Are any pros actually clean?

I personally know two individual world champions from 2023 - one of whom I've known for many years. I feel fairly strongly that individual is clean. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the other individual.

I also know a different world champion from 2022 I believe is dirty (I've also known this person a long time), and a couple Olympic medalists - both of whom I believe were dirty).

Obviously I don't know and I'm just speculating, but I'm usually a pretty good speculator.

Then it doesn't need to be counted.

I have already suggested which category you belong. You remove all doubt.

You have no idea what the subject of this thread is. Actually, you have no idea about anything.

You present the problem with the sport in a nutshell: there are athletes at the top you think might be clean and athletes you think aren't. That is a sport in which it is just as likely a top athlete is doping than they are not. It means scepticism is the most rational take for what we are seeing.

Khamis vs Armstronglivs: two retards fighting.

You've just entered the ring. Appropriately.

We were talking about moral (sexual) impeccability at some point so please pardon me from comparing against an obvious sexual offender like Josh Giddey from another thread. All my comments are intertwined and linked like a long train with one another. Don't be surprise to find me hearkening back to a comment I made as far back as 1 month ago if I see fit to persuade and convince my readers of my moral impeccability.

This sounds plausible. Do you have any idea of what people do specifically...what drugs they take etc?

I actually agree with your well-balanced take on the doping matter, however certain athletes are indemnified from the doping debate such as Haile Gebrselassie, Hicham El Guerrouj, Kenenisa Bekele, Paul Tergat, Tirunesh and Genzebe Dibaba, Jakob Ingebrigsten, Said Aouita, Sebastian Coe, Steve Ovett, Jacob Kiplimo, Kelvin Kiptum, Joshua Cheptegei etc. It doesn't need to apply to these athletes. Ever heard of this moral proverb below?

"Sometimes the safest place is the most dangerous one, while the most dangerous place on earth is the safest one. Hence or otherwise, sometimes the most seemingly (to the eyes) obvious doper isn't one and vice versa as well."

So yes I can empathize with you Mr Armstrong that Hicham El Guerrouj does seem to the eyes like the most obvious culprit of EPO doping in his era but according to the above proverb from morality this is when you should rather think that this is all the more reason for him to be clean!!! Similarly, you might think that certain societies on earth could be very unsafe for women and children to live in but you need to also understand that the very uncertainties that compromise the safety and security of a place themselves tend to find a way to strengthen a variety of human or moral traits and characteristics in order to bring those uncertainties back to equilibrium or neutralize their threats!!! The laws of space-time and RF and EMF physics demands so in any case. So it's entirely possible that Hicham El Guerrouj took extra diligence and discipline to retain his moral integrity and stay away from drugs in an especially turbulent EPO era!!!

As usual, nobody has the level of mind I possess and scrutinize and I really suggest you enjoy the fruits of my intellect than find fault with it!

8/10 - people actually still believe that you are serious!

Do you happen to know what substance or substances he was using?

In pro bodybuilding doping is perfectly "legal" and universal and as fundamental to the sport as training; there is no corruption WRT facet of the sport.

Maybe it doesn't, but some still try.

But for sure it would need to be counted before it can be discounted.

But no one is suggesting that doping doesn't exist in sport. Doping has "existed in sport" since the ancient Greeks and Romans.

What you are saying is that the real problem in sport is that most fans, and even some athletes with personal knowledge, are ignorant, and it is the uncertainty from that ignorance that you suggest forms a rational basis of your scepticism.

By that logic, we should also be skeptical of any alleged likelihoods of any alleged performance enhancement effects from the same skeptical but ignorant fans, rationally based on the uncertainty arising from their ignorance.

I very much agree in your last sentence here. But the problem is your decision to use this scepticism only against arguments that suggest athletes are clean, and not against those who (so over confident) claims the opposite (most top athletes being dirty).

An example: I have just reread a two years old thread about Shelby Houlihan where you repeatedly (only) say that she is a convicted doper and therefore guilty, end of story. And of course you could be right, because even sceptics might assume that most convicts are guilty. But as an intelligent poster you know as well as I that your argument is flawed, and lacks necessary scepticism. Because (as you too know) there are convicts that later are proven innocent, both in doping cases (recent example: Peter Bol, old example: Norwegian Olympic champ Trine Solberg Hattestad) and in the judicial system (f.ex convicted murderers in almost every countries).

This doesn’t mean that you are wrong and I am right then it comes to our estimation of doping prevalence. My point is only that you (sometimes, not always) for some reasons won’t use your scepticism both ways.

So maybe you would claim that I (like you) are likewise biased in my scepticism. If so I have to defend my self in another post…

Your "moral impeccability"? I think you need to start telling us about your modesty as well.

You really have no idea how to use the English language. "Discounting" does not mean that something cannot be "counted" in the sense of being enumerated. It simply means removed from further consideration as relevant. That doping cannot be definitively enumerated does not mean it does not exist or even that it isn't significant - it is. It therefore cannot be discounted, even though it cannot be "counted". You need to stick to your bean-counting.