Re: Re:
So, in summary, you're saying that while you know that not enough is being spent on anti-doping you don't know how much is actually being spent on anti-doping?
Ok, well, how much would be enough then, will you at least answer than for me, please? Would $300 million be enough?
Dan2016 said:Tilting at windmills I'm afraid. Building straw men. It's silly to suggest I think I'm better than ToreBear. I'm glad they at least took my post in the spirit intended (which was a friendly one).
I offered an opinion to ToreBear as to why I think they haven't proven their argument, whilst acknowledging I couldn't prove they are definitively wrong. Ultimately it comes down to opinion. However, in agreement with others here, I think what strongly strengthens the opinion that most riders are doping is the past, the ex-riders testimony, the speeds, power data, the corruption and so on (others here have covered these things). It's mine and others inductive & abductive reasoning vs ToreBears deductive reasoning. ToreBears theory (premise) that the bio-passport has caused a big drop in doping numbers is, in my opinion, incorrect - 'wishful thinking'. I think the premise is incorrect and using deduction itself is incorrect. That's it. Full stop. I then offered some links I thought they would find interesting, as points of discussion etc., not foolproof evidence for a definitive case I'm not even making (read: personal opinion, points of discussion etc)
The economics? Interesting. Do I know how to use Google? Yes.
The reasoning method above answers your blather and straw man about me dismissing evidence, blindly accepting WADA's call for more money etc., etc...
So, in summary, you're saying that while you know that not enough is being spent on anti-doping you don't know how much is actually being spent on anti-doping?
Ok, well, how much would be enough then, will you at least answer than for me, please? Would $300 million be enough?