Yes, I do, but real knowledge comes from many different sources - something you are unfamiliar with.
So "they don't have a single source", but you have "many different sources"? It's easy to claim, but we can't really be sure you have at least one source until you back it up.
I don't want to burden you with listing all the "many different sources". Can you list for us just the top-3 sources supporting your "fact" that "most at the top will be doping"? You said "confidential surveys", but that completely fails as in the very worst case, the 2011 World Championship survey still said "most" world championship participants are clean.
You are 0/1 for sources justifying your "belief" as a "fact".
Someone who has been on this site for over twenty years and still doesn't get doping isn't going to be persuaded by any number of sources. So I won't bother. It's merely your doping-denial parlour game.
Someone who has been on this site for over twenty years and still doesn't get doping isn't going to be persuaded by any number of sources. So I won't bother. It's merely your doping-denial parlour game.
I am also not persuaded by no sources. Without even one single source, you are not stating a "fact" but your imaginary "belief".
The one source you alluded to disproves your "belief".
Someone who has been on this site for over twenty years and still doesn't get doping isn't going to be persuaded by any number of sources. So I won't bother. It's merely your doping-denial parlour game.
I am also not persuaded by no sources. Without even one single source, you are not stating a "fact" but your imaginary "belief".
The one source you alluded to disproves your "belief".
You aren't interested in any sources. If you were you wouldn't hold the moronic views you do. But years of doping denial won't be changed - by anything. You don't have opinions. You have an illness.
I think people have it backwards with the supershoes discussion. The reason that guys are running 2:02 now instead of 2:05 IS the shoes, but the 2:05 guys were on drugs, too.
And I doubt if the drugs have changed much, either. EPO is still hard to detect, the ABP needs some frequency of tests to bust you + is deliberately conservative to avoid false positives, and you can miss a couple OOC tests per year as needed! So while it's more common to catch easily detectable drugs, don't take that as a sign that EPO, testosterone, and blood doping aren't still in the mix.
I think people have it backwards with the supershoes discussion. The reason that guys are running 2:02 now instead of 2:05 IS the shoes, but the 2:05 guys were on drugs, too.
And I doubt if the drugs have changed much, either. EPO is still hard to detect, the ABP needs some frequency of tests to bust you + is deliberately conservative to avoid false positives, and you can miss a couple OOC tests per year as needed! So while it's more common to catch easily detectable drugs, don't take that as a sign that EPO, testosterone, and blood doping aren't still in the mix.
I am also not persuaded by no sources. Without even one single source, you are not stating a "fact" but your imaginary "belief".
The one source you alluded to disproves your "belief".
You aren't interested in any sources. If you were you wouldn't hold the moronic views you do. But years of doping denial won't be changed - by anything. You don't have opinions. You have an illness.
You are always playing childish games, attempting to muddy the waters by exchanging the roles and projecting your own failures on to your critics.
It is you who is not interested in providing any sources for your baseless views. This is completely independent of my views, except the one view that your statements are unsupported by sources.
With respect to my interests, I am not interested in baseless views with no sources, and you Freudian slipped that you/they don't have even one single source, telling us the real truth while you meant to say something else.
I was highly interested in the one source you did allude to -- confidential surveys -- which disproved you.
You aren't interested in any sources. If you were you wouldn't hold the moronic views you do. But years of doping denial won't be changed - by anything. You don't have opinions. You have an illness.
You are always playing childish games, attempting to muddy the waters by exchanging the roles and projecting your own failures on to your critics.
It is you who is not interested in providing any sources for your baseless views. This is completely independent of my views, except the one view that your statements are unsupported by sources.
With respect to my interests, I am not interested in baseless views with no sources, and you Freudian slipped that you/they don't have even one single source, telling us the real truth while you meant to say something else.
I was highly interested in the one source you did allude to -- confidential surveys -- which disproved you.
The confidential surveys don't disprove me - you choose to misinterpret what they show. It is a waste of time debating that with you.
You have demonstrated in years of campaigning in this site that nothing has persuaded away from your doping-denial views. Many have tried to - including providing their sources - but they are always wrong, in your books.
Nothing will convince an ideologue away from their obsession. In yours, you are little different from one who claims Darwin is wrong, we didn't land on the moon and the earth is flat. No "sources" of any kind are going to prise you away from your views.
The confidential surveys don't disprove me - you choose to misinterpret what they show. It is a waste of time debating that with you.
You have demonstrated in years of campaigning in this site that nothing has persuaded away from your doping-denial views. Many have tried to - including providing their sources - but they are always wrong, in your books.
Nothing will convince an ideologue away from their obsession. In yours, you are little different from one who claims Darwin is wrong, we didn't land on the moon and the earth is flat. No "sources" of any kind are going to prise you away from your views.
It's amusing when you pretend you could debate, but simply choose not to. You are not fooling anyone. You simply don't have any choice. It would be a waste of your time because you do not have any material to debate with. But your false pretense is a cop-out.
You are not qualified to respond with anything besides personal insults, and failing analogies to moon landings and flat earth.
To participate intellectually, you would first have to read the survey methods, results, and limitations first. No "top athlete" survey measured, argued, or concluded "most at the top will be doping".
If I'm wrong, the best way to dispute that would be to provide the survey that does, report the results, including the context and limitations.
The worst way to do that would be to adopt a stance of false arrogance, and try to compare me to a flat-earther, or a moon-landing conspiracist.
The confidential surveys don't disprove me - you choose to misinterpret what they show. It is a waste of time debating that with you.
You have demonstrated in years of campaigning in this site that nothing has persuaded away from your doping-denial views. Many have tried to - including providing their sources - but they are always wrong, in your books.
Nothing will convince an ideologue away from their obsession. In yours, you are little different from one who claims Darwin is wrong, we didn't land on the moon and the earth is flat. No "sources" of any kind are going to prise you away from your views.
It's amusing when you pretend you could debate, but simply choose not to. You are not fooling anyone. You simply don't have any choice. It would be a waste of your time because you do not have any material to debate with. But your false pretense is a cop-out.
You are not qualified to respond with anything besides personal insults, and failing analogies to moon landings and flat earth.
To participate intellectually, you would first have to read the survey methods, results, and limitations first. No "top athlete" survey measured, argued, or concluded "most at the top will be doping".
If I'm wrong, the best way to dispute that would be to provide the survey that does, report the results, including the context and limitations.
The worst way to do that would be to adopt a stance of false arrogance, and try to compare me to a flat-earther, or a moon-landing conspiracist.
You don't debate; you simply confirm your biases. No one has changed your doping-denial views in your twenty or so years on this site, as shown in the more than a million words that have been your unrelentingly repetitious posts.
You don't debate; you simply confirm your biases. No one has changed your doping-denial views in your twenty or so years on this site, as shown in the more than a million words that have been your unrelentingly repetitious posts.
This looks like a post that applies more to you and your baseless doping worshipping beliefs.
In any case, it doesn't change the fact that you cannot debate, even if hypothetically you would chose to do so, because you simply lack information and knowledge.
If you were right, and I was wrong, it should be a simple matter to provide evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine.
You don't debate; you simply confirm your biases. No one has changed your doping-denial views in your twenty or so years on this site, as shown in the more than a million words that have been your unrelentingly repetitious posts.
This looks like a post that applies more to you and your baseless doping worshipping beliefs.
In any case, it doesn't change the fact that you cannot debate, even if hypothetically you would chose to do so, because you simply lack information and knowledge.
If you were right, and I was wrong, it should be a simple matter to provide evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine.
"If you were right, and I was wrong, it should be a simple matter to provide evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine."(quote)
As I said - no one has done that in twenty years. Yours is a mind closed to views not your own.
Because you aren't bright enough and simply seek to confirm your biases you also can't distinguish when someone is unable to do something or chooses not to.
This is getting ridiculous. World Athletics is a joke and Kenya is a joke. How many more times of these people being popped before world athletics do something and ban Kenya? How many medals and prize money will be wasted on these people before something is done?
You would have to ban America first for the ridiculous amount of sprinters caught mega doping
It's quite well known that major sports leagues like the NBA and NFL don't have the most robust testing for PEDs.
Let's take a step back and take an honest look at our society. The idea that our zeitgeist is drug free is nothing but a stupid lie we like to tell ourselves. Alcohol is as old as civilization itself. Caffeine is a stimulant and it's use is basically encouraged in academia and in the workplace. Not to mention the various pharmaceutical compounds people are hooked up on for various medical alignments, many of which are for psychiatric reasons. Then there's illegal narcotic use which is very widespread.
Since the 20th century our pursuit of peak human performance has included the study and usage of performance enhancing compounds. I don't know what delusion anyone is under that their favorite super athlete is not.
Humans like drugs. We always have. It is silly to think that an arbitrary idea of integrity has stopped the use of PEDs in sports and oftentimes organizations (e.x the NBA and NFL) really aren't even trying to hide that they do the bare minimum for appearances sake. The scrutiny Olympic athletes recieve is far greater that that, but let's not kid ourselves.
Personally I don't think it's any reason to not enjoy the show.
"If you were right, and I was wrong, it should be a simple matter to provide evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine."(quote)
As I said - no one has done that in twenty years. Yours is a mind closed to views not your own.
Because you aren't bright enough and simply seek to confirm your biases you also can't distinguish when someone is unable to do something or chooses not to.
At last we are in agreement. According to you, no one has provided "evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine" in the last 20 years.
While I've been asking everyone for such evidence here in these forums for maybe as long as 10-12 years, you grossly underestimate the length of the dearth of evidence -- no one has provided this evidence for the entirety of the 5+ decades that you needed to form these beliefs, and continued to cling to them -- not for elite distance running performances (excluding women on steroids and any other male hormones).
That seems rather telling that you even understand no such evidence has been provided, at least in the last 20 years, yet you cling to them with all your might.
"If you were right, and I was wrong, it should be a simple matter to provide evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine."(quote)
As I said - no one has done that in twenty years. Yours is a mind closed to views not your own.
Because you aren't bright enough and simply seek to confirm your biases you also can't distinguish when someone is unable to do something or chooses not to.
At last we are in agreement. According to you, no one has provided "evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine" in the last 20 years.
While I've been asking everyone for such evidence here in these forums for maybe as long as 10-12 years, you grossly underestimate the length of the dearth of evidence -- no one has provided this evidence for the entirety of the 5+ decades that you needed to form these beliefs, and continued to cling to them -- not for elite distance running performances (excluding women on steroids and any other male hormones).
That seems rather telling that you even understand no such evidence has been provided, at least in the last 20 years, yet you cling to them with all your might.
Because you are such a slimy distorter of what anyone says, I don't say no one has presented any evidence that counters your views but that you have never been persuaded by any such evidence as has been presented. And there will have been a lot over the years.
That you cannot accept anything that changes your doping-denial views does not prove those views right, only that your mind is an absolute fortress against anything that threatens those views, notwithstanding your disingenuous pretence to being open to persuasion.
You would have to ban America first for the ridiculous amount of sprinters caught mega doping
It's quite well known that major sports leagues like the NBA and NFL don't have the most robust testing for PEDs.
Let's take a step back and take an honest look at our society. The idea that our zeitgeist is drug free is nothing but a stupid lie we like to tell ourselves. Alcohol is as old as civilization itself. Caffeine is a stimulant and it's use is basically encouraged in academia and in the workplace. Not to mention the various pharmaceutical compounds people are hooked up on for various medical alignments, many of which are for psychiatric reasons. Then there's illegal narcotic use which is very widespread.
Since the 20th century our pursuit of peak human performance has included the study and usage of performance enhancing compounds. I don't know what delusion anyone is under that their favorite super athlete is not.
Humans like drugs. We always have. It is silly to think that an arbitrary idea of integrity has stopped the use of PEDs in sports and oftentimes organizations (e.x the NBA and NFL) really aren't even trying to hide that they do the bare minimum for appearances sake. The scrutiny Olympic athletes recieve is far greater that that, but let's not kid ourselves.
Personally I don't think it's any reason to not enjoy the show.
There is at least one on this thread - and any other thread connected with doping - who will maintain his delusions to the death.
Because you are such a slimy distorter of what anyone says, I don't say no one has presented any evidence that counters your views but that you have never been persuaded by any such evidence as has been presented. And there will have been a lot over the years.
That you cannot accept anything that changes your doping-denial views does not prove those views right, only that your mind is an absolute fortress against anything that threatens those views, notwithstanding your disingenuous pretence to being open to persuasion.
You did say "no one has done that in twenty years" as a direct response to me saying "it should be a simple matter to provide evidence". There is no ambiguity.
I can accept, and have accepted, many things, when they are supported with bases in facts/evidence/observations, while remaining skeptical of many things which presented without any basis, but rather a whole host of fallacies.
Kenyans don't dope and it doesn't benefit them, especially top kenyans. How do we know that? Renato "benefits financially from dopers" Canova told us so.
There is at least one on this thread - and any other thread connected with doping - who will maintain his delusions to the death.
Speaking for myself, I have no doubts that many athletes are taking drugs. Drugs in sport date back to ancient times in nearly all cultures. Humans like drugs, and always have. Judging by popular opinion here, I would say that the the belief in drugs is strong, widespread, deep, and goes to the top.
Kenyans don't dope and it doesn't benefit them, especially top kenyans. How do we know that? Renato "benefits financially from dopers" Canova told us so.
Because you are such a slimy distorter of what anyone says, I don't say no one has presented any evidence that counters your views but that you have never been persuaded by any such evidence as has been presented. And there will have been a lot over the years.
That you cannot accept anything that changes your doping-denial views does not prove those views right, only that your mind is an absolute fortress against anything that threatens those views, notwithstanding your disingenuous pretence to being open to persuasion.
You did say "no one has done that in twenty years" as a direct response to me saying "it should be a simple matter to provide evidence". There is no ambiguity.
I can accept, and have accepted, many things, when they are supported with bases in facts/evidence/observations, while remaining skeptical of many things which presented without any basis, but rather a whole host of fallacies.
Cherry-picking your own statements - and mine - to change the meaning of the exchange is pretty desperate. The essential point is no one has persuaded you against your predetermined views in twenty years on this site. Nor has any understanding of the world away from this site. That is not a mind open to persuasion. But it can't be; your life depends on adhering to the lies you tell yourself, let alone endlessly spew here.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.