casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Yeah -- larkimm's right -- these are not cogent arguments.
Just a moment. Larkimm wrote: "Just tossing out a name and then some negative phrases doesn't make for a cogent argument."
The facts described here about Healing Hans' work are quite a bit more than "tossing out a name and then some negative phrases".
And thanks to Clerk, we can now add Powell and Chambers to Hans' list of convicted drug cheats. + Gay.
(I don't really care about the soccer players and cyclists, but those who do and think Germany's soccer is clean, start for example here:
http://www.dw.com/en/doping-in-football-a-taboo-subject/a-17026060. Likewise Spain's soccer is heavily involved with Fuentes' to be destroyed blood bags.)
I'm sorry, but it still isn't cogent.
The facts described here do not in any way make him a doping doctor. They make him a doctor that uses unusual treatments, has a high record of success and who treats people who want to get the best treatment possible.
All athletes, including doping athletes, drink water. Does that make drinking water a sign that you are doping athlete?
There is no evidence at all, not a single shred, that Healing Hans has ever done anything with any of the athletes he has treated which would be considered to be doping. Treating athletes who have subsequently been convicted of doping (and where in all cases the doping was found not to have had anything to do with Healing Hans, as far as the public record shows) does not make him a doping doctor, and does not make a cogent argument about his doping.
I'm not here to defend Healing Hans, I know nothing more of him than I've read (the same as everyone else here). I'm simply pointing out that the reasons some people find him "suspicious" are utterly flawed when tested against logic rather than paranoia, conspiracy theories or just plain old jealousy.