“Och, is that the best ye can do?”
John Edward: “OK, this P guy says: was that supposed to be a relevant question? And he also says that he’s OK and he really loves you all, same as all these dumbass crossed over people always do.”
This Princhester never answers questions, have you noticed? It responds to questions with questions. We are not swayed by rhetoric.
I’m bored of the John Edward thing.
Lamar, I’m not about to answer a silly, open ended, meaningless question like: “Is that the best you can do?”
To do so (in a fashion that would not leave my answer open to misinterpretation) would require me to define what “that” is, and that would require me to restate my entire position and I can’t be bothered to do that for the likes of you.
If you have a question that is carefully framed stating all underlying assumptions, useful, unambiguous, rational, that advances the debate, that doesn’t assume that I’ve said things I haven’t, then by all means put it.
But I’m only giving you one shot: I’ve wasted too much time on you as is. Put your useful etc question or go away.
Accepted.
Show me where before the 2004 TDF you protested against athletes doping. If you haven’t done so, explain why it is that the 2004 TDF caused you to raise your voice in protest, if it wasn’t because LA broke a sacred (rhetorical, I admit) record.
I’ve read BBF’s post, and all he says is that LA probably takes vitamin supplements. So do I. I couldn’t ride a bike a hundred Km’s in a week.
Simply put, why LA?
Done.
LM previously I thought you were to put it mildly, somewhat cognitively impaired. Now I realise you are off the scale. What comes below imbecile?
I’d type out: “It’s not about Lance Armstrong, it never has been, I’ve told you it isn’t about Lance Armstrong at least three times you stupid fuckwit” a hundred times if I thought you had the brains to be able to read and comprehend, but it is clear that you don’t.
Perhaps you are capable of understanding the word “Goodbye”.
Pray, tell me…if it isn’t about Lance Armstrong (which it obviously is, see the title of the thread) what is it about?
You are pathetic.
You are asking questions of me. I did not write the thread title. I have made my position very very clear.
I have said repeatedly that for me it is not about Lance Armstrong. And then after I virtually beg you to ask a sensible question, you ask me: “Why Lance?”
I doubt you are able to comprehend how imbecilic it was for you to do that, but it was.
Why is “Why Lance” a stupid question? You haven’t answered that. Many posters have listed other athletes that have excelled at their sport at levels far beyond the previous levels, like Tiger Woods. Why is it that a cyclist who excels is automatically presumed to be cheating?
You still haven’t answered that.
It’s about dope. It’s about dope being pandemic and widespread. And then its about people that are favored by the status quo going out of their way to attempt to fuck over people that want to speak out about it. Insulting champions like LeMond and putting the hush-up on Simeoni.
It’s about kids like Tom Danielson going from collegiate cycling and being a pretty decent cat 1-2 coming back from riding in Europe for 6 months after getting signed with Fassa Bortolo and breaking a new course record on Mt. Evans by four minutes and beating the next rider, probably Colorado’s best and most experienced road racer by nearly nine minutes. It’s a loss of honesty, a loss of innocence, and worst of all, a loss of safety.
That’s what it’s about.
When did you stop beating your wife? Have you completed your prison sentence for pedophilia yet?
I don’t know. You’d have to ask that question of someone who automatically presumes a cyclist who excels is cheating.
That person is not me. It’s not threemae either. Both of us have been saying for about, oh, three pages now that we think Lance probably excels because he’s gifted.
But you just keep asking us anway.
Anyone but you would probably not have to ask us why we haven’t answered.
You calumnious twit.
Read the godforsaken title of the thread you’ve been spewing in. Read the freakin’ posts. threemae most certainly does believe Lance Armstrong, a cyclist who is excelling like no other has before, is cheating. The TITLE ITSELF proclaims this.
Here, let me show you: “Now I really am pitting Lance Armstrong directly (and yes, he is doped)”. How you can read this, and then proclaim “… someone who automatically presumes a cyclist who excels is cheating … That person is not me. It’s not threemae either. Both of us have been saying for about, oh, three pages now that we think Lance probably excels because he’s gifted.” The mind boggles. Please tell me you’re truly not this stupid, that you just forgot what you were typing for a moment. Please tell me that you were hit on the head while you were composing that particular post, and completely lost your wits for a while and typed the first random conglomeration of words that popped into your mind. Please tell me that syphilis has robbed you of your higher brain functions. Anything.
If not, I gotta say, I haven’t seen this level of intellectual dishonesty since fatherjohn was posting.
Is doping bad for cycling? Undoubtedly. Is this the thread to make that argument in? Not a bit. Because, you see, this thread is specifically about LANCE ARMSTRONG and threemae’s assertion that he dopes. (Again, read the title if you doubt me on this.) There’s no hard proof of Armstrong’s doping, mind; there’s accusation, and innuendo, and piss-poor (ha!) circumstantial evidence, but no proof at all. In fact, there’s definitive proof that he doesn’t dope, in the form of a completely clean record of drug tests throughout his entire career.
Is it possible that he’s discovered some wonder drug that doesn’t show up on tests? Sure, it’s possible. But, as I said before, Occam’s razor has to come into play at some point. The easiest and simplest explanation for Armstrong never failing a drug test is because he doesn’t do drugs.
You oughta take some basic logic and comprehension lessons before throwing around big words like calumnious.
The question was directed to me specifically, after several posts in which Mundane abused me for not answering questions about my position. Nothing that I had posted suggested that I automatically thought that LA was doping because he excelled. I had in fact stated precisely the opposite on several occasions.
That’s point number one.
Point number two is that if you read threemae’s OP he is pitting LA primarily because of his behaviour toward Simeoni, not for doping as such. Quoting one piece of his OP, as you go on to do, while ignoring the fact that the reasons threemae gives for reaching the conclusion that he does (ie that LA dopes, along with the rest of the peleton) relate to various rumours, the evidence of the team soigneur etc. He does mention LA’s victories, but only as one of about four or five different reasons.
Now you tell me how that means that threemae automatically assumes LA dopes because he excels?
That is a total misrepresentation of threemae’s position taken as a whole, and a complete and utter fabrication of my position.
So who got hit on the head and lost their wits? Was it me or was it you?
Anyone still saying on page three of this thread that a clean record on drug tests is “definitive” proof LA doesn’t dope, in view of the number of times the Millar incident has been pointed out, has rocks in their head.
Indeed, given what Millar managed, its likely.
No, the given the facts (ie that Millar was able to be world time trial champion and tested half to death without failing) the simplest explanation is that tests have some catching up to do to be able to catch people doping.
While this shows that it is possible to beat the tests, it is a HUGE way from showing that it’s the most likely explanation for LA dominance. You are assuming the fact that you are trying to prove.
Tell the truth, now; you still don’t know what the word means.
Counterpoint: You specifically stated “”… someone who automatically presumes a cyclist who excels is cheating … That person is not me. It’s not threemae either." Again, read the thread title. Read the first freakin’ post in the thread. If you wanna lump yourself in with threemae, who most certainly has assumed a cyclist who is excelling is cheating, that’s your prerogative. Don’t misrepresent his/her point, though. That’s lying.
Ninety-five percent of the OP is related to Lance Armstrong allegedly doping.
I don’t give a damn about your position, sparky. But if you can’t see the disconnect in what you’re posting and what threemae has posted, I’d say loss of brain function is the least of your worries.
I’m quite content to let other readers of this thread make that judgement. Folks? What say you?
You seriously, SERIOUSLY need to take some courses on probability.
Oh for fuck’s sake. How the fuck many fucking times am I going to have to fucking say that I don’t think that LA dominates because he dopes before it gets through the seemingly immensely thick skulls of a number of participants of this thread? I have never never in my years of being a Doper, come across a thread where so many other Dopers just seem constitutionally unable to get across a simple aspect of my stated position, no matter how many times I repeat it.
I’ll try shouting, maybe that will work: I THINK LA DOMINATES BECAUSE HE IS GIFTED. I ALSO THINK THAT HE DOPES, BASED ON OTHER THINGS. I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST THREE TIMES NOW, PROBABLY MORE. IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD, PLEASE READ THESE WORDS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THEM BEFORE COMMENTING ON MY POSITION. THANK YOU.
I’m not representing threemae’s position, slimeball, you are. Go back and read his OP, bearing in mind that the point I made is that neither **threemae ** nor I automatically presumes a cyclist who excels is cheating, which was **Lamar’**s accusation.
The point is not whether or not threemae sees LA’s dominance as being a factor pointing towards cheating. The point is not whether large amounts of his OP concern cheating. The point is not whether threemae has accused a cyclist of cheating who, as it happens, excels.
None of these things make good Lamar’s accusation. To make good Lamar’s accusation, you need to show that **threemae ** or I have automatically presumed a cyclist who excels must be cheating.
Find the quote where **threemae ** or I say this. Put up or shut up.
Let’s take the known facts. David Millar is the current world champion time triallist. He has a CV of wins and top three places as long as your arm. I count about 21 wins or top three places in 6 years. He would have been tested after every one of those, and a lot more besides. He has never failed a test. According to you (assuming you aren’t biased and apply to Millar what you apply to LA) that’s “definitive” proof that Millar doesn’t dope.
Oops. He’s just confessed that he does.
Now why don’t you rehearse to me the lessons in probability that I need to learn, and how you see them as being applicable?
And if all you are going to say is: Lance Armstrong has been tested more than David Millar, so the chances that he would have been caught if he were doping are higher, then don’t bother. I know that. I’ve already acknowledged that. That doesn’t mean he isn’t doping.
To me, the available evidence that he does outweighs, IMHO, the available evidence that he doesn’t. It’s a judgment call, I accept that. Other people’s judgment may be different to mine. I accept that. There is no definitive proof. I accept that. LA certainly should not suffer any sanction unless there is definitive proof. I not only accept that, I advocate that.
But nonetheless, my best guess is, he does.
That judgment is based on what everything I’ve ever read suggests is the all pervasive nature of drugs in pro cycling, and LA’s team soigneur. Not on the fact he excels.
That is all.
Bob and weave, man. Shuck and jive.
Seems to me you want to split hairs so fine that it’s pointless to make distinctions. Fair enough.
Crud. I hit some combination of keyboard buttons that the board interpreted as “Submit.”
I’m going to try this one more time, and then if I’m not successful, I’m going to guess that your higher brain functions are simply gone.
Let’s take this step by step, shall we?
Point A: Lance Armstrong is a cyclist who excels. (If you’re gonna argue this point, we can quit right now.)
Point B: threemae (and, by extension, you, since YOU YOURSELF lumped his/her position in with your argument earlier) has said, multiple times and in multiple ways, that Lance Armstrong is doped. Once again, I humbly suggest you read the thread title, specifically the part that says “And yes, he is doped”. Never mind the multiple posts in this thread that attempt to argue the same thing with innuendo and circumstantial evidence. The title alone will be sufficient.
Point C: Doping is considered cheating in cycling.
Point D: There is no hard evidence (i.e., a positive test) that Lance Armstrong dopes.
Conclusion: threemae (see Point B) is automatically presuming (no evidence, see Point D) that a cyclist who excels (Lance Armstrong, see Point A) is cheating (see Point C).
This directly refutes the statements you made:
I have now “put up.” I honestly cannot make this any plainer.
Sauron, you’ve made a solid case, but you might as well give up.
You’re time would be better spent arguing this point with a fuckin’ stump.