As much as I enjoy the comparison to the new earth nonsense, the main difference to me seems to be that here in these discussions science gets abused by both sides of the argument. As a bonus the 'sport scientist' generally seem to demand the right not be able to say much of anything about the subject of doping. And while I do agree that anyone 100% in this discussion can probably be ignored, I doubt you have issues with people who are 100% sure the world is older than 6000 years. Even if it would be more correct to go with 99.999...%.Graham_S said:The only other people I have seen put quotation mark around the word “science” like that were trying to convince me the world was 6,000 years old.
Anyway, I'm no use to your actual question. As absurd as the discussion is at times, following the whole mess as it happens is a fairly big reason for my own opinions and doubts. It's like following the (un)happy marriage of cycling & doping through tabloid journalism. Nobody knows for sure what is going on and sometimes timing feels more important than the things being said. And there's no guarantees that we'll ever find out one way or the other.