"I have to wonder why it is so psychologically important to blur details in order to create the ambiguity necessary to keep clinging to their beliefs."
I wonder why you think you are describing others when you so clearly are talking about yourself.
Does anyone really fall for your childish games? You are the one arguing against "details matter".
But maybe in the interest of clarity, you can tell us whose definition of "doping" you mean.
I don't say details don't matter, I say you miss the point because of your fixation on details and especially your ignoring the ones that don't suit your views.
That you think "doping" needs definition in a post about a doping violation is pure idiocy and only shows how far you will contort the discussion in order to avoid a conclusion of doping.
The only idiocy here is you thinking that taking an illegal PED is the same as missing three tests. You should go back to school and learn English.
It doesn't matter how many different user names you go under you are always recognisable.
You are always recognizable too! You are the lonely, sad, 70 year old carcass, trying to give his life a meaning by arguing with strangers on an online forum
It doesn't matter how many different user names you go under you are always recognisable.
We will have to revise upwards our estimate of Rekrunner's million words of doping apologism posted here, now that it is obvious he posts under other accounts too.
It doesn't matter how many different user names you go under you are always recognisable.
We will have to revise upwards our estimate of Rekrunner's million words of doping apologism posted here, now that it is obvious he posts under other accounts too.
I only post as "rekrunner". I don't apologize for anyone's doping and/or anyone's whereabouts failures.
Does anyone really fall for your childish games? You are the one arguing against "details matter".
But maybe in the interest of clarity, you can tell us whose definition of "doping" you mean.
I don't say details don't matter, I say you miss the point because of your fixation on details and especially your ignoring the ones that don't suit your views.
That you think "doping" needs definition in a post about a doping violation is pure idiocy and only shows how far you will contort the discussion in order to avoid a conclusion of doping.
So you cannot provide any clarity about what your questions mean. OK
Do you have any concrete examples of any details I have ever ignored? I only ignore your faulty interpretations and baseless inferences. But I can see your woods and all the trees.
The initial discussion was that a missed test is not the same as a failed test. It is you who took that discussion away to some other woods.
This thread is about "whereabouts failures" -- that is the only logical conclusion possible about Bosse.
I don't say details don't matter, I say you miss the point because of your fixation on details and especially your ignoring the ones that don't suit your views.
That you think "doping" needs definition in a post about a doping violation is pure idiocy and only shows how far you will contort the discussion in order to avoid a conclusion of doping.
So you cannot provide any clarity about what your questions mean. OK
Do you have any concrete examples of any details I have ever ignored? I only ignore your faulty interpretations and baseless inferences. But I can see your woods and all the trees.
The initial discussion was that a missed test is not the same as a failed test. It is you who took that discussion away to some other woods.
This thread is about "whereabouts failures" -- that is the only logical conclusion possible about Bosse.
Whereabouts failures are not a conclusion, they are a fact. What we can infer from a series of missed tests is that he was avoiding the testers. There is only one reason an athlete would choose to do that. That is the logical conclusion - which is why it is a doping violation.
So you cannot provide any clarity about what your questions mean. OK
Do you have any concrete examples of any details I have ever ignored? I only ignore your faulty interpretations and baseless inferences. But I can see your woods and all the trees.
The initial discussion was that a missed test is not the same as a failed test. It is you who took that discussion away to some other woods.
This thread is about "whereabouts failures" -- that is the only logical conclusion possible about Bosse.
Whereabouts failures are not a conclusion, they are a fact. What we can infer from a series of missed tests is that he was avoiding the testers. There is only one reason an athlete would choose to do that. That is the logical conclusion - which is why it is a doping violation.
So you cannot provide any concrete examples of any details I have ever ignored simply because they don't suit my views. You just declare it as a matter of your personal faith and then move on to the next subject.
Instead you offer yet another baseless inference, which I just said I will routinely ignore, and for icing on the cake, you follow up with a "fallacy of the single cause", also something I will routinely ignore. I'm not interested in discussing your Gospels According to Armstonglivs.
We could quibble whether the three missed tests, and their dates, are the facts in this case, and the whereabouts violation is the conclusion of the AFLD, if that makes you feel smarter about yourself.
But what does the WADA Code say? The WADA Code calls a "whereabouts violation", not a "doping violation"(sic), but an "anti-doping rule violation", in and of itself. It makes more sense to view this as a punitive sanction, which penalizes the obstruction of anti-doping enforcement. There is no need for you to invent imaginary histories and imaginary links to other rule violations without any factual basis.
Whereabouts failures are not a conclusion, they are a fact. What we can infer from a series of missed tests is that he was avoiding the testers. There is only one reason an athlete would choose to do that. That is the logical conclusion - which is why it is a doping violation.
So you cannot provide any concrete examples of any details I have ever ignored simply because they don't suit my views. You just declare it as a matter of your personal faith and then move on to the next subject.
Instead you offer yet another baseless inference, which I just said I will routinely ignore, and for icing on the cake, you follow up with a "fallacy of the single cause", also something I will routinely ignore. I'm not interested in discussing your Gospels According to Armstonglivs.
We could quibble whether the three missed tests, and their dates, are the facts in this case, and the whereabouts violation is the conclusion of the AFLD, if that makes you feel smarter about yourself.
But what does the WADA Code say? The WADA Code calls a "whereabouts violation", not a "doping violation"(sic), but an "anti-doping rule violation", in and of itself. It makes more sense to view this as a punitive sanction, which penalizes the obstruction of anti-doping enforcement. There is no need for you to invent imaginary histories and imaginary links to other rule violations without any factual basis.
I am not interested in going into your "details". I don't need to persuade you of what you do - I see it. The rest of your comment is the usual smoke. Not worth discussing. You are as deluded about doping as any Trump supporter is about politics.
So you cannot provide any concrete examples of any details I have ever ignored simply because they don't suit my views. You just declare it as a matter of your personal faith and then move on to the next subject.
Instead you offer yet another baseless inference, which I just said I will routinely ignore, and for icing on the cake, you follow up with a "fallacy of the single cause", also something I will routinely ignore. I'm not interested in discussing your Gospels According to Armstonglivs.
We could quibble whether the three missed tests, and their dates, are the facts in this case, and the whereabouts violation is the conclusion of the AFLD, if that makes you feel smarter about yourself.
But what does the WADA Code say? The WADA Code calls a "whereabouts violation", not a "doping violation"(sic), but an "anti-doping rule violation", in and of itself. It makes more sense to view this as a punitive sanction, which penalizes the obstruction of anti-doping enforcement. There is no need for you to invent imaginary histories and imaginary links to other rule violations without any factual basis.
I am not interested in going into your "details". I don't need to persuade you of what you do - I see it. The rest of your comment is the usual smoke. Not worth discussing. You are as deluded about doping as any Trump supporter is about politics.
So you cannot provide any concrete examples. Typical of you. When faced with an informed post you say it's not worth discussing it. lol
I am not interested in going into your "details". I don't need to persuade you of what you do - I see it. The rest of your comment is the usual smoke. Not worth discussing. You are as deluded about doping as any Trump supporter is about politics.
That explains all your non-worthy discussion as far back as page two, regarding how missed tests are not the same as failed tests, according to details from WADA.
Of course for you, details are problematic, because they contradict what you see in your imagination. But without details, it's just gossip and gospel, detached from reality.
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.