If they weren't responding to that then they were responding to nothing - in which case they were better responding to you.
WADA did say what I have referred to but I am not interested in doing the research for you. It is also quite obvious given the plausibly estimated incidence of doping in the sport, which produces thread after thread on the topic here. If it wasn't the problem that it is you wouldn't be spending your life here denying what is obvious to everyone else in your lonely folly.
It's no mystery what post "esr" first responded to -- you really only need to read the thread.
If you can't be bothered to research your own baseless claims, I'm surely not interested in conducting any wild goose chase based on your misunderstandings. Just like you failed to comprehend what "esr" responded to, it is most likely you misunderstood what WADA actually said, assuming it was WADA.
you and armstrong need to get married,seriously. Or at least move in together. You cant exist without each other.
Here's a funny hypothetical scenario: User R, a shill for the IOC and shoe companies, goes online to improve the image of track and road running. User A, a shill for Russia, goes online to degrade the image of USA and EU athletes. They meet on LetsRun and argue for years...
If they weren't responding to that then they were responding to nothing - in which case they were better responding to you.
WADA did say what I have referred to but I am not interested in doing the research for you. It is also quite obvious given the plausibly estimated incidence of doping in the sport, which produces thread after thread on the topic here. If it wasn't the problem that it is you wouldn't be spending your life here denying what is obvious to everyone else in your lonely folly.
It's no mystery what post "esr" first responded to -- you really only need to read the thread.
If you can't be bothered to research your own baseless claims, I'm surely not interested in conducting any wild goose chase based on your misunderstandings. Just like you failed to comprehend what "esr" responded to, it is most likely you misunderstood what WADA actually said, assuming it was WADA.
When someone posts the equivalent of a fart to follow someone else's it makes little difference to me what name they go by. But none of them can top your verbal flatulence. And it is all to deny a problem you maintain scarcely exists. So much effort for something apparently so insignificant. You doth protest too much.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
When someone posts the equivalent of a fart to follow someone else's it makes little difference to me what name they go by. But none of them can top your verbal flatulence. And it is all to deny a problem you maintain scarcely exists. So much effort for something apparently so insignificant. You doth protest too much.
Are you unable to simply read and comprehend a thread you are actively participating in in real time? How can you be trusted to read and comprehend what you allege WADA said, assuming it was WADA who said it, when you keep destroying your own credibility?
You do seem unhealthy obsessed with flatulence. Note that smell isn't transmitted through the internet. According to the ancient law of "whoever smelt it dealt it", any putrid odor must be more of your own self-projection.
I'm also curious how you manage to combine in one sentence the conflcting claims that I am both denying a problem, while also maintaining it exists. But to avoid any doubt, I can wholeheartedly confirm my conviction that a problem exists regardless of level of talent. It is wide and deep and broad and goes all the way to the top. Fast, medium and slow runners all dope, when not inadvertent, because someone believes it will make them faster than training without doping, either directly or indirectly.
All of this seems centered around your avoidance and inability to prove that WADA said something about "risk of doping" while saying something different in their published annual reports.
It's no mystery what post "esr" first responded to -- you really only need to read the thread.
If you can't be bothered to research your own baseless claims, I'm surely not interested in conducting any wild goose chase based on your misunderstandings. Just like you failed to comprehend what "esr" responded to, it is most likely you misunderstood what WADA actually said, assuming it was WADA.
When someone posts the equivalent of a fart to follow someone else's it makes little difference to me what name they go by. But none of them can top your verbal flatulence. And it is all to deny a problem you maintain scarcely exists. So much effort for something apparently so insignificant. You doth protest too much.
you and armstrong need to get married,seriously. Or at least move in together. You cant exist without each other.
Here's a funny hypothetical scenario: User R, a shill for the IOC and shoe companies, goes online to improve the image of track and road running. User A, a shill for Russia, goes online to degrade the image of USA and EU athletes. They meet on LetsRun and argue for years...
And bless us all,they do it so well. Still,i like user A. He makes this site entertaining. The other one is just waffle.
When someone posts the equivalent of a fart to follow someone else's it makes little difference to me what name they go by. But none of them can top your verbal flatulence. And it is all to deny a problem you maintain scarcely exists. So much effort for something apparently so insignificant. You doth protest too much.
Are you unable to simply read and comprehend a thread you are actively participating in in real time? How can you be trusted to read and comprehend what you allege WADA said, assuming it was WADA who said it, when you keep destroying your own credibility?
You do seem unhealthy obsessed with flatulence. Note that smell isn't transmitted through the internet. According to the ancient law of "whoever smelt it dealt it", any putrid odor must be more of your own self-projection.
I'm also curious how you manage to combine in one sentence the conflcting claims that I am both denying a problem, while also maintaining it exists. But to avoid any doubt, I can wholeheartedly confirm my conviction that a problem exists regardless of level of talent. It is wide and deep and broad and goes all the way to the top. Fast, medium and slow runners all dope, when not inadvertent, because someone believes it will make them faster than training without doping, either directly or indirectly.
All of this seems centered around your avoidance and inability to prove that WADA said something about "risk of doping" while saying something different in their published annual reports.
Your posts are empty wind; that is why flatulence is an apt description. Odour is not the point although there is a stench to what you say as a doping denier. As I said, the identity of other ignorant posters who make no meaningful response to any of my comments is irrelevant to me. But I can see why it would matter to a bag of wind like you. What you don't get is that you descend on thread after thread that raises doping as an issue only to deny the existence of it as a real problem. You don't see that your constant noise contradicts what you say to minimise the problem. If doping was as limited as you claim you wouldn't find it necessary to harp on as you do.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
Are you unable to simply read and comprehend a thread you are actively participating in in real time? How can you be trusted to read and comprehend what you allege WADA said, assuming it was WADA who said it, when you keep destroying your own credibility?
You do seem unhealthy obsessed with flatulence. Note that smell isn't transmitted through the internet. According to the ancient law of "whoever smelt it dealt it", any putrid odor must be more of your own self-projection.
I'm also curious how you manage to combine in one sentence the conflcting claims that I am both denying a problem, while also maintaining it exists. But to avoid any doubt, I can wholeheartedly confirm my conviction that a problem exists regardless of level of talent. It is wide and deep and broad and goes all the way to the top. Fast, medium and slow runners all dope, when not inadvertent, because someone believes it will make them faster than training without doping, either directly or indirectly.
All of this seems centered around your avoidance and inability to prove that WADA said something about "risk of doping" while saying something different in their published annual reports.
Your posts are empty wind; that is why flatulence is an apt description. Odour is not the point although there is a stench to what you say as a doping denier. As I said, the identity of other ignorant posters who make no meaningful response to any of my comments is irrelevant to me. But I can see why it would matter to a bag of wind like you. What you don't get is that you descend on thread after thread that raises doping as an issue only to deny the existence of it as a real problem. You don't see that your constant noise contradicts what you say to minimise the problem. If doping was as limited as you claim you wouldn't find it necessary to harp on as you do.
When someone posts the equivalent of a fart to follow someone else's it makes little difference to me what name they go by. But none of them can top your verbal flatulence. And it is all to deny a problem you maintain scarcely exists. So much effort for something apparently so insignificant. You doth protest too much.
You are an eproctophiliac.
Since you would be the only one to acquaint yourself with the term it suggests it is most likely self-description. It also fits with what you post. Gas.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Your posts are empty wind; that is why flatulence is an apt description. Odour is not the point although there is a stench to what you say as a doping denier. As I said, the identity of other ignorant posters who make no meaningful response to any of my comments is irrelevant to me. But I can see why it would matter to a bag of wind like you. What you don't get is that you descend on thread after thread that raises doping as an issue only to deny the existence of it as a real problem. You don't see that your constant noise contradicts what you say to minimise the problem. If doping was as limited as you claim you wouldn't find it necessary to harp on as you do.
Weird man...
Perhaps you prefer a term like "bullsh*t" or simply "sh*te", because it is just as appropriate when applied to both of you. Most would understand what that means and not think it an absorption with bowel functions, which is your "weird" obsession.
Your posts are empty wind; that is why flatulence is an apt description. Odour is not the point although there is a stench to what you say as a doping denier. As I said, the identity of other ignorant posters who make no meaningful response to any of my comments is irrelevant to me. But I can see why it would matter to a bag of wind like you. What you don't get is that you descend on thread after thread that raises doping as an issue only to deny the existence of it as a real problem. You don't see that your constant noise contradicts what you say to minimise the problem. If doping was as limited as you claim you wouldn't find it necessary to harp on as you do.
I never talked about his identity, but rather your failure to comprehend what he wrote.
Your inability to read and comprehend what is written is a consistent pattern, whether it is WADA, esr, or me, or for that matter, an anonymous survey. Of course I have never denied the "existence" of doping as a real problem, neither explicitly nor implicitly, and you only contradict yourself having already conceded that I maintain its "existence".
You just pull out these fake allegations to deflect from your failure and inability to show us what WADA really said, if anything.
Your posts are empty wind; that is why flatulence is an apt description. Odour is not the point although there is a stench to what you say as a doping denier. As I said, the identity of other ignorant posters who make no meaningful response to any of my comments is irrelevant to me. But I can see why it would matter to a bag of wind like you. What you don't get is that you descend on thread after thread that raises doping as an issue only to deny the existence of it as a real problem. You don't see that your constant noise contradicts what you say to minimise the problem. If doping was as limited as you claim you wouldn't find it necessary to harp on as you do.
I never talked about his identity, but rather your failure to comprehend what he wrote.
Your inability to read and comprehend what is written is a consistent pattern, whether it is WADA, esr, or me, or for that matter, an anonymous survey. Of course I have never denied the "existence" of doping as a real problem, neither explicitly nor implicitly, and you only contradict yourself having already conceded that I maintain its "existence".
You just pull out these fake allegations to deflect from your failure and inability to show us what WADA really said, if anything.
He didn't write anything. It was just a meaningless jibe. But I can easily see how you would find that profound.
Despite your claims to the contrary you always deny doping is a serious problem because you minimise its incidence so that it virtually disappears, you deny its effects by claiming there is no "proof" it is performance enhancing, and you effectively say dopers are simple dupes who only "believe" doping is going to somehow magically help them. If that is all doping is it isn't a problem - it is merely a harmless superstition. But when you spend years here arguing this nonsense it only succeeds in making the opposite of the case you strive for. The problem of doping is throughout sports, at every level, and has utterly changed how they are practised, but you refuse to see it. Your fantasy world would collapse if you did.
He didn't write anything. It was just a meaningless jibe. But I can easily see how you would find that profound.
Despite your claims to the contrary you always deny doping is a serious problem because you minimise its incidence so that it virtually disappears, you deny its effects by claiming there is no "proof" it is performance enhancing, and you effectively say dopers are simple dupes who only "believe" doping is going to somehow magically help them. If that is all doping is it isn't a problem - it is merely a harmless superstition. But when you spend years here arguing this nonsense it only succeeds in making the opposite of the case you strive for. The problem of doping is throughout sports, at every level, and has utterly changed how they are practised, but you refuse to see it. Your fantasy world would collapse if you did.
For writing nothing, you sure are triggered.
I never minimize or deny what is known. Your problem is that you know far less than what you believe. You accused me of denying doping's existence. Doping is still a serious harmful problem for health reasons, even if the performance benefit is unproven or unknown. It only sounds like I'm making an opposite case to faithful posters who cannot comprehend nuance in a world that is not black and white.
He didn't write anything. It was just a meaningless jibe. But I can easily see how you would find that profound.
Despite your claims to the contrary you always deny doping is a serious problem because you minimise its incidence so that it virtually disappears, you deny its effects by claiming there is no "proof" it is performance enhancing, and you effectively say dopers are simple dupes who only "believe" doping is going to somehow magically help them. If that is all doping is it isn't a problem - it is merely a harmless superstition. But when you spend years here arguing this nonsense it only succeeds in making the opposite of the case you strive for. The problem of doping is throughout sports, at every level, and has utterly changed how they are practised, but you refuse to see it. Your fantasy world would collapse if you did.
For writing nothing, you sure are triggered.
I never minimize or deny what is known. Your problem is that you know far less than what you believe. You accused me of denying doping's existence. Doping is still a serious harmful problem for health reasons, even if the performance benefit is unproven or unknown. It only sounds like I'm making an opposite case to faithful posters who cannot comprehend nuance in a world that is not black and white.
If it is known to be harmful to health (but the known instances are very few, or there would be sick athletes everywhere) then it is also known to be performance enhancing, even if this will vary amongst athletes and isn't subject to definitive measure. But you spend you life denying or minimising the latter. You want to believe that doping makes no real difference to athletic performance. You have missed the last half century.
If it is known to be harmful to health (but the known instances are very few, or there would be sick athletes everywhere) then it is also known to be performance enhancing, even if this will vary amongst athletes and isn't subject to definitive measure. But you spend you life denying or minimising the latter. You want to believe that doping makes no real difference to athletic performance. You have missed the last half century.
You invent all these false "if ... then ..." relationships in your mind in order to cling to myths. Any knowledge of harm to health does not enable knowledge of any speculated unnatural performance enhancement effect. Most all drugs are studied for adverse side effects and recommended doses, and rarely studied for performance enhancement effect, and even more rarely for elite performances. Drugs that are not studied or approved as safe, are typically considered "potentially harmful" as side-effects and safe doses are not known.
For distance events from 1500m to the marathon, I looked for signs of enhanced performances at the top as far back as the 1960s, but found no way to correlate the fastest performances to known doping.
If it is known to be harmful to health (but the known instances are very few, or there would be sick athletes everywhere) then it is also known to be performance enhancing, even if this will vary amongst athletes and isn't subject to definitive measure. But you spend you life denying or minimising the latter. You want to believe that doping makes no real difference to athletic performance. You have missed the last half century.
You invent all these false "if ... then ..." relationships in your mind in order to cling to myths. Any knowledge of harm to health does not enable knowledge of any speculated unnatural performance enhancement effect. Most all drugs are studied for adverse side effects and recommended doses, and rarely studied for performance enhancement effect, and even more rarely for elite performances. Drugs that are not studied or approved as safe, are typically considered "potentially harmful" as side-effects and safe doses are not known.
For distance events from 1500m to the marathon, I looked for signs of enhanced performances at the top as far back as the 1960s, but found no way to correlate the fastest performances to known doping.
You are ridiculous. Dopers don't offer themselves as subjects for health research, just as they don't volunteer to show the effects of their doping on performance. Yet you are sure of what you think you know about the former while being unconvinced of the latter. If you think you know about the health effects of doping then the same can be said of its effects on performance - we can be just as sure about that, because they are subject to the same measures of data in a clandestine practice.