Nadal shows doping at the top of tennis

It's interesting how a thread about Nadal doping has attracted more zombies than The Night of The Walking Dead. I guess brain death is part of doping denial.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The verdict of an unwavering doping denier means nothing on this subject. Your arguments also show you know very little about the sport of tennis.

I always think you must mean someone else but you are replying to me by mistake.

The doubts I have about the content of your posts, is that:

1) you suggest something "magical" happened, and

2) only doping can deliver these "magical" properties

Your failure to elaborate substantively on these two points will tell me everything I need to know.

I always think you must mean someone else but you are replying to me by mistake.[/quote]

Another of your mistakes. And there are so many of them. But debating these issues with you is as about as fruitful as trying convert a Trumpster to reason. I'll leave you to your alternate universe.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

There is no contest here though.

But you're projecting again.

As I said, you keep coming back. Trying so hard. You're like a little puppy that keeps following me round. Yapping.

Projection. Again.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

As I said, you keep coming back. Trying so hard. You're like a little puppy that keeps following me round. Yapping.

Projection. Again.

See. You can't help yourself. Yapping again.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Projection. Again.

See. You can't help yourself. Yapping again.

You're following me now though because you run in circles Heel.

Speaking of circles. Here's your Nadal logic distilled to the essentials.

so bad

so dumb

so weak

almost like a snowflake

Armstronglivs wrote:

123 5 wrote:

Any living thing that tried to follow you around would die in seconds from the putrid stench of your heartless soul.

Yet here you are.

And you love the attention.

This is an interesting topic and it could have been an interesting thread. And yet it is not. Shouldn't there be a limit per thread of, oh, 50 posts per person?

123 5 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yet here you are.

And you love the attention.

But "the putrid stench" is what you are here for. Makes you feel right at home.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

See. You can't help yourself. Yapping again.

You're following me now though because you run in circles Heel.

Speaking of circles. Here's your Nadal logic distilled to the essentials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

This is what it must be like to be savaged by a chihuahua.

You have nothing to offer on the topic of the thread. Your obsession is with trying to attack me. Such a wounded little narcissist.

Rosebud wrote:

This is an interesting topic and it could have been an interesting thread. And yet it is not. Shouldn't there be a limit per thread of, oh, 50 posts per person?

It might have been an interesting thread, but the only response it has drawn has been an unrelenting series of personal attacks on the messenger - myself. I haven't encountered a single informed view from another perspective but only spluttering indignation and rage. That is what doping discussion invokes. It largely confirms what I believe about the subject.

Ultra or Die wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

These threads are part of the resistance to seeing what is in front us.

so bad

so dumb

so weak

almost like a snowflake

You've been following the Trump town hall. Same level of intellectual content.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Rosebud wrote:

This is an interesting topic and it could have been an interesting thread. And yet it is not. Shouldn't there be a limit per thread of, oh, 50 posts per person?

It might have been an interesting thread, but the only response it has drawn has been an unrelenting series of personal attacks on the messenger - myself. I haven't encountered a single informed view from another perspective but only spluttering indignation and rage. That is what doping discussion invokes. It largely confirms what I believe about the subject.

Some of us did nothing more than state that Nadal's latest performance doesnt prove that he's doping. We feel it is just a result of him being at his best and his opponent rusty.

coach wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It might have been an interesting thread, but the only response it has drawn has been an unrelenting series of personal attacks on the messenger - myself. I haven't encountered a single informed view from another perspective but only spluttering indignation and rage. That is what doping discussion invokes. It largely confirms what I believe about the subject.

Some of us did nothing more than state that Nadal's latest performance doesnt prove that he's doping. We feel it is just a result of him being at his best and his opponent rusty.

True but you got drowned out by those who felt it was more important to attack the messenger than debate the subject.

Armstronglivs wrote:

coach wrote:

Some of us did nothing more than state that Nadal's latest performance doesnt prove that he's doping. We feel it is just a result of him being at his best and his opponent rusty.

True but you got drowned out by those who felt it was more important to attack the messenger than debate the subject.

I said something similar, and you personally attacked me. You invite this 3rd grade exchange of wit.

You want to paint yourself as a messenger -- what is your message?

You want a fruitful debate -- where is the fruit?

If I read the headline "Nadal shows doping at the top of tennis" did you ever explain how in this thread?

It seems to me that you are telling us how the fruit tasted, and what you think the fruit was, but never really showed us the fruit. When called out, you go on the attack, and say we know nothing about trees.

The essence is this:

- Nadal cast magic

- No one ever cast magic before

- Only doping can give one magical ability

- Everyone dopes and can cast magic

Feel free to make this more accurate with fruitful substance.

Well, there you go. Accusations of "3rd grade wit" - itself an insult - to my responses when others have offered insults rather than arguments to my comments. You criticise my response but not its cause, which you yourself have contributed to.

Your characterisation of my arguments as being about "magic" is also nonsense. You clearly didn't read my earlier posts. You also completely disregarded the comments of an anti-doping expert who had talked of the suspicions he had of Nadal.

I had said that I have had extensive contact with professionals on the tour who had expressed scepticism about Nadal, and have even heard it from an official at the top of WADA that they believe Nadal dopes (along with other Spaniards).

My views on Nadal's performance at the French Open are contextualized within my observations of his career as a whole, and my knowledge of the history of a sport - and how it is played - that I have followed for half a century. Yet you think none of that is relevant, that the question of doping is resolved by analyzing a single performance as a kind of mathematical equation. If that is so, no one would need any knowledge of the sport concerned or doping to come to such an assessment.

So, apart from your claimed analysis of trends in distance running over the EPO era, what do you bring to the table in any discussion of professional tennis?

Armstronglivs wrote:

It might have been an interesting thread, but the only response it has drawn has been an unrelenting series of personal attacks on the messenger - myself.

You mean responses to your constant personal attacks on others?

Armstronglivs wrote:

I haven't encountered a single informed view from another perspective

You are blind. Your arrogance knows no limits and it blinds you.

It could be construed as an insult, but not as a personal insult. It is you who drives the tone of your "debates".

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that you have 50 years of extensive tennis knowledge -- this does not cure your general lack of knowledge of the effects of doping, and your lack of ability to demonstrate that doping causes or can cause the effects you observed.

Skepticism about Nadal from anti-doping experts, from professionals on the tour, and from top WADA officials speak to prevalence and personal faith, but do not bring, nor rely on, knowledge about the effects of doping on performance. This is why you say "they believe Nadal dopes". These expressions of belief carry very little substantive weight.

It is one thing to say that Nadal dopes, but it is quite another to say certain achievements "show doping". What I bring to the conversation is skepticism to your mythical claims like "only doping prolongs careers", and "the defeat of a 33 year old by a 34 year old, on clay, by the best clay player, can only be achieved by doping, therefore Nadal shows doping".

If you actually had any fruit to bring to a fruitful debate, you could show this fruit. Instead you avoid the fruitful exchange when prompted to provide more substance, in favor of personal accusations questioning "ability to grasp" or diverging into some tangential obsession with farm animals.

If you want debates to be fruitful, you must stop building scarecrows, and stop insulting those who ask you to provide some fruit.