QUOTE(Roadent @ Aug 29 2008, 05:39 PM)
Is really the Ali we know? No convoluted, post-modern dissemblings and evasions? Just a feeble attempt to shore up his vanishingly small minority opinion....? Although, it does sound as if the cheque from Ffflyod might not have bounced. Does being popular and grabbing headlines mean that you're more likely to be innocent? Strange attitude...Face it, the people that have interest in this case (everybody here, and the majority of serious cyclists) have, to Andrew's points, real issues with Ffflyod; issues that don't discount their attitudes about the quality of testing and testing facilities.
I'll correct only one of your obvious errors (hey, it's Friday) :
"Face it, the people that have interest in this case (everybody here, and the majority of serious cyclists) have, to Andrew's points, real issues with Ffflyod"
According to Andrew, serious cyclists who are actually capable of understanding what went down with the science (and at this point, I'll venture that if you don't understand it, your opinion isn't worth sh1t) had more issues with LNDD than they had with Floyd. That was my experience. It wasn't yours. Draw your own conclusions.
QUOTE(Andrew @ Aug 29 2008, 06:49 PM)
You know, the autograph test is a particularly silly and pointless way of measuring the opinions of the populace. The vast majority of Americans think Paris Hilton is an ugly, talentless, imbecile--but they'd be delighted to have their picture taken with her and would be thrilled to get her signature. So what?
So what ? Go back to my original post. The point I made was that nobody cared. The only people who care enough to consider his guilt or innocence exist in this microcosm of circular arguements. Attaching such self importance to your opinions when nobody else gives a toss is delusional (but admirable)
QUOTE(The Rake @ Aug 29 2008, 06:44 PM)
Rewrite the above bit, but assume Floyd was, say, called Floydimir Landiskov, and an American had come second.
Secondly, with regards to the rest of the world being sceptical about the "proof" offered by the Labs, I disagree, whether they have scientific knowledge or not. It is widely reported that the labs stuffed up, but also that it still showed exogenous testosterone in the guy's wee wee.
As such, I shrug off the lab bit, but still assume he is guilty. Perhaps I stand alone.
They screwed up the test which detects exo-T, but because the results indicated it was there, than he was guilty.
That's a bit like saying if I screw up a biopsy on you and erroneously notify you of cancer, than you do have cancer, because the results said so ? WTF !