rekrunner wrote:
DId I? If we are being honest, I argued much the same, insufficient or no data to draw any conclusion about her performances:
- no "suspicious" data connected to the world record performances
- "suspicious" data has multiple plausible non-doping causes
Hahahahahaha. Thank you for the laugh, I needed that.
Just for the records, first google hit:
rekrunner wrote:
Of course she's clean.
I've never known a person who has so many way to say that he can't make up his mind about anything.
Can you even pick out what you're going to wear each day?
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
DId I? If we are being honest, I argued much the same, insufficient or no data to draw any conclusion about her performances:
- no "suspicious" data connected to the world record performances
- "suspicious" data has multiple plausible non-doping causes
Hahahahahaha. Thank you for the laugh, I needed that.
Just for the records, first google hit:
rekrunner wrote:
Of course she's clean.
Mr. Half the facts to the rescue!
Top reason -- "lack of evidence"
[quote]rekrunner wrote:
Of course she's clean.
Why?
- Lack of evidence that she's dirty
- The flimsy case that armchair experts make that she's dirty
- Her peers don't think she's dirty
- Physiological measurements taken by Prof. Jones for over a decade show stable VO2max and other parameters (that could be affected by drugs)
- London 2003 -- she was aided by 8 male pacers, and a tailwind for much of the course that benefited the women more than Boston 2011
- Lack of pacemaking for the women
- Lack of depth of top competition for the women
- No proven drugs at the marathon distance"
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
[quote]rekrunner wrote:
DId I? If we are being honest, I argued much the same, insufficient or no data to draw any conclusion about her performances:
- no "suspicious" data connected to the world record performances
- "suspicious" data has multiple plausible non-doping causes
Hahahahahaha. Thank you for the laugh, I needed that.
Just for the records, first google hit:
rekrunner wrote:
Of course she's clean.
Mr. Half the facts to the rescue!
Top reason -- "lack of evidence"
rekrunner wrote:
Of course she's clean.
Why?
- Lack of evidence that she's dirty
- The flimsy case that armchair experts make that she's dirty
- Her peers don't think she's dirty
- Physiological measurements taken by Prof. Jones for over a decade show stable VO2max and other parameters (that could be affected by drugs)
- London 2003 -- she was aided by 8 male pacers, and a tailwind for much of the course that benefited the women more than Boston 2011
- Lack of pacemaking for the women
- Lack of depth of top competition for the women
- No proven drugs at the marathon distance"
Haha. Busted. Nice flailing.
rekrunner wrote:
Mr. Half the facts to the rescue!
Top reason -- "lack of evidence"
Stop deflecting. Your original statement wasn't about the top reason:
rekrunner wrote:
I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty.
But I will not go into your endless troll circle with you. Just keep lying about this, and attacking me.
physics defiant wrote:
I've never known a person who has so many way to say that he can't make up his mind about anything.
Can you even pick out what you're going to wear each day?
You don't know me either it would seem.
What an unusual response to a post that says "I can come to firm views about doping and performance."
I have firm views that have not changed over the last decade, because the only way anyone has tried to contradict them is with their own personal faith and fallacy.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
I've never known a person who has so many way to say that he can't make up his mind about anything.
Can you even pick out what you're going to wear each day?
You don't know me either it would seem.
What an unusual response to a post that says "I can come to firm views about doping and performance."
I have firm views that have not changed over the last decade, because the only way anyone has tried to contradict them is with their own personal faith and fallacy.
Lucky me.
So a stained white T while you hunch behind your screen trolling.
Paula "I'll freeze my blood and you can test it anytime" Radcliffe.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Mr. Half the facts to the rescue!
Top reason -- "lack of evidence"
Stop deflecting. Your original statement wasn't about the top reason:
rekrunner wrote:
I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty.
But I will not go into your endless troll circle with you. Just keep lying about this, and attacking me.
I guess I should know better than to say "never".
In this thread Armstronglivs says I "consistently argued that elite performances are clean".
You also said I "spent years arguing that Paula was clean".
By March 2016, less than one year later, my arguments conceded the possibility, as I also had no evidence that she did not dope: "My claim is not radical or heretical: doping always remains a possibility, but simply, with the current knowledge and data, it is not the ONLY plausible one."
We can see that it was not "consistently argued" and not for "years".
The quote you found was in response to the question "Who still thinks Paula is clean? ... and why?" In such a thread, we were entitled to share our personal thoughts (beliefs), and I argued why I thought so at that time. These arguments have not changed.
Dip, dive, duck, dodge, squirm, smokescreen.
physics defiant wrote:
Dip, dive, duck, dodge, squirm, smokescreen.
if you can dodge a rek, you can dodge a drug test.
please brojos can you at least put gary on quiet time for say 2 days? like jeeezus snikes i am so fully f*cking annoyed with his bullsh*t and im not even engaging in arguing with him...remember your warning to me?
if you getting banned on threads with him, then stop engaging with him....yet you cant seem to SEE that he does this annoying rekking to anyone who calls him out. why is he protected?
Because Wejo paced Paula.
physics defiant wrote:
Because Wejo paced Paula.
yes i know....thats why i was hoping for a 2 day chill out, like come on lol....when gary gets on his high horse its so f*cking annoying. like do i really have to scroll down for 5 min on each page to get passed his self righteous narcissistic "beliefs"? i shouldnt have to! i find him to be more annoying than drunk vent/calculo
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"It would be more stupid to suggest I was attempting to correct Dr. Fauci by virtue of recognizing a fact".
Then how would you know any statement he made was "unfounded"? You have the logic of Trump.
"I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty."
That's right, you never identify whether you think any performance is doped - because of the "paucity of data", and yet you persistently argue that doping is a "belief" because there is no proof (you say) that it gives advantage. If you can't identify likely doping because you consider the data insufficient, then you cannot jump to the assertion that it is only a "belief" that it works; your own prior argument doesn't give you the evidence to claim that.
That is quite apart from the fact that the data you choose to rely on is necessarily confined to very small samples of athletes, who are mostly not the subject of real world studies - as you have previously pointed out - and which is why the authors of the studies have cautioned extending their findings too far.
Really, your only tenable position is for you to say that you cannot come to any firm views about doping and performance because you don't have enough definitive information. But you will never say that. It also means that you don't have enough information to challenge anyone else's view. And you will never admit to that.
If your reading comprehension was a little better, you would see I said:
"if Dr. Fauci asserts something lacking foundation, I would call it an unfounded belief"
Lacking evidence of benefit, it can only be a belief. This is the default when there is no evidence.
I can come to firm views about doping and performance. However, lacking evidence, I will not call them knowledge, or cannot agree it has been proven beyond doubt.
"if Dr. Fauci asserts something lacking foundation, I would call it an unfounded belief"
Oh dear, it is difficult to discuss a point like this with someone who doesn't understand what he is saying. Can you not grasp that your statement "if Dr Fauci asserts something lacking foundation" requires that you possess the necessary factual knowledge that establishes that statement? (It is also factual knowledge you are unlikely to have). Otherwise you are yourself making a statement that is effectively an unfounded belief, because you are making an assertion without the requisite factual knowledge. Your statement above is nothing more than circular reasoning; a tautology.
You then say you have firm views (yes, you do!) about doping and performance but you would not call them knowledge (correct, in your case) for lack of evidence. So you hold firm opinions about something you cannot be sure of? We call that bias, or even prejudice.
physics defiant wrote:
Dip, dive, duck, dodge, squirm, smokescreen.
How mature.
Casual is right, and I should not have said "never argued". I don't argue that anymore, let alone consistently over the years.
He prefers to call it being definitely uncertain or uncertainly definite.
An absolute maybe if you will.
And he reserves the right to back up the goalposts until they actually bump into each other.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
If your reading comprehension was a little better, you would see I said:
"if Dr. Fauci asserts something lacking foundation, I would call it an unfounded belief"
Lacking evidence of benefit, it can only be a belief. This is the default when there is no evidence.
I can come to firm views about doping and performance. However, lacking evidence, I will not call them knowledge, or cannot agree it has been proven beyond doubt.
"if Dr. Fauci asserts something lacking foundation, I would call it an unfounded belief"
Oh dear, it is difficult to discuss a point like this with someone who doesn't understand what he is saying. Can you not grasp that your statement "if Dr Fauci asserts something lacking foundation" requires that you possess the necessary factual knowledge that establishes that statement? (It is also factual knowledge you are unlikely to have). Otherwise you are yourself making a statement that is effectively an unfounded belief, because you are making an assertion without the requisite factual knowledge. Your statement above is nothing more than circular reasoning; a tautology.
You then say you have firm views (yes, you do!) about doping and performance but you would not call them knowledge (correct, in your case) for lack of evidence. So you hold firm opinions about something you cannot be sure of? We call that bias, or even prejudice.
or pure arrogant stupidity....but all these things matter not to a delusional narcissist....in garys pathetic mind he "believes" he is so intellectually superior to the world, not even Phd of medicine and Physiology are at his level! can you "believe" that? i bett you cant lolz
his annoyance on using the word "belief" and will turn into a LR classic if he keeps it up....and he will cause thats what gary does, reks things
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
I've never known a person who has so many way to say that he can't make up his mind about anything.
Can you even pick out what you're going to wear each day?
You don't know me either it would seem.
What an unusual response to a post that says "I can come to firm views about doping and performance."
I have firm views that have not changed over the last decade, because the only way anyone has tried to contradict them is with their own personal faith and fallacy.
You have "firm views that have not changed over the last decade", even though there is a "paucity of evidence", and you don't call your views "knowledge"? And yet that is exactly what you say of the opinions of those you don't agree with, that they have firm views not supported by the evidence. They might equally argue your opinions are your own personal faith and fallacy, as you say of theirs.
Armstronglivs wrote:
"if Dr. Fauci asserts something lacking foundation, I would call it an unfounded belief"
Oh dear, it is difficult to discuss a point like this with someone who doesn't understand what he is saying. Can you not grasp that your statement "if Dr Fauci asserts something lacking foundation" requires that you possess the necessary factual knowledge that establishes that statement? (It is also factual knowledge you are unlikely to have). Otherwise you are yourself making a statement that is effectively an unfounded belief, because you are making an assertion without the requisite factual knowledge. Your statement above is nothing more than circular reasoning; a tautology.
You then say you have firm views (yes, you do!) about doping and performance but you would not call them knowledge (correct, in your case) for lack of evidence. So you hold firm opinions about something you cannot be sure of? We call that bias, or even prejudice.
I would say it is difficult for you, mostly because you think calling something a belief is also calling it wrong.
If I did not know something lacked foundation, I would not call it an unfounded belief.
I would give an expert in his field, making educated guesses, in his field, more latitude and weight than I would give an athlete using trial-and-error, or an anonymous posters interpretation of that.
My firm views, if completly unfounded, can also be called beliefs.
Many of my firm views about elite performances, however, are supported by data -- by doping prevalence data from multiple sources, and by historical all time performances.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You don't know me either it would seem.
What an unusual response to a post that says "I can come to firm views about doping and performance."
I have firm views that have not changed over the last decade, because the only way anyone has tried to contradict them is with their own personal faith and fallacy.
You have "firm views that have not changed over the last decade", even though there is a "paucity of evidence", and you don't call your views "knowledge"? And yet that is exactly what you say of the opinions of those you don't agree with, that they have firm views not supported by the evidence. They might equally argue your opinions are your own personal faith and fallacy, as you say of theirs.
you didnt know? garys words are actually more profound and accurate and all that then those of God.....or is gary actually God with a better resume?
so on that note, was it actually wine that the water turned into or was that a fallacy of false "beliefs"? we all know the only way jesus walked on waster was with the cheaterflies, so we dont need you to rek us all with that discussion
rekrunner wrote:
I would give an expert in his field, making educated guesses, in his field, more latitude and weight than I would give an athlete using trial-and-error, or an anonymous posters interpretation of that.
These three are one and the same.