It is only bad advice if the specialists above are wrong. Since you have never acquainted yourself with these drugs, with any coach or athlete who has used them, or used them yourself you show an astonishing arrogance for one who has absolutely no experience of the kind they have. I defer to their experience but since you have a head like a pumpkin you defer to no one.
So at best it is just hypotheticals, and you are just choosing whoever you want to believe without really knowing their experiences.
It is only hypothetical to you because you have no experience of drugs. Innumerable athletes, coaches, and physicians do. You are an ignoramus who thinks he knows better than those with experience of these things.
So at best it is just hypotheticals, and you are just choosing whoever you want to believe without really knowing their experiences.
It is only hypothetical to you because you have no experience of drugs. Innumerable athletes, coaches, and physicians do. You are an ignoramus who thinks he knows better than those with experience of these things.
Armstrong, when do you think you and your friend rekrunner will agree to each other about the various points you discuss since almost 10years in thousands of posts? How many more years in this interesting battle will follow?
So at best it is just hypotheticals, and you are just choosing whoever you want to believe without really knowing their experiences.
It is only hypothetical to you because you have no experience of drugs. Innumerable athletes, coaches, and physicians do. You are an ignoramus who thinks he knows better than those with experience of these things.
The feeling is more than mutual. At least we agree it is just hypotheticals. It's true I don't know what their experience is, the same as you. I would first need to see their performance data.
It is only hypothetical to you because you have no experience of drugs. Innumerable athletes, coaches, and physicians do. You are an ignoramus who thinks he knows better than those with experience of these things.
Armstrong, when do you think you and your friend rekrunner will agree to each other about the various points you discuss since almost 10years in thousands of posts? How many more years in this interesting battle will follow?
Armstrong, when do you think you and your friend rekrunner will agree to each other about the various points you discuss since almost 10years in thousands of posts? How many more years in this interesting battle will follow?
My primary goal is to learn about the body of facts, evidence, data, etc. that exists, to support many popular claims. For example, what exists to support Canova's previously quoted statements about steroids for Moses Mosop running sub-2:02.
In this particular case, I provided some possible answers to a question that Armstronglivs asked -- why athletes keep taking something potentially harmful.
It is only hypothetical to you because you have no experience of drugs. Innumerable athletes, coaches, and physicians do. You are an ignoramus who thinks he knows better than those with experience of these things.
The feeling is more than mutual. At least we agree it is just hypotheticals. It's true I don't know what their experience is, the same as you. I would first need to see their performance data.
We don't agree it is "just hypotheticals". A global practice pursued by professional athletes for decades is no figment of the imagination. We don't have to be able to measure precisely what it does to know it will have an effect on performance. What you can't get your head around is that doping wouldn't exist without performance gains. It would amount to no more than a superstition. Athletes, coaches, trainers and doctors rely on actual results, not superstitions. They are as guided by science as you profess to be. Just because you don't know what the science is doesn't mean they don't know what it is.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
It is only hypothetical to you because you have no experience of drugs. Innumerable athletes, coaches, and physicians do. You are an ignoramus who thinks he knows better than those with experience of these things.
Armstrong, when do you think you and your friend rekrunner will agree to each other about the various points you discuss since almost 10years in thousands of posts? How many more years in this interesting battle will follow?
You will only deem there is any credibility in what rekrunner argues if you choose to believe that a global practice that has grown in the sport over decades has no more effect than a superstition like scattering chicken entrails on the ground. That is effectively what he maintains about a practice that has invaded every sport to the highest levels.
Armstrong, when do you think you and your friend rekrunner will agree to each other about the various points you discuss since almost 10years in thousands of posts? How many more years in this interesting battle will follow?
We just agreed it's just hypotheticals.
We didn't. It is only hypothetical to you. Countless athletes wouldn't dope if they didn't gain from it.
My primary goal is to learn about the body of facts, evidence, data, etc. that exists, to support many popular claims. For example, what exists to support Canova's previously quoted statements about steroids for Moses Mosop running sub-2:02.
In this particular case, I provided some possible answers to a question that Armstronglivs asked -- why athletes keep taking something potentially harmful.
They take something that is potentially harmful because they make performance gains. Athletes aren't irrational and take a risk for no reward. Lance Armstrong showed this. Everything athletes do, from training, nutrition to equipment, has a rational basis. So does doping.
My primary goal is to learn about the body of facts, evidence, data, etc. that exists, to support many popular claims. For example, what exists to support Canova's previously quoted statements about steroids for Moses Mosop running sub-2:02.
In this particular case, I provided some possible answers to a question that Armstronglivs asked -- why athletes keep taking something potentially harmful.
They take something that is potentially harmful because they make performance gains. Athletes aren't irrational and take a risk for no reward. Lance Armstrong showed this. Everything athletes do, from training, nutrition to equipment, has a rational basis. So does doping.
You still don't understand how training works or what makes an elite athlete elite. You have no knowledge of the history of existence physiology research. Your beliefs aren't science based, they are, in common parlance "broscience".
Bro how do you ascertain that he intentionally took the substance and not the dod putting fake RF voices in his skull to let him know he should take it? Both ways seems feasible to me alright.
They take something that is potentially harmful because they make performance gains. Athletes aren't irrational and take a risk for no reward. Lance Armstrong showed this. Everything athletes do, from training, nutrition to equipment, has a rational basis. So does doping.
You still don't understand how training works or what makes an elite athlete elite. You have no knowledge of the history of existence physiology research. Your beliefs aren't science based, they are, in common parlance "broscience".
You have no knowledge of research at all. As has been posited by others, your goal is to take the heat off muh Africans. Elite athletes are folks that won the genetic lottery for their chosen sport, and a chunk of them use drugs to enhance their abilities. That includes a massive percentage of Africans. You know all this, but are trolling ro protect the objects of your desire. Do some actual research. LOL. Go ask Barry Bonds how drugs didn’t actually help him. Or Ben Johnson. Or Lance Armstrong. Or a certain Kenyan woman who was finally suspended, but so far still allowed to hang on to her ridiculous 2:09 marathon “WR”.
We don't agree it is "just hypotheticals". A global practice pursued by professional athletes for decades is no figment of the imagination. We don't have to be able to measure precisely what it does to know it will have an effect on performance. What you can't get your head around is that doping wouldn't exist without performance gains. It would amount to no more than a superstition. Athletes, coaches, trainers and doctors rely on actual results, not superstitions. They are as guided by science as you profess to be. Just because you don't know what the science is doesn't mean they don't know what it is.
But that's one of the few times you were right -- it is just hypotheticals on top of hypotheticals precisely because you lack any real experience and knowledge.
If they are the scientists I profess to be, then surely there must be some published results.
If performance gains exist, then performance data must exist that shows it. Then it must be determined that the data is not spurious, e.g. measures placebo effect from non-blinded use, or changes in training, or other confounders.
Otherwise it might as well be superstition for all intents and purposes.
My primary goal is to learn about the body of facts, evidence, data, etc. that exists, to support many popular claims. For example, what exists to support Canova's previously quoted statements about steroids for Moses Mosop running sub-2:02.
In this particular case, I provided some possible answers to a question that Armstronglivs asked -- why athletes keep taking something potentially harmful.
They take something that is potentially harmful because they make performance gains. Athletes aren't irrational and take a risk for no reward. Lance Armstrong showed this. Everything athletes do, from training, nutrition to equipment, has a rational basis. So does doping.
WADA says otherwise, speaking in terms of potential performance benefit, and of various ways of unintended or unknown use ranging from unlabeled ingredients or contamination, to standard treatments for injuries or illness.
Armstrong, when do you think you and your friend rekrunner will agree to each other about the various points you discuss since almost 10years in thousands of posts? How many more years in this interesting battle will follow?
You will only deem there is any credibility in what rekrunner argues if you choose to believe that a global practice that has grown in the sport over decades has no more effect than a superstition like scattering chicken entrails on the ground. That is effectively what he maintains about a practice that has invaded every sport to the highest levels.
Great!
How many more years you will debate it with your friend?
You still don't understand how training works or what makes an elite athlete elite. You have no knowledge of the history of existence physiology research. Your beliefs aren't science based, they are, in common parlance "broscience".
You have no knowledge of research at all. As has been posited by others, your goal is to take the heat off muh Africans. Elite athletes are folks that won the genetic lottery for their chosen sport, and a chunk of them use drugs to enhance their abilities. That includes a massive percentage of Africans. You know all this, but are trolling ro protect the objects of your desire. Do some actual research. LOL. Go ask Barry Bonds how drugs didn’t actually help him. Or Ben Johnson. Or Lance Armstrong. Or a certain Kenyan woman who was finally suspended, but so far still allowed to hang on to her ridiculous 2:09 marathon “WR”.
Incorrect. You still haven't answered the question. What makes some runners more efficient? That's the real performance enhancer.
The concept of a superhuman metabolism is a folklore fantasy.
We don't agree it is "just hypotheticals". A global practice pursued by professional athletes for decades is no figment of the imagination. We don't have to be able to measure precisely what it does to know it will have an effect on performance. What you can't get your head around is that doping wouldn't exist without performance gains. It would amount to no more than a superstition. Athletes, coaches, trainers and doctors rely on actual results, not superstitions. They are as guided by science as you profess to be. Just because you don't know what the science is doesn't mean they don't know what it is.
But that's one of the few times you were right -- it is just hypotheticals on top of hypotheticals precisely because you lack any real experience and knowledge.
If they are the scientists I profess to be, then surely there must be some published results.
If performance gains exist, then performance data must exist that shows it. Then it must be determined that the data is not spurious, e.g. measures placebo effect from non-blinded use, or changes in training, or other confounders.
Otherwise it might as well be superstition for all intents and purposes.
You have way too much pride in you, you and Armstronglive. Both of you know that Africa is the land of slaves and the white americans abused and tortured these slaves for profit and still today inject black African young girls with poisonous and deadly HPV vaccines and destroy their ovaries.
They take something that is potentially harmful because they make performance gains. Athletes aren't irrational and take a risk for no reward. Lance Armstrong showed this. Everything athletes do, from training, nutrition to equipment, has a rational basis. So does doping.
You still don't understand how training works or what makes an elite athlete elite. You have no knowledge of the history of existence physiology research. Your beliefs aren't science based, they are, in common parlance "broscience".
We know you are the equivalent of a conspiracy theorist, parroting the views of one who has no standing in the sport on these issues. Doping works. That's why athletes dope and it is everywhere now.
You will only deem there is any credibility in what rekrunner argues if you choose to believe that a global practice that has grown in the sport over decades has no more effect than a superstition like scattering chicken entrails on the ground. That is effectively what he maintains about a practice that has invaded every sport to the highest levels.
Great!
How many more years you will debate it with your friend?
Really interesting.
While there are lies spread about it I will debate it.