Oops, except was intended [[and you know it).
I suppose you may be right, even the last place competitors are probably using the performance enhancing drugs at that level of competition. I hadn't thought about that possibility.
Oops, except was intended [[and you know it).
I suppose you may be right, even the last place competitors are probably using the performance enhancing drugs at that level of competition. I hadn't thought about that possibility.
Yet, I never offered that possibility. Still waiting for your proof that all top tier cyclists are using drugs. Until then, you're in default here and have lost the "debate."
You didn't exclude that possibility, and it certainly fits the description.
Real proof would result from mandatory randomly taken urine and serum sampling...It will never happen for obvious reasons.
Yes, I also didn't exclude the possibility that invisible unicorns are pushing some of the riders on the Tour.
Cyclists aren't subject to mandatory random testing? Why, yes, they are.
You're clueless. You got pwned.
How frequent is it actually done and how random [[how much advance notice do they get. You will be very very surprised at how sparse it is. It is not surprising however when you realize that the efforts are for show and a potential political weapon in the sport. How so? An athlete bucks the system, or pisses someone off, they are all using, so it is at the discretion of the administration of said testing who is outed.
You already got pwned.
You don't get advance notice on the random testing. Are you kidding?
Like to see Armstrong's test results? He posts them on the Livestrong website for the nattering nabobs.
All it takes is 30 minutes to arrange a cath purge and replacement with clean urine.
Are those "his" results, or the person in the bag of urine he instilled into himself?
I know it sounds horrible to do, but these folks will do anything for their career in elite athletics.
You don't get advance notice on the random testing.
Do some research before you make wild accusations and then try to back them up with incorrect assumptions.
You are plain wrong, leaks, and whispers are always 30 minutes ahead of the sampling at least.
Bats, I would think somebody like yourself would be opposed to drug testing on the grounds that it is infringing on the athletes freedoms.All it takes is 30 minutes to arrange a cath purge and replacement with clean urine.
Are those "his" results, or the person in the bag of urine he instilled into himself?
I know it sounds horrible to do, but these folks will do anything for their career in elite athletics.
Aha...a common liberal error. Free and fair/just interactions arbitrated by law.
Well, I hear many even here on DY who are against any laws[[like seat belts, motorcycle helmets, etc.) that take away personal freedoms and liberties and I guess I mistook you for one. My apologies.
A common misunderstanding.
I don't have proof, I am stating the realities of the sport at the highest levels where Armstrong excelled.
The reality is... not every high performing cyclist dopes.
Check the drug test results... guess how often Team Astana members are tested during the Tour.
So, your accusation against Armstrong is false.
You are assuming that evading detection does not happen...it does, more often than it does not as a matter of fact.
Direct admission by participants. Believe what you like...this is the reality, you can choose to ignore it if you like.
Please provide a cite to the direct admission by Lance Armstrong that he is or has doped.
Remember, that was your accusation.
If you can't provide one, it looks like you've run out of argument and can concede that you made a false accusation, either explicitly or implicitly.
My response was to the comment that I made regarding the fact that evading detection happens...with regularity. I was not claiming proof that Armstrong himself did so.
Where's your proof? Still don't have any?
Drug test results are posted. They were tested at least 11 random times during this year's tour.
Did you not read where I said that I have no proof?
Try this exercise....50 elite athletes are competing in a mixed strength and endurance event, these athletes have been culled from the thousands of wannabes via the nature of competition, there is a drug that improves performance and consistency 30 percent, the athletes [[by hook or crook) are using the drugs with significant regularity.
Question, what are the odds that 1 of these athletes, so closely matched in ability, would win repeatedly for years [[unprecedented in the sport) WITHOUT the 30 percent advantage?
Possible? I suppose...how likely? Very very unlikely bordering on the impossible.
Okay, good, you admitted that you made a baseless claim in your first post in this thread.
East Detroit: 1
CCBatson: 0
|
Bookmarks