showing the negativity of some others in itself is something substantial.
Armstronglivs wrote:
the_rocket wrote:
I have little doubt about this.
You have offered nothing more in the whole thread.
And you have offered?
Showing the negativity of some others in itself is something substantial.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have real difficulty in understanding English. I told you I would rather wade through dogsh*t than engage in discussion about doping with you or any other dumb*ss doping denier on this thread. Your presuming to ask questions for fictional others does not make you them. If I encountered someone worth responding to I would. But as I reiterate - and you cannot grasp - that isn't you.
You keep saying the problem is me, but you don’t engage with anyone at any level except belief and insult.
I’m an Armstrongliv’s denier. If you think I’m a doping denier, that makes you the dope.
the_rocket wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
And you have offered?
Showing the negativity of some others in itself is something substantial.
Then I might point out yours, since that is all you have done here. I hope that is "substantial" enough for you.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have real difficulty in understanding English. I told you I would rather wade through dogsh*t than engage in discussion about doping with you or any other dumb*ss doping denier on this thread. Your presuming to ask questions for fictional others does not make you them. If I encountered someone worth responding to I would. But as I reiterate - and you cannot grasp - that isn't you.
You keep saying the problem is me, but you don’t engage with anyone at any level except belief and insult.
I’m an Armstrongliv’s denier. If you think I’m a doping denier, that makes you the dope.
You are too modest. You are way more than an 'Armstronglivs denier', you deny doping by every suspected and even convicted doper on these boards. I can easily prove it: I will ask you, is Shelby Houlihan a doper? This is too easy.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You keep saying the problem is me, but you don’t engage with anyone at any level except belief and insult.
I’m an Armstrongliv’s denier. If you think I’m a doping denier, that makes you the dope.
You are too modest. You are way more than an 'Armstronglivs denier', you deny doping by every suspected and even convicted doper on these boards. I can easily prove it: I will ask you, is Shelby Houlihan a doper? This is too easy.
What!Every one suspected of drug taking is guilty.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You keep saying the problem is me, but you don’t engage with anyone at any level except belief and insult.
I’m an Armstrongliv’s denier. If you think I’m a doping denier, that makes you the dope.
You are too modest. You are way more than an 'Armstronglivs denier', you deny doping by every suspected and even convicted doper on these boards. I can easily prove it: I will ask you, is Shelby Houlihan a doper? This is too easy.
That’s partly true — I deny several other dopes too.
“Every suspected and even convicted doper”? “Every?” That is easily disproved. I don’t deny convicted Russian dopers, nor convicted Bahranians, nor suspected Eastern women from the ‘80s.
What definition of “doper” do you mean?
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are too modest. You are way more than an 'Armstronglivs denier', you deny doping by every suspected and even convicted doper on these boards. I can easily prove it: I will ask you, is Shelby Houlihan a doper? This is too easy.
What!Every one suspected of drug taking is guilty.
Now you are truly hilarious. Houlihan is only "suspected" of doping?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are too modest. You are way more than an 'Armstronglivs denier', you deny doping by every suspected and even convicted doper on these boards. I can easily prove it: I will ask you, is Shelby Houlihan a doper? This is too easy.
That’s partly true — I deny several other dopes too.
“Every suspected and even convicted doper”? “Every?” That is easily disproved. I don’t deny convicted Russian dopers, nor convicted Bahranians, nor suspected Eastern women from the ‘80s.
What definition of “doper” do you mean?
Try Shelby Houlihan.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
What!Every one suspected of drug taking is guilty.
Now you are truly hilarious. Houlihan is only "suspected" of doping?
Contortor …. away with you
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That’s partly true — I deny several other dopes too.
“Every suspected and even convicted doper”? “Every?” That is easily disproved. I don’t deny convicted Russian dopers, nor convicted Bahranians, nor suspected Eastern women from the ‘80s.
What definition of “doper” do you mean?
Try Shelby Houlihan.
Pathetic response . Go away
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are too modest. You are way more than an 'Armstronglivs denier', you deny doping by every suspected and even convicted doper on these boards. I can easily prove it: I will ask you, is Shelby Houlihan a doper? This is too easy.
What!Every one suspected of drug taking is guilty.
I repeat in hope of an answer to the question .
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Try Shelby Houlihan.
Pathetic response . Go away
She's not a doper? I guess not to a doping apologist.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
What!Every one suspected of drug taking is guilty.
I repeat in hope of an answer to the question .
The answer is that no one suspected of doping is ever a doper in his books. Lance was suspected long before he was confirmed as a doper. But not to rekrunner - even convicted dopers like Shelby aren't dopers to him. Or you.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
What!Every one suspected of drug taking is guilty.
I repeat in hope of an answer to the question .
Answer please.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That’s partly true — I deny several other dopes too.
“Every suspected and even convicted doper”? “Every?” That is easily disproved. I don’t deny convicted Russian dopers, nor convicted Bahranians, nor suspected Eastern women from the ‘80s.
What definition of “doper” do you mean?
Try Shelby Houlihan.
Your definition circularly answers your own question.
Glad I could help you clear that up. I hope it gives you the security you seek.
If you want to know what I think ask someone intelligent to read the relevant parts of the WADA code and the CAS report to you.
If you really want an advanced understanding of what I think, find back the Sports Integrity links I provided about the 2015 changes to the WADA code, and what USADA chief Tygart thinks.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The answer is that no one suspected of doping is ever a doper in his books. Lance was suspected long before he was confirmed as a doper. But not to rekrunner - even convicted dopers like Shelby aren't dopers to him. Or you.
I was convinced about Lance long before he confessed and was convicted.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The answer is that no one suspected of doping is ever a doper in his books. Lance was suspected long before he was confirmed as a doper. But not to rekrunner - even convicted dopers like Shelby aren't dopers to him. Or you.
I was convinced about Lance long before he confessed and was convicted.
But you aren't convinced about Shelby, who has incurred a 4 year ban. I guess distance runners don't dope.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Try Shelby Houlihan.
Your definition circularly answers your own question.
Glad I could help you clear that up. I hope it gives you the security you seek.
If you want to know what I think ask someone intelligent to read the relevant parts of the WADA code and the CAS report to you.
If you really want an advanced understanding of what I think, find back the Sports Integrity links I provided about the 2015 changes to the WADA code, and what USADA chief Tygart thinks.
I am not interested in "an advanced understanding" of what you think - why should I follow a denier down their rabbit hole? - but a simple answer to the question of is Houlihan a doper should have been easy. But not to a doping denier it seems.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
I repeat in hope of an answer to the question .
Answer please.
To use your own overworked phrase - go away. I am not interested in your fatuous questions. You merely break wind here.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Your definition circularly answers your own question.
Glad I could help you clear that up. I hope it gives you the security you seek.
If you want to know what I think ask someone intelligent to read the relevant parts of the WADA code and the CAS report to you.
If you really want an advanced understanding of what I think, find back the Sports Integrity links I provided about the 2015 changes to the WADA code, and what USADA chief Tygart thinks.
I am not interested in "an advanced understanding" of what you think - why should I follow a denier down their rabbit hole? - but a simple answer to the question of is Houlihan a doper should have been easy. But not to a doping denier it seems.
This man refuses to read.