Donavan Brazier 1:42:70!!!!

Saying Amos has visited America yet hasn’t visited the moon is as illogical as saying Amos has gone out a second faster yet not run a PR.

logical fail wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A concession. Thank you. So that means you accept it is possible Amos is a juicer.

With this answer you have now shown clearly that you are stupid and that a serious discussion with you is not possible. For sure do I "accept" that it's possible Amos is a juicer. Any body could be a juicer - how do you want to show someone isn't a juicer? It's impossible.

If it is impossible to prove that Amos isn't a doper then a claim that he is cannot be refuted, however much you or anyone might disagree with that claim. So my opinion that he is likely a doper has to be accepted as possibly correct. We simply differ about that conclusion.

seasoned ranker wrote:

Saying Amos has visited America yet hasn’t visited the moon is as illogical as saying Amos has gone out a second faster yet not run a PR.

No, it isn't saying that. You don't really know what you are trying to say. But nothing you've said explains convincingly why Amos has never run faster than when he was a schoolboy prodigy.

the grand marshall wrote:

When everyone else tells you that you are talking in circles and can’t form a cogent argument, it’s you, not them. Saw it with you in the Serena thread as well. You’re helpless.

I think the word you're looking for is "hopeless". You're welcome.

Now dense you know something about. Yet you keep arguing that Amos hasn't run faster than 2012 because he has lacked a pacer. In 7 years. Yes - that is really dense.

Armstronglivs wrote:

With this answer you have now shown clearly that you are stupid and that a serious discussion with you is not possible. For sure do I "accept" that it's possible Amos is a juicer. Any body could be a juicer - how do you want to show someone isn't a juicer? It's impossible.

If it is impossible to prove that Amos isn't a doper then a claim that he is cannot be refuted, however much you or anyone might disagree with that claim. So my opinion that he is likely a doper has to be accepted as possibly correct. We simply differ about that conclusion.[/quote]

Who has refuted that you claim, Amos is a doper? You are really a hopeless case.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So many plodders here who think that their word games can resolve the question of whether a runner dopes. But it does enable them to stay inside their little protective bubble: "if I can't (or won't) see it, it isn't happening". Then they add to it their contorted theorising that the runner in question has really somehow run faster than he actually has - because he would have if he had had the right pacing, not been injured or been staying up late at night playing disc jockeys. Vintage Ventolin - and equally fanciful.

Fine. Show me proof (not evidence, proof) that Amos doped/dopes and I will admit you are right.

Otherwise? Nothing but your opinion.

logical fail wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

With this answer you have now shown clearly that you are stupid and that a serious discussion with you is not possible. For sure do I "accept" that it's possible Amos is a juicer. Any body could be a juicer - how do you want to show someone isn't a juicer? It's impossible.

If it is impossible to prove that Amos isn't a doper then a claim that he is cannot be refuted, however much you or anyone might disagree with that claim. So my opinion that he is likely a doper has to be accepted as possibly correct. We simply differ about that conclusion.

Who has refuted that you claim, Amos is a doper? You are really a hopeless case.[/quote]

Now you are getting it. Indignation aside from Amos's fans, no one has refuted my claim. You might tell them that.

tyughjbnm wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So many plodders here who think that their word games can resolve the question of whether a runner dopes. But it does enable them to stay inside their little protective bubble: "if I can't (or won't) see it, it isn't happening". Then they add to it their contorted theorising that the runner in question has really somehow run faster than he actually has - because he would have if he had had the right pacing, not been injured or been staying up late at night playing disc jockeys. Vintage Ventolin - and equally fanciful.

Fine. Show me proof (not evidence, proof) that Amos doped/dopes and I will admit you are right.

Otherwise? Nothing but your opinion.

In the absence of a failed doping test everything on the subject of who is doping is an opinion. Even with facts and reasonable suspicion to support it. Like it was for Flojo, Marion Jones and Lance, none of whom were convicted through failed tests. However, circumstancial evidence is still evidence. Anti-doping produces only 1-2% positives from all athletes tested. Estimates are that 30-50% are actually doping. Don't look for testing to answer the question in but a few rare instances. The rest of the question is do you believe what you are seeing out there. Apparently, most of you do. I won't rehearse what I have previously said about Amos, or what others have pointed out about ducked tests.

Armstronglivs wrote:

tyughjbnm wrote:

Fine. Show me proof (not evidence, proof) that Amos doped/dopes and I will admit you are right.

Otherwise? Nothing but your opinion.

In the absence of a failed doping test everything on the subject of who is doping is an opinion. Even with facts and reasonable suspicion to support it. Like it was for Flojo, Marion Jones and Lance, none of whom were convicted through failed tests. However, circumstancial evidence is still evidence. Anti-doping produces only 1-2% positives from all athletes tested. Estimates are that 30-50% are actually doping. Don't look for testing to answer the question in but a few rare instances. The rest of the question is do you believe what you are seeing out there. Apparently, most of you do. I won't rehearse what I have previously said about Amos, or what others have pointed out about ducked tests.

Keep in mind that these athletes are idols to lot of these youngsters, many who read and post on this site regularly. They want to believe that their heros are clean, and always have been and always will be. And short of a positive drug test, ABP violation, drug scandal, etc., they will defend their heros to the last breath (weren't you once young and had sports idols that you were infatuated with?).

I have no dog in this fight and watch T&F and other sports for pure entertainment value (I'm more into researching the science behind PEDs and performance implications). And you're right, very few are caught doping and the percentage of doping probably varies widely (obviously some nations will be a lot higher than others).

But if they're not caught, why not just give the athletes the benefit of the doubt and avoid the hostility that inevitably occurs? Remember people have strong emotional ties to their sporting heros. For example, look what happens when Coe & company are suspected of using PEDs at anytime in their careers - the fan base comes out with swords & shields ready to do battle. Always a hostile debate that ends up with emotional outbursts, ad hominem attacks and bullying...nothing new there.

All fair points. However the pervasiveness of doping in sports is such that not wanting to know about it is a bit like living in Putin's Russia and believing it is still a democracy.

Armstronglivs wrote:

All fair points. However the pervasiveness of doping in sports is such that not wanting to know about it is a bit like living in Putin's Russia and believing it is still a democracy.

More like living in Adelson's America and thinking it is a democracy.