Blocking still works for me. Once you are logged in, you can see "Follow" and "Block" below the username to the left of their post.
I haven't tried "Follow" yet, but have blocked - still successfully - the two worst trolls here. Makes all these threads a lot more readable, and their posts are always the same:
#67 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this user. #68 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this user. #69 This post by rekrunner is hidden because you have blocked this user. #70 This post by rekrunner is hidden because you have blocked this user. #71 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this user. #72 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this
Unfortunately I can still see when others are citing their posts, and it doesn't work for non-registered trolls like Armweaklivs.
Also doesn't work when registered trolls have gone undergound and use many handles, perhaps trying to appear like numerous people hold their opinions, unless you block them all.
Thats when you report, report, re-report... then you register the name . I know it's tough for you when your fairy tale of beef burritos magically turning into wild pig nut burritos isn't shared
Not just the performance enhancing drugs, but all of the banned non-performance enhancing drugs.
Like you, the common man completely lacks the education about the risk from ordinary everyday things from normal cold remedies to anti-inflammatories to vitamin supplements to teriyaki bowls, etc., that constitutes doping.
So the ordinary man has access to all these banned drugs without the need for expert medical referral. You never cease to simply make dumb sh*t up.
How can you always take the most ignorant position possible and defend it so strongly?
Of course the average man has access to many of these drugs in commonly available cold and allergy medicines, and their is a non-negligible risk of contamination in popular supplements, not to mention access to doctors who will prescribe expert medical treatments for illnesses and injuries. I don't make this up, but all ADAs and ADOs warn the athletes of these common traps as part of their anti-doping education and awareness. No one warns the common man.
Also doesn't work when registered trolls have gone undergound and use many handles, perhaps trying to appear like numerous people hold their opinions, unless you block them all.
Thats when you report, report, re-report... then you register the name . I know it's tough for you when your fairy tale of beef burritos magically turning into wild pig nut burritos isn't shared
I don't do any of those things, and I don't have any fairy tale that beef burritos turn into wild pig nut burritos.
Tygart has compromised his expertise. Like you he makes sh*t up that suits him.
Doping that is unintentional has to be proven as such. This hasn't happened with the 30% of violations Tygart cites. He's simply guessing.
Who says Tygart has compromised his expertise? This looks like you made that up, because what Tygart says doesn't suit you. Tygart didn't say 30% of violations, but 30% of positive tests.
WADA's annual reports largely agree with Tygart's ballpark experience.
Earlier, you said doping was proof of intent. WADA recognizes that doping can be either intentional or unintentional. The reality is that intent of doping is the thing that has to be proved before you can estimate how much doping is intentional.
So the ordinary man has access to all these banned drugs without the need for expert medical referral. You never cease to simply make dumb sh*t up.
How can you always take the most ignorant position possible and defend it so strongly?
Of course the average man has access to many of these drugs in commonly available cold and allergy medicines, and their is a non-negligible risk of contamination in popular supplements, not to mention access to doctors who will prescribe expert medical treatments for illnesses and injuries. I don't make this up, but all ADAs and ADOs warn the athletes of these common traps as part of their anti-doping education and awareness. No one warns the common man.
The "common man" has no reason to dope as he isn't trying to be an elite athlete. All this escapes you. You never see doping amongst professional athletes but readily fantasize about it amongst non athletes. You are beyond ridiculous.
Tygart has compromised his expertise. Like you he makes sh*t up that suits him.
Doping that is unintentional has to be proven as such. This hasn't happened with the 30% of violations Tygart cites. He's simply guessing.
Who says Tygart has compromised his expertise? This looks like you made that up, because what Tygart says doesn't suit you. Tygart didn't say 30% of violations, but 30% of positive tests.
WADA's annual reports largely agree with Tygart's ballpark experience.
Earlier, you said doping was proof of intent. WADA recognizes that doping can be either intentional or unintentional. The reality is that intent of doping is the thing that has to be proved before you can estimate how much doping is intentional.
I didn't saying a violation was proof of intent. But if an athlete can't show a justifiable excuse for testing positive then intent can be inferred. That is also the view that antidoping takes, as we saw in Houlihan's case.
Your argument that intent must be proved - it actually doesn't - also necessarily applies to lack of intent, if that is what is being claimed.
What makes the claim implausible that a high percentage of positive tests are not intentional is that athletes know which drugs are not permitted and as they are not generally being treated for medical maladies that require these drugs - no one who is sick can be a successful athlete - the likelihood of their using these drugs medically is extremely low.
Your confirmation bias is to believe athletes are either innocent dupes or actually dumb or careless about what they use, but never that they know exactly what they are doing which is to dope to gain advantage. You don't live in the real world.
I have seen in other posts last week that editing still works (the editing comment appears below an edited post).
Let me check. . .
Yes, the "Edit Post" appears at the bottom after posting, and still works (I edited this post twice). Now I see "You have 27 minutes to make edits to this post" below the editing window.
I think I just figured out how to block Armstronglivs. Thank you.
It's telling that posters like you are terrified of encountering opinions you don't share.
How can you always take the most ignorant position possible and defend it so strongly?
Of course the average man has access to many of these drugs in commonly available cold and allergy medicines, and their is a non-negligible risk of contamination in popular supplements, not to mention access to doctors who will prescribe expert medical treatments for illnesses and injuries. I don't make this up, but all ADAs and ADOs warn the athletes of these common traps as part of their anti-doping education and awareness. No one warns the common man.
The "common man" has no reason to dope as he isn't trying to be an elite athlete.
How can you always take the most ignorant position possible and defend it so strongly?
Of course the average man has access to many of these drugs in commonly available cold and allergy medicines, and their is a non-negligible risk of contamination in popular supplements, not to mention access to doctors who will prescribe expert medical treatments for illnesses and injuries. I don't make this up, but all ADAs and ADOs warn the athletes of these common traps as part of their anti-doping education and awareness. No one warns the common man.
The "common man" has no reason to dope as he isn't trying to be an elite athlete. All this escapes you. You never see doping amongst professional athletes but readily fantasize about it amongst non athletes. You are beyond ridiculous.
I already gave you many reasons: treating cold and flu and allergy symptoms; dietary supplements for intending to improve health and well-being; going to the doctor for routine treatment of injuries and ailments.
The athlete is educated about these risks, while the common man has no reason to change his behavior to comply with rules he is not subject to.
You are applying your own custom definition of doping, rather than adopting WADA's. The way WADA has expanded the meaning of doping, virtually everyone has doped.
I can see doping in professional athletes only when it is shown. Many athletes are accused of doping without any such showing, usually with dubious ignorant rationalizations like "we don't know who is not doping".
I didn't saying a violation was proof of intent. But if an athlete can't show a justifiable excuse for testing positive then intent can be inferred. That is also the view that antidoping takes, as we saw in Houlihan's case.
Your argument that intent must be proved - it actually doesn't - also necessarily applies to lack of intent, if that is what is being claimed.
What makes the claim implausible that a high percentage of positive tests are not intentional is that athletes know which drugs are not permitted and as they are not generally being treated for medical maladies that require these drugs - no one who is sick can be a successful athlete - the likelihood of their using these drugs medically is extremely low.
Your confirmation bias is to believe athletes are either innocent dupes or actually dumb or careless about what they use, but never that they know exactly what they are doing which is to dope to gain advantage. You don't live in the real world.
So you can't tell me who says Tygart has compromised his expertise. It looks like something you made up because what Tygart says doesn't suit you -- even though WADA says the same thing every year.
You said positive tests were proof of doping, and I said that appears to be true about 60-70% of the time -- according to WADA. Has WADA compromised its expertise too? These cases of non-doping rulings are based on evidence provided by the athlete.
Regarding intent, if you want to convince me that more than 70% of doping is intentional, it certainly must be proved -- by you. And you only tell half the story. WADA says intent must be proved for "Specified Substances or a Specified Method" (see 10.2.1.2), in addition to saying "non-intent" must be proved for non-specified substances or methods.
"implausible" is in the mind of the beholder, and what they are prepared to believe. It is a word for the realms of religion and mythology. Where are you getting your likelihood figures from? Is it more stuff you are making up, from your own uninformed bias?
It is my skepticism you mistake for bias which prevents me from treating baseless imaginary myths and tabloid rumors as fact or reality. This goes for estimates of how many athletes intentionally dope, and whether such doping can enable any advantages in the first place.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
The irony. You speaking there as a registered troll.
It's true I am registered. But the truth has stopped there.
That's correct. The truth stops at you being registered. It isn't in anything you say. But you are the biggest doping denier troll in these boards. You've made a career out of it.
I didn't saying a violation was proof of intent. But if an athlete can't show a justifiable excuse for testing positive then intent can be inferred. That is also the view that antidoping takes, as we saw in Houlihan's case.
Your argument that intent must be proved - it actually doesn't - also necessarily applies to lack of intent, if that is what is being claimed.
What makes the claim implausible that a high percentage of positive tests are not intentional is that athletes know which drugs are not permitted and as they are not generally being treated for medical maladies that require these drugs - no one who is sick can be a successful athlete - the likelihood of their using these drugs medically is extremely low.
Your confirmation bias is to believe athletes are either innocent dupes or actually dumb or careless about what they use, but never that they know exactly what they are doing which is to dope to gain advantage. You don't live in the real world.
So you can't tell me who says Tygart has compromised his expertise. It looks like something you made up because what Tygart says doesn't suit you -- even though WADA says the same thing every year.
You said positive tests were proof of doping, and I said that appears to be true about 60-70% of the time -- according to WADA. Has WADA compromised its expertise too? These cases of non-doping rulings are based on evidence provided by the athlete.
Regarding intent, if you want to convince me that more than 70% of doping is intentional, it certainly must be proved -- by you. And you only tell half the story. WADA says intent must be proved for "Specified Substances or a Specified Method" (see 10.2.1.2), in addition to saying "non-intent" must be proved for non-specified substances or methods.
"implausible" is in the mind of the beholder, and what they are prepared to believe. It is a word for the realms of religion and mythology. Where are you getting your likelihood figures from? Is it more stuff you are making up, from your own uninformed bias?
It is my skepticism you mistake for bias which prevents me from treating baseless imaginary myths and tabloid rumors as fact or reality. This goes for estimates of how many athletes intentionally dope, and whether such doping can enable any advantages in the first place.
If this was on a tape it could be sold as a cure for insomnia.