liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Calling a spade a spade is impossible for you doping deniers.
What is a doping denier?
And don’t use racial terms.
Answer?
Apology?
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Calling a spade a spade is impossible for you doping deniers.
What is a doping denier?
And don’t use racial terms.
Answer?
Apology?
the_rocket wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So when you are negative about another poster that is "positive"? You fit in well here. Delusions abound.
You don't understand.
I was not negative about you. I just showed that you often don't contribute something substantiel. That you have mostly negative impact.
But I doubt you will understand now.
I would consider that disputing falsehoods, prejudice of every kind and plain ignorance is a positive role - and with doping deniers - as there are here - there is plenty of it. Their lying and obfuscation never ends, because they can never accept an athlete is a doper - even when convicted - and their modus is to attack when confronted with an unpalatable truth.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"Doper" is not a tautology. But let's try it this way - by your own understanding, is Houlihan a doper? Or do you not have an understanding?
When asked, you finally defined “doper” as “Shelby Houlihan”, trivializing your question by completely stripping it of any meaning.
I do have a rich and deep understanding, and not a simple and superficial or artificial understanding, but you just said my understanding did not interest you.
To explain my understanding, I directed you to find someone with genuine intelligence and have them explain the CAS report to you, in the context of the WADA code.
But let’s go. Here is my understanding:
- The World Athletics, the AIU, and the CAS did not need to use the term “doper”. Neither do I. Apparently you need to.
- WADA defines “doping” as any rule violation.
- WADA defines “presence” and “use” as rule violations without requiring intent, negligence, fault, or knowing use.
- Merriam-Webster defines doping: “the use of a substance … or technique … to illegally improve athletic performance”; the criteria in this definition has not been met by WADA, WA, the AIU, or the CAS.
In cases of possible accidental ingestion, as the CAS unambiguously found, I think it is not fair to athletes to removal all the benefits of doubt, and treat these marginal results as an AAF, and to presume intentional use. Again — look at the case of Simon Getzmann. He successfully proved his innocence, yet even after clearing his name, WADA still considers it a rule violation, and he suffered a one year suspension, at a personal cost of 10,000 Euros for legal and scientific support. This time and money damage cannot be recovered.
Houlihan has been convicted of an intentional doping offence, and banned accordingly. She had no acceptable excuse - and all dopers have an excuse. That puts her in the same company as Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Asbel Kiprop, and so many other disgraced athletes. The list never ends. But you can't stomach calling her a doper.
I do have a rich and deep understanding, and not a simple and superficial or artificial understanding, but you just said my understanding did not interest you.(quote)
You have a rich and deep understanding of how to avoid the truth.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
What is a doping denier?
And don’t use racial terms.
Answer?
Apology?
Yes, you owe me one. Actually - many.
Armstronglivs wrote:
the_rocket wrote:
You don't understand.
I was not negative about you. I just showed that you often don't contribute something substantiel. That you have mostly negative impact.
But I doubt you will understand now.
I would consider that disputing falsehoods, prejudice of every kind and plain ignorance is a positive role - and with doping deniers - as there are here - there is plenty of it. Their lying and obfuscation never ends, because they can never accept an athlete is a doper - even when convicted - and their modus is to attack when confronted with an unpalatable truth.
Just look at the replies from you that I have presented.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Answer?
Apology?
Yes, you owe me one. Actually - many.
More no answers , and no apology for racial terms.
Should be banned.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have a rich and deep understanding of how to avoid the truth.
Wrong again. I gave you a list of truths in response.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yes, you owe me one. Actually - many.
More no answers , and no apology for racial terms.
Should be banned.
Any apologies for racial terms?
Or answers ?
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
More no answers , and no apology for racial terms.
Should be banned.
Any apologies for racial terms?
Or answers ?
Ban him for racial terms.!
Armstronglivs wrote:
I do have a rich and deep understanding, and not a simple and superficial or artificial understanding, but you just said my understanding did not interest you.(quote)
You have a rich and deep understanding of how to avoid the truth.
Is your rich understanding going to embrace the Nandrolone Tec Doc.?
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Any apologies for racial terms?
Or answers ?
Ban him for racial terms.!
I think he has been banned for racial terms.
the_rocket wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I would consider that disputing falsehoods, prejudice of every kind and plain ignorance is a positive role - and with doping deniers - as there are here - there is plenty of it. Their lying and obfuscation never ends, because they can never accept an athlete is a doper - even when convicted - and their modus is to attack when confronted with an unpalatable truth.
Just look at the replies from you that I have presented.
Just look at the comments that elicited those replies - including your own. Like them, you're only here to whine. So what have you to offer on the subject of the thread - or indeed any subject except me? Zilch. So positive! Take your school-marmy attitude of sanctimonious disapproval elsewhere. It means nothing.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Ban him for racial terms.!
I think he has been banned for racial terms.
No, he hasn't. However I am happy to risk being banned for saying you are the biggest moron on these boards.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
I think he has been banned for racial terms.
No, he hasn't. However I am happy to risk being banned for saying you are the biggest moron on these boards.
Racist comments; ban yourself before you get banned.
New depths by Armstronglivs as he blurts out racist contamination .
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I do have a rich and deep understanding, and not a simple and superficial or artificial understanding, but you just said my understanding did not interest you.(quote)
You have a rich and deep understanding of how to avoid the truth.
Is your rich understanding going to embrace the Nandrolone Tec Doc.?
Well Mr Informed what about it, or two many big words ?
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Ban him for racial terms.!
I think he has been banned for racial terms.
Soon will be.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
More no answers , and no apology for racial terms.
Should be banned.
Any apologies for racial terms?
Or answers ?
Well ?
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Answer?
Apology?
Yes, you owe me one. Actually - many.
Still nothing. But will be banned shortly..
Haven’t visited this site in a few weeks, come back to browse the latest running news and this dude is STILL GOING posting the same stuff in this thread. Incredible dedication. This is the type of of focus needed to go from sedentary to a 5 minute mile. Bravo sir.