Re: Re:
In every sporting competition someone is going to win. That is a given. That performance is therefore the best performance in the race that day. |Bailey was a truly remarkable athlete not just in track but in other sports as well such as Basketball. (If you follow basketball at all Canada has made an amazing contribution recently to Division 1 NCAA basketball and the NBA.) Donovan was also born in Jamaica where there is a gene pool of sprinting talent. The bottom line he was (is) one of the best athletes in the world.
Is it reasonable that a better athlete is on any given day going to win the competition. Logic and reason say that is the case. Therefore Bailey was capable of a "truly remarkable" performance. And that performance came at Atlanta. 9.84 is not very remarkable today given what Bolt and others have done.
Merely because an athlete has a great or "remarkable" performance does not even come close to being evidence he was doped. Merely because an athlete wins a race does not even come close to being evidence of doping. Except in the Forum!
When I refer to evidence I refer to facts. A fact is actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion. A fact is truth, as distinguished from fiction or error.
So for example your quote from the Globe and Mail does not even cite the author of the article, his/her credentials, his/her knowledge of facts, or on what basis the uncited person's opinion is based. That is unsubstantiated hearsay and worse still unsubstantiated hearsay about an opinion i.e. hearsay of a mere supposition.
I agree that the era was nasty. I agree that a lot of athletes whose only interest in life is their specific sport would cheat to get ahead. But Bailey was a stockbroker making good money. He didn't need track. The facts are he was just too good not to give it a go. Do you agree that some people in this world are simply more gifted athletically than others?
I do not consider the Forum even close to a court of law, because it is rife with ill-informed opinion, speculation, rhetoric, cynicism (justifiably), mockery of other persons point of view, trolling, baiting, incivility, and plain old trash talk. It is not a forum where an opinion has much credibility in the real world. The Forum is an artificial world where anonymity allows anyone to say anything they want and pretend it has credibility.
I agree that performances in the environment of the late 80's and early 90s well up to say 2010 were in an era in cycling very suspicious because as we know now there is a plethora of evidence and fact about it. The USADA Reasoned Decision on Armstrong, Hamilton and others have provided that evidence.
An I respect Bassons opinion about riders today. But he is speculating based on his own experiences in another era. That does not mean his opinion should be dismissed but how valid is it without fact and evidence?
There are also lots of reasons to be sceptical about track - Marion Jones, Flo Jo, Carl Lewis, and a host of others. Keep in mind Ben Johnson ( who was a about 15 years before Bailey and not a contemporary of Baileys) was caught in a drug test.
In my view people who post in the Forum can sound off about anything they want, express any opinion they want etc. It is free for all. Some opinions have more logic than others. But if a poster wants to be taken seriously the opinion needs to be informed with fact and evidence.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
― Harlan Ellison
mrhender said:RobbieCanuck said:Show me your evidence, not your speculation, or rhetoric or uninformed opinion he was dirty because an uninformed opinion is not worth the Forum space it is written on!
Whenever I found out anything remarkable, I have thought it my duty to put down my discovery on paper, so that all ingenious people might be informed thereof.
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/sadness-tempers-baileys-pride-at-having-untarnished-time/article13239573/
– anybody who has been the fastest man in the world between Bailey’s 9.84 seconds at the 1996 Atlanta Games and Bolt’s 9.58 set in August of 2009 in Berlin – has either failed a drug test or been connected to performance-enhancing substances.
Bailey and Bolt are the only two men’s 100-metre Olympic champions since 1984 who have not tested positive for drugs at some point in their careers.
Performances like Bailey's are truly remarkable.
So do they constitute some form of evidence to doping in your opinion?
If yes, then what made Bailey so special as seen above?
If no, then do you consider a doping forum of discussing opinions etc as a court of law?
Maybe you could define what you would consider evidence?
Informed opinion is good, and I agree that sometimes performance is not enough...
Howerver, look at the era, the competitors, the environment at the time etc..
You can ask for evidence and informed opinion, but does performance in a certain environment not constitute the right to forming an (rightfull) opinion?
Bailey's performance that day might have been truly clean, but is it likely so?
Just asking.................
In every sporting competition someone is going to win. That is a given. That performance is therefore the best performance in the race that day. |Bailey was a truly remarkable athlete not just in track but in other sports as well such as Basketball. (If you follow basketball at all Canada has made an amazing contribution recently to Division 1 NCAA basketball and the NBA.) Donovan was also born in Jamaica where there is a gene pool of sprinting talent. The bottom line he was (is) one of the best athletes in the world.
Is it reasonable that a better athlete is on any given day going to win the competition. Logic and reason say that is the case. Therefore Bailey was capable of a "truly remarkable" performance. And that performance came at Atlanta. 9.84 is not very remarkable today given what Bolt and others have done.
Merely because an athlete has a great or "remarkable" performance does not even come close to being evidence he was doped. Merely because an athlete wins a race does not even come close to being evidence of doping. Except in the Forum!
When I refer to evidence I refer to facts. A fact is actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion. A fact is truth, as distinguished from fiction or error.
So for example your quote from the Globe and Mail does not even cite the author of the article, his/her credentials, his/her knowledge of facts, or on what basis the uncited person's opinion is based. That is unsubstantiated hearsay and worse still unsubstantiated hearsay about an opinion i.e. hearsay of a mere supposition.
I agree that the era was nasty. I agree that a lot of athletes whose only interest in life is their specific sport would cheat to get ahead. But Bailey was a stockbroker making good money. He didn't need track. The facts are he was just too good not to give it a go. Do you agree that some people in this world are simply more gifted athletically than others?
I do not consider the Forum even close to a court of law, because it is rife with ill-informed opinion, speculation, rhetoric, cynicism (justifiably), mockery of other persons point of view, trolling, baiting, incivility, and plain old trash talk. It is not a forum where an opinion has much credibility in the real world. The Forum is an artificial world where anonymity allows anyone to say anything they want and pretend it has credibility.
I agree that performances in the environment of the late 80's and early 90s well up to say 2010 were in an era in cycling very suspicious because as we know now there is a plethora of evidence and fact about it. The USADA Reasoned Decision on Armstrong, Hamilton and others have provided that evidence.
An I respect Bassons opinion about riders today. But he is speculating based on his own experiences in another era. That does not mean his opinion should be dismissed but how valid is it without fact and evidence?
There are also lots of reasons to be sceptical about track - Marion Jones, Flo Jo, Carl Lewis, and a host of others. Keep in mind Ben Johnson ( who was a about 15 years before Bailey and not a contemporary of Baileys) was caught in a drug test.
In my view people who post in the Forum can sound off about anything they want, express any opinion they want etc. It is free for all. Some opinions have more logic than others. But if a poster wants to be taken seriously the opinion needs to be informed with fact and evidence.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
― Harlan Ellison