- Nov 7, 2003
alienator said:Remember that when you try to argue your point: you only have opinion and no fact. I am making no assumptions about the riders, the teams, and who is or isn't doping.
Ummmm... well, I did say "this is just my opinion" so I don't know why you pointed this out. But which orifice are you talking out of when you say there are no facts that I have used to develop this opinion? Scores of people speaking out that they know and that they have evidence that riders dope, former teammates and retired cyclists pointing to the fact that doping is widespread in the peloton, teams being seen dumping bags of syringes and other doping paraphernalia, disputed positive tests left and right, teams caught in possession of bovine insuline for "a team member that's diabetic", team staff members running around with huge sums of cash, Virenque, Millar, Hamilton, Heras, Ullrich, Basso, (just to name a few of the well known names) all suspended for doping, labs being busted, doctors being convicted of helping athletes dope. The list goes on and on. These aren't facts to support that there's widespread doping in pro cycling? I'm sorry but who's making the stupid assumtions?
alienator said:Ah, I see. Again you make assumptions that have no scientific basis. You make assumptions about human physiology and performance that you can't sustantiate. I've made no assumptions about Armstrong or any other rider, because there is no evidence to support any assumptions. Your assumptions are a lot like the assumptions of KKK members about black folk, conservatives about liberals, and so on.
Assumtions with no scentific basis? Believe me this can be substantiated if you choose not to turn a blind eye. Simply do a google search to learn what the proven benefits of performance enhancing drugs are. There are many studies out there that show these drugs boost an athletes performance by about 8%-18%. That's enough to send a cyclist from the bottom of the TdF standings right to the top. Yet you choose to "assume" that "your guys" are riding clean and that they're just so much better than riders the caliber of Basso, Millar, Ullrich, and Hamilton (again to name a few) that they can not only keep up with them but even beat the? Even when it's known that these other riders are using these drugs? Excuse me? But who is making the stupid assumtions? I'm sorry but it's pretty hard for me to believe that a clean rider could crush a rider like Ullrich or Basso when it's known now that they've been using PED's. To me to assume it's not only possible but that it happened for seven straight years is the "stupid assumption" thank you. The KKK comment is so completely assinine that I don't even know how to respond. Ridiculous!
alienator said:That may be, but wild assumptions and accusations do nothing. The doping riders and people that aid them aren't the only ones to blame. The entire system is broken. WADA/**** Pound have difficulty operating objectively and within their own guidelines. Testing procedures are less than definitive. Every claim made in a paper or book is assumed to be fact or indisputable evidence.
The only way to fix the system and put the brakes on doping is to have a system that operates objectively.
I somewhat agree with you here. In fact I wholeheartedly agree on some points. But how many people, articles, books and pieces of evidence are we going to go ahead and assume are lies and fabrications? I used to be more of your opinion on the doping issue until I started objectively looking at all of the facts available. I think you need to apply your "critical thinking skills" ( ) instead of just choosing a side and defending it. Right now your gears are turning not actually thinking about what I've said but only to conjure up a response to rebutt it.
Remove the blinders. Listen. Think.