View Single Post
Old 07-10-2010, 12:49 PM   #54
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 548

Originally Posted by OrangeOne View Post
Right, so you stopped at the off-the-cuff quip about watching too much tele-drama and didn't read the rest of my post? Or, perhaps more likely, you read the rest of the post and decided to ignore it as it had logical points in it that you simply couldn't debate? For the record, if you expect more than a joke or a stereotypical comment, maybe post something that is equally more than a stereotypical comment yourself, or even, post something that seems less of a joke.

You have a problem with the adverb? Or a problem with the fact that I said that the risk was indeed more than an instance? For doping to be effective it is rarely a one-off occurrence, in fact, for it to be in any way successful usually requires many instances just to understand how it affects the athlete in question. In many cases, it also requires a regime (eg. daily doping) to adjust baseline levels so that the doping doesn't appear as an outlier.

You can claim it's 'not the best use of your time' if you want, but remember: You were the one that put out the comment that doctors are doping elite athletes without their knowledge. You've done nothing to back it up, just thrown back some pointless word-play.

So let's end the word-play: Do you have any proof of multiple instances of doctors illegally doping elite athletes in 2010 (or thereabouts) - ie. doctors doping athletes without their knowledge?

....who is clearly a verbose 12 year old with a moderately decent knowledge of sport & doping.

Read my post and tell me where I said doctors were doping athletes without their knowledge. I never said that. You were the one that went there. All I said was that the only way to know 100 percent if you are clean is to never take anything or let anyone do anything. My point was that you can be an athlete with "morals and ethics" and get a tainted supplement. Or someone can make a mistake. You can do everything right and something can happen. I felt like that needed to be said in this thread. And you are not the only person with knowledge on this topic. Believe it or not when I posted to you in this thread I thought we might have an intersting discussion.

The House comment was unnecessary. That is not a surprise though, seems to happen to the women on this forum. When Canadian Chic made a comment about the Kardashian show people assumed she was jealous. So typical. If I say something I must have got it from a TV show. That combined with all of the assumptions you made without asking me what I meant just made me think, why bother?
EP1998 is offline   Reply With Quote