You continue to demonstrate you cannot use the English language coherently. We - and you - are not using "discount" as a noun, which is a term of commerce and is misplaced in this context, but as a verb, in which you choose to discount something. That is what you have done expressly in relation to the performance enhancing effects of doping. To anyone who is literate, that means that you do not consider a particular thing to be worthy of consideration.
By saying the performance enhancement capabilities of drugs "have not been reliably established" you have just discounted their performance enhancing qualities. Your attempts to be clever and play with words - which is what you do when you attempt to shift the goal posts - only show you are an illiterate clod.
Is English your first language? If a store "discounts" its merchandise, that is using the English word "discount" as a verb.
The general abstracted meaning in non-commerce domains is that of replacing the full value a reduced value by deducting some amount.
I cannot discount something that has not yet been established or quantified.
So doping has not been established? Because it hasn't been quantified? You are a moron. Everything you say can be discounted, which - for one who doesn't understand the term - means it can be dismissed.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
It is knowledge. But from your bunker you don't know what goes on in the outside world. You don't even know what goes on in these threads, as every second thread posits the possibility or likelihood of a named athlete being a doper. It shows trust in the sport has gone. You are one of its last Pollyannas.
So on your planet, "what someone thinks might be" is considered "knowledge". That does explain a lot.
No, that isn't knowledge. What "someone thinks might be" is you. But the person who offered a view on who they thought was doping has experience of the sport at the top level and of the athletes in question. You have none of that. That is why you are clueless, as Sage accurately described you.
So doping has not been established? Because it hasn't been quantified? You are a moron. Everything you say can be discounted, which - for one who doesn't understand the term - means it can be dismissed.
What a moronic question and conclusion. I don't discount "doping". I have always agreed with you that doping exists, and is widespread, and deep, and throughout and goes to the top. That has always been a false debate you have with a scarecrow.
Actions speak louder than words, and your repeated actions say you cannot discount/dismiss anything I say.
In any case, discounting/dismissing me won't help you establish any of your many mythological claims with facts, observations or evidence.
So on your planet, "what someone thinks might be" is considered "knowledge". That does explain a lot.
No, that isn't knowledge. What "someone thinks might be" is you. But the person who offered a view on who they thought was doping has experience of the sport at the top level and of the athletes in question. You have none of that. That is why you are clueless, as Sage accurately described you.
But once again, I responded to you, a person without experience, who offered a view of the problem with the sport in a nutshell.
So doping has not been established? Because it hasn't been quantified? You are a moron. Everything you say can be discounted, which - for one who doesn't understand the term - means it can be dismissed.
What a moronic question and conclusion. I don't discount "doping". I have always agreed with you that doping exists, and is widespread, and deep, and throughout and goes to the top. That has always been a false debate you have with a scarecrow.
Actions speak louder than words, and your repeated actions say you cannot discount/dismiss anything I say.
In any case, discounting/dismissing me won't help you establish any of your many mythological claims with facts, observations or evidence.
More bs. The only doping that you say runs deep in sport doesn't do so (you say) amongst Kenyan distance runners - who apparently don't need it. But only you think that. They don't.
You also argue against any evidence that suggests doping is widespread in distance running. You never concede that any more athletes actually dope than the numbers caught - despite being asked about that - because you say it is too difficult to estimate. Well, not to many antidoping experts and observers of the sport.
But then you might as well say that it doesn't really matter that doping is "widespread" in sport because there is no evidence - in your view - that it is performance enhancing. Except the use of steroids by Russian women md athletes - but no one else. They merely "believe" it helps them. Just a placebo effect. Boy - athletes sure are dumb!
You have never said anything about doping that I or anyone with knowledge of the subject could agree with. You are the least informed poster on this subject on these boards - as someone once said.
No, that isn't knowledge. What "someone thinks might be" is you. But the person who offered a view on who they thought was doping has experience of the sport at the top level and of the athletes in question. You have none of that. That is why you are clueless, as Sage accurately described you.
But once again, I responded to you, a person without experience, who offered a view of the problem with the sport in a nutshell.
I don't have to have experience of doping to acknowledge what has been made obvious, that it has long been in the sport and has increased over the decades. It is why antidoping exists. There is nothing that suggests such a widespread practice is not typically found at the top of sport.
More bs. The only doping that you say runs deep in sport doesn't do so (you say) amongst Kenyan distance runners - who apparently don't need it. But only you think that. They don't.
You also argue against any evidence that suggests doping is widespread in distance running. You never concede that any more athletes actually dope than the numbers caught - despite being asked about that - because you say it is too difficult to estimate. Well, not to many antidoping experts and observers of the sport.
But then you might as well say that it doesn't really matter that doping is "widespread" in sport because there is no evidence - in your view - that it is performance enhancing. Except the use of steroids by Russian women md athletes - but no one else. They merely "believe" it helps them. Just a placebo effect. Boy - athletes sure are dumb!
You have never said anything about doping that I or anyone with knowledge of the subject could agree with. You are the least informed poster on this subject on these boards - as someone once said.
Contrary to "never", I just got done conceding, again, "that doping exists, and is widespread, and deep, and throughout and goes to the top." This is probably at least the 50th time, if not the 100th.
I have also conceded in the past that the 1-2% positive tests are not catching all the dopers. I'm sure many dopers are not even tested.
My expressed doubts have never been the existence of doping, or the width of its spread. This is a strawman you keep building up and knocking down, having nothing to do with me.
I don't have to have experience of doping to acknowledge what has been made obvious, that it has long been in the sport and has increased over the decades. It is why antidoping exists. There is nothing that suggests such a widespread practice is not typically found at the top of sport.
Is there something suggesting that it is "typical" at the top of the sport, I mean besides non-experienced doping worshippers like you?
So you are saying that a lack of personal experience is not a barrier to pointing out the obvious.
Doping in sport has existed since the ancient Romans and Greeks -- well done for spotting the obvious.
It has increased over the decades? Do you have any published figures showing this trend over decades, or are you still just non-expert guessing?
You have never said anything about doping that I or anyone with knowledge of the subject could agree with. You are the least informed poster on this subject on these boards - as someone once said.
Contrary to "never", I just got done conceding, again, "that doping exists, and is widespread, and deep, and throughout and goes to the top." This is probably at least the 50th time, if not the 100th.
It's impossible to have an honest debate with him. He is manipulative and dishonest, and he frequently lies about what you said.
More bs. The only doping that you say runs deep in sport doesn't do so (you say) amongst Kenyan distance runners - who apparently don't need it. But only you think that. They don't.
You also argue against any evidence that suggests doping is widespread in distance running. You never concede that any more athletes actually dope than the numbers caught - despite being asked about that - because you say it is too difficult to estimate. Well, not to many antidoping experts and observers of the sport.
But then you might as well say that it doesn't really matter that doping is "widespread" in sport because there is no evidence - in your view - that it is performance enhancing. Except the use of steroids by Russian women md athletes - but no one else. They merely "believe" it helps them. Just a placebo effect. Boy - athletes sure are dumb!
You have never said anything about doping that I or anyone with knowledge of the subject could agree with. You are the least informed poster on this subject on these boards - as someone once said.
Contrary to "never", I just got done conceding, again, "that doping exists, and is widespread, and deep, and throughout and goes to the top." This is probably at least the 50th time, if not the 100th.
I have also conceded in the past that the 1-2% positive tests are not catching all the dopers. I'm sure many dopers are not even tested.
My expressed doubts have never been the existence of doping, or the width of its spread. This is a strawman you keep building up and knocking down, having nothing to do with me.
You have bored countless readers to death over the years disputing confidential athlete surveys that indicate how widespread doping is in the sport. You will do anything to minimise its prevalence and especially amongst African distance runners.
You then argue that doping doesn't enhance runners' performances and ask disingenuously what is a ped, because there is no such thing as actual "performance enhancing" drugs - only those that have the "potential" to do so but are probably only "placebos". You claim athletes only "believe" drugs will help them, as though there is nothing in their experiences of it that will demonstrate drugs do just that.
You never acknowledge that any world record is most likely to be the result of doping - of course not, it is a myth to you that drugs will enhance performance - with the lone exception of Kratochvilova forty years ago, who you think only might have doped.
In short, when it comes to it, doping is never "widespread" or "deep" in sport with you - you can't even see a doper when they are convicted, like Houlihan was - they must always be innocent, because the process is so "unfair".
But it doesn't really matter how much doping there might be because your fallback position is that doping doesn't actually work - athletes don't get faster as a result of using drugs. It can't beat altitude-training - even though altitude-trained athletes also dope.
On these boards you are more slippery than a bar of soap but in essence you are nothing more than a doping-denier who hasn't a clue how doping has affected sport and continues to do so.
I don't have to have experience of doping to acknowledge what has been made obvious, that it has long been in the sport and has increased over the decades. It is why antidoping exists. There is nothing that suggests such a widespread practice is not typically found at the top of sport.
Is there something suggesting that it is "typical" at the top of the sport, I mean besides non-experienced doping worshippers like you?
So you are saying that a lack of personal experience is not a barrier to pointing out the obvious.
Doping in sport has existed since the ancient Romans and Greeks -- well done for spotting the obvious.
It has increased over the decades? Do you have any published figures showing this trend over decades, or are you still just non-expert guessing?
In all the years on these boards there has been countless information showing how doping has spread in the sport. Indeed, most threads raise the subject at some point. They are based on published information on the subject and yet here you are asking for "published figures" on doping, as though nothing has been said about it anywhere by anyone in all those years. That is quite apart from the fact that there can be no definitive measure of a clandestine practice. The fact you ask such a question shows how determined you are to not see what is acknowledged in the sport, that is the main subject of conversation on these boards, and is right in front of your face. You are like one who is color-blind who cannot accept others can see what he can't.
You have bored countless readers to death over the years disputing confidential athlete surveys that indicate how widespread doping is in the sport. You will do anything to minimise its prevalence and especially amongst African distance runners.
You then argue that doping doesn't enhance runners' performances and ask disingenuously what is a ped, because there is no such thing as actual "performance enhancing" drugs - only those that have the "potential" to do so but are probably only "placebos". You claim athletes only "believe" drugs will help them, as though there is nothing in their experiences of it that will demonstrate drugs do just that.
You never acknowledge that any world record is most likely to be the result of doping - of course not, it is a myth to you that drugs will enhance performance - with the lone exception of Kratochvilova forty years ago, who you think only might have doped.
In short, when it comes to it, doping is never "widespread" or "deep" in sport with you - you can't even see a doper when they are convicted, like Houlihan was - they must always be innocent, because the process is so "unfair".
But it doesn't really matter how much doping there might be because your fallback position is that doping doesn't actually work - athletes don't get faster as a result of using drugs. It can't beat altitude-training - even though altitude-trained athletes also dope.
On these boards you are more slippery than a bar of soap but in essence you are nothing more than a doping-denier who hasn't a clue how doping has affected sport and continues to do so.
I cannot minimize the prevalence if it is not known. But the 1-2% positives tests already shows that it is widespread.
As for the rest, I just follow all the facts, evidence, and observations.
In all the years on these boards there has been countless information showing how doping has spread in the sport. Indeed, most threads raise the subject at some point. They are based on published information on the subject and yet here you are asking for "published figures" on doping, as though nothing has been said about it anywhere by anyone in all those years. That is quite apart from the fact that there can be no definitive measure of a clandestine practice. The fact you ask such a question shows how determined you are to not see what is acknowledged in the sport, that is the main subject of conversation on these boards, and is right in front of your face. You are like one who is color-blind who cannot accept others can see what he can't.
Then why are you unable to point to some of these publications?
What is the basis for suggesting doping has increased over the decades? Please provide specific facts rather than naive and gullible conclusions based on myths.
You have bored countless readers to death over the years disputing confidential athlete surveys that indicate how widespread doping is in the sport. You will do anything to minimise its prevalence and especially amongst African distance runners.
You then argue that doping doesn't enhance runners' performances and ask disingenuously what is a ped, because there is no such thing as actual "performance enhancing" drugs - only those that have the "potential" to do so but are probably only "placebos". You claim athletes only "believe" drugs will help them, as though there is nothing in their experiences of it that will demonstrate drugs do just that.
You never acknowledge that any world record is most likely to be the result of doping - of course not, it is a myth to you that drugs will enhance performance - with the lone exception of Kratochvilova forty years ago, who you think only might have doped.
In short, when it comes to it, doping is never "widespread" or "deep" in sport with you - you can't even see a doper when they are convicted, like Houlihan was - they must always be innocent, because the process is so "unfair".
But it doesn't really matter how much doping there might be because your fallback position is that doping doesn't actually work - athletes don't get faster as a result of using drugs. It can't beat altitude-training - even though altitude-trained athletes also dope.
On these boards you are more slippery than a bar of soap but in essence you are nothing more than a doping-denier who hasn't a clue how doping has affected sport and continues to do so.
I cannot minimize the prevalence if it is not known. But the 1-2% positives tests already shows that it is widespread.
As for the rest, I just follow all the facts, evidence, and observations.
Yes, you can minimise prevalence by arguing it is less than what most informed estimates suggest it would be and by trying to minimise what is suggested by athlete doping surveys. But quite apart from minimising prevalence you also seek to minimise effect by suggesting there is no evidence to confirm drugs are performance enhancing.
If we accepted your arguments doping would not exist as a problem in sports. Indeed it would cease to exist altogether because it would give athletes no advantage.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.