Drugs in UK sports....

[yellowcard]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it

[muppet]

Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?

I don't know whether he is clean or not.

But Franko said 'he has been caught'. It that is true then he isn't clean. If that isn't true, then why make it up? Unlike Armstrong, Smith, Ben Johnson etc, Bolt looked like a dominant world champion from a very early age. That is why he will take a little more convincing for me than the others.

I was convinced Armstrong was on the juice all along. I am also convinced Indurain was as well. This despite the fact that Indurain never failed a test.

The lads who got joint 3rd yesterday were both 20 years of age. They are the next champions. Are they juicing as well? If Bolt and those two young lads are juiced, then athletics is completely screwed.

I didn't state it.  I paraphrased what that article clearly alluded to.  Obviously I don't know when and with what.  But I am looking at a substantial body of (circumstantial) evidence and drawing my own conclusions.

You stated that you were convinced that Armstrong was juicing 'all along'.  I take it you knew 'when and 'with what' in order to be convinced.  Or were you looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions? 

'I was convinced he was juicing'.....is not the same as 'he was caught'. Not even in the same country.

Can you please show us where the article 'clearly alluded' that Bolt was caught doping?

[Franko]

Here are the 8 fastest men in 100m history (legal runs only), in order.

Bolt's times are, in 100m terms, streets ahead of this list of deviants.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Usain Bolt
Clean
Tyson Gay
Banned
Yohan Blake
Banned
Asafa Powell
Banned
Justin Gatlin
Banned
Nesta Carter
Clean
Maurice Greene
Clean - Never tested positive but suspicions arose due to a pre-2008 $10,000 payment to none other than Angel Guillermo Heredia for what he described as 'stuff'.
Steve Mullings
Banned

[Franko]

Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?

I don't know whether he is clean or not.

But Franko said 'he has been caught'. It that is true then he isn't clean. If that isn't true, then why make it up? Unlike Armstrong, Smith, Ben Johnson etc, Bolt looked like a dominant world champion from a very early age. That is why he will take a little more convincing for me than the others.

I was convinced Armstrong was on the juice all along. I am also convinced Indurain was as well. This despite the fact that Indurain never failed a test.

The lads who got joint 3rd yesterday were both 20 years of age. They are the next champions. Are they juicing as well? If Bolt and those two young lads are juiced, then athletics is completely screwed.

I didn't state it.  I paraphrased what that article clearly alluded to.  Obviously I don't know when and with what.  But I am looking at a substantial body of (circumstantial) evidence and drawing my own conclusions.

You stated that you were convinced that Armstrong was juicing 'all along'.  I take it you knew 'when and 'with what' in order to be convinced.  Or were you looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions? 

'I was convinced he was juicing'.....is not the same as 'he was caught'. Not even in the same country.

Can you please show us where the article 'clearly alluded' that Bolt was caught doping?

OK, I'll say this.  I 'am convinced' he was caught.  Is that OK now?  Because by your own standards of proof it's perfectly adequate to say this.

In the second paragraph.

[macdanger2]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it

I thought this quote in that article was a little bit rich:

"When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time," Carl Lewis told the Times of London. "But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don't question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you're a fool. Period."

[yellowcard]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it

I thought this quote in that article was a little bit rich:

"When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time," Carl Lewis told the Times of London. "But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don't question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you're a fool. Period."

Why? Because he was a doper is his opinion not valid? Floyd Landis was ridiculed for saying similar about Armstrong but his version of events turned out to be accurate. For what reason would Lewis make that statement other than the fact that he believes it to be true?

[muppet]

Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?

I don't know whether he is clean or not.

But Franko said 'he has been caught'. It that is true then he isn't clean. If that isn't true, then why make it up? Unlike Armstrong, Smith, Ben Johnson etc, Bolt looked like a dominant world champion from a very early age. That is why he will take a little more convincing for me than the others.

I was convinced Armstrong was on the juice all along. I am also convinced Indurain was as well. This despite the fact that Indurain never failed a test.

The lads who got joint 3rd yesterday were both 20 years of age. They are the next champions. Are they juicing as well? If Bolt and those two young lads are juiced, then athletics is completely screwed.

I didn't state it.  I paraphrased what that article clearly alluded to.  Obviously I don't know when and with what.  But I am looking at a substantial body of (circumstantial) evidence and drawing my own conclusions.

You stated that you were convinced that Armstrong was juicing 'all along'.  I take it you knew 'when and 'with what' in order to be convinced.  Or were you looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions? 

'I was convinced he was juicing'.....is not the same as 'he was caught'. Not even in the same country.

Can you please show us where the article 'clearly alluded' that Bolt was caught doping?

OK, I'll say this.  I 'am convinced' he was caught.  Is that OK now?  Because by your own standards of proof it's perfectly adequate to say this.

In the second paragraph.

Ah right.......I see.

It is ok to have an opinion on something.

It is a different thing altogether to state it as a fact as you did.

[Franko]

Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?

I don't know whether he is clean or not.

But Franko said 'he has been caught'. It that is true then he isn't clean. If that isn't true, then why make it up? Unlike Armstrong, Smith, Ben Johnson etc, Bolt looked like a dominant world champion from a very early age. That is why he will take a little more convincing for me than the others.

I was convinced Armstrong was on the juice all along. I am also convinced Indurain was as well. This despite the fact that Indurain never failed a test.

The lads who got joint 3rd yesterday were both 20 years of age. They are the next champions. Are they juicing as well? If Bolt and those two young lads are juiced, then athletics is completely screwed.

I didn't state it.  I paraphrased what that article clearly alluded to.  Obviously I don't know when and with what.  But I am looking at a substantial body of (circumstantial) evidence and drawing my own conclusions.

You stated that you were convinced that Armstrong was juicing 'all along'.  I take it you knew 'when and 'with what' in order to be convinced.  Or were you looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions? 

'I was convinced he was juicing'.....is not the same as 'he was caught'. Not even in the same country.

Can you please show us where the article 'clearly alluded' that Bolt was caught doping?

OK, I'll say this.  I 'am convinced' he was caught.  Is that OK now?  Because by your own standards of proof it's perfectly adequate to say this.

In the second paragraph.

Ah right.......I see.

It is ok to have an opinion on something.

It is a different thing altogether to state it as a fact as you did.

Wrong. See part in bold.

[muppet]

This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.

OK, I'll state it in plain English.  Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.

You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.

Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?

[Franko]

This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.

OK, I'll state it in plain English.  Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.

You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.

Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?

If that's how you want to look at it there's not a lot I can do about it.  But both literally and metaphorically speaking you pulled that quote out of context to make your point.  I think that others who were perhaps a little more perceptive may have realised what I was doing, but just in case, I cleared it up in my very next post (which you have ignored twice now).  Like I said, none so blind... etc.

[macdanger2]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it

I thought this quote in that article was a little bit rich:

"When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time," Carl Lewis told the Times of London. "But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don't question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you're a fool. Period."

Why? Because he was a doper is his opinion not valid? Floyd Landis was ridiculed for saying similar about Armstrong but his version of events turned out to be accurate. For what reason would Lewis make that statement other than the fact that he believes it to be true?

To me the tone of the article seemed fairly anti-Jamacian as much as anti-drugs and while he quoted Lewis, he didn't state that Lewis is also a drug cheat which is a pretty important fact considering the article. Didn't BBC have Lewis on their Olympics coverage last time around? I don't think he's widely recognised as being a cheat so I think if you're writing an article about PEDs there are surely plenty of clean athletes (or at least athletes who haven't been caught) who could have given that same opinion - it's not exactly a ground-breaking insight from Lewis.

[yellowcard]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it

I thought this quote in that article was a little bit rich:

"When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time," Carl Lewis told the Times of London. "But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don't question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you're a fool. Period."

Why? Because he was a doper is his opinion not valid? Floyd Landis was ridiculed for saying similar about Armstrong but his version of events turned out to be accurate. For what reason would Lewis make that statement other than the fact that he believes it to be true?

To me the tone of the article seemed fairly anti-Jamacian as much as anti-drugs and while he quoted Lewis, he didn't state that Lewis is also a drug cheat which is a pretty important fact considering the article. Didn't BBC have Lewis on their Olympics coverage last time around? I don't think he's widely recognised as being a cheat so I think if you're writing an article about PEDs there are surely plenty of clean athletes (or at least athletes who haven't been caught) who could have given that same opinion - it's not exactly a ground-breaking insight from Lewis.

I'll say to the people who don't believe in athletics, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that you can't dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a sport. This is a great sport and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the sport for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. Vive world athletics."

[muppet]

This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.

OK, I'll state it in plain English.  Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.

You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.

Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?

If that's how you want to look at it there's not a lot I can do about it.  But both literally and metaphorically speaking you pulled that quote out of context to make your point.  I think that others who were perhaps a little more perceptive may have realised what I was doing, but just in case, I cleared it up in my very next post (which you have ignored twice now).  Like I said, none so blind... etc.

I'll take that as a no.   

[Franko]

This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.

OK, I'll state it in plain English.  Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.

You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.

Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?

If that's how you want to look at it there's not a lot I can do about it.  But both literally and metaphorically speaking you pulled that quote out of context to make your point.  I think that others who were perhaps a little more perceptive may have realised what I was doing, but just in case, I cleared it up in my very next post (which you have ignored twice now).  Like I said, none so blind... etc.

I'll take that as a no.   

Ah, no.1 in the standard list of GAABoard smart Alec responses.  It's sad to see you reduced to this muppet.

[muppet]

This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.

OK, I'll state it in plain English.  Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.

You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.

Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?

If that's how you want to look at it there's not a lot I can do about it.  But both literally and metaphorically speaking you pulled that quote out of context to make your point.  I think that others who were perhaps a little more perceptive may have realised what I was doing, but just in case, I cleared it up in my very next post (which you have ignored twice now).  Like I said, none so blind... etc.

I'll take that as a no.   

Ah, no.1 in the standard list of GAABoard smart Alec responses.  It's sad to see you reduced to this muppet.

What can I do?

You made an outrageous claim.

You claimed, that this claim, what what was implied in the linked article.

When asked which part of the article suggested what you claimed, you cited 'more perceptive people', and 'none so blind' etc, or in other words you reached for the standard GaaBoard ad hominems, but naturally didn't trouble yourself by answering the question.