The Tiger Woods/PED Thread

[iacas]

How do you people get along in life?

Cool it. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/80150/the-tiger-woods-ped-thread/60#post_1106938"]Seriously?  So you're gonna make the claims but not have enough guts to stand behind the claims, and instead just dance around playing word games?  That's childish. [/quote] At least have the balls to stand behind what you say. We all know what you believe and how you voted.

[mvmac]

People can get pretty big and strong without the use of PEDs.

Bradley Cooper is a good example in American Sniper. Put on 40 pounds six months eating 8,000 calories a day and lifting.

Makes me wonder about the PED use when he's not even close to the high range of muscle mass when compared to other athletes.

Some perspective with guys that are actually "huge".

Steelers guard David DeCastro

[billchao]

I didn't make a single claim in this thread that is not public knowledge. I have not made any accusations at all. If you think I have them quote them. Also quote my claim that Tiger "did" PED's. It doesn't exist. If ity does, you should be able to quote it. Go ahead, quote it.

There's the semantics retort. You never explicitly stated it, I'll give you that. You implied it, and that's close enough by my book. As others have stated, you have a position and you stated it. Now stand by it. You think Tiger Woods did PEDs. I think your reasoning is flawed. Let's discuss that, instead of playing games.

BTW, this is an example of flawed logic:

Tiger Woods is Anthony Galea's patient.

Some of Anthony Galea's patients have taken PEDs.

Therefore, Tiger Woods has taken PEDs.

What I said is that I believe something is possible, and you are having a little fit about that. This board is amusing. The question gets asked regarding what people believe, but then some get really offended to find out that not everyone else shares their point of view. How do you people get along in life? Must be nothing short of impossible?

Am I having a fit? Hardly. Quite the contrary, really, as these types of discussions usually end up educating me on different topics because I like to research my arguments before I make them. There are times when I fail to do that properly and those times are when I lose debates rather soundly. It's harder to counter a well-presented and well-researched argument.

I'm certainly not offended by an opposing point of view, and I'm certainly not offended by yours. I'm simply pointing out where your argument is weak. You're still entitled to your opinion.

[Phil McGleno]

I love how the people who have the lamest arguments are always the ones throwing out allegations about how silly or stupid everyone else is being.

[k-troop]

@9iron I'm a trial lawyer and I'll buy your logic. There is direct evidence that Galea provided PEDs to athletes, that Tiger received treatment from him, and that Tiger has physical signs that could be related to steroid use. From an evidentiary and logical perspective, your argument is sound and the judge will let the jury hear it. Problem is that the jury thinks it's weak and biased. If you want to win you need to find new facts or a new argument.

[saevel25]

@9iron I'm a trial lawyer and I'll buy your logic. There is direct evidence that Galea provided PEDs to athletes, that Tiger received treatment from him, and that Tiger has physical signs that could be related to steroid use. From an evidentiary and logical perspective, your argument is sound and the judge will let the jury hear it. Problem is that the jury thinks it's weak and biased. If you want to win you need to find new facts or a new argument.

Tiger has little to no physical signs of steroid use. It is highly more likely his body growth is natural and very typical for an athlet who trained as much as he did. That aspect of his argument holds no water. All he has is guilty by association.

[InTheRough]

Tiger has little to no physical signs of steroid use. It is highly more likely his body growth is natural and very typical for an athlet who trained as much as he did. That aspect of his argue eat holds no water. All he has is guilty by association.

Unfortunately, at this point, no matter what a top level athlete looks like or how hard they work there will always be speculation that they used some form of PEDs to get there.  Because these PEDs exist and there have been so many cases of superstar athletes using them there are always going to be people that are quick to assume that all top athletes must be using them.  Guilty by association is more than enough for them....sad

[turtleback]

To me, it is pretty simple.  If he DID do PEDs then he had the lamest Drs. in the world.  What do PEDs do?  They help you heal faster and they make you perform better.  But with Tiger what do we have?

1) No extra fast healing.

2) No measurable performance gain that could be attributed to any PED if we compare his 1997-2000 performance (OR his amateur performance, OR his youth performance)  to his later performance.  This is the internal evidence.  If he used PEDs we would observe XYZ.  We didn't.  That is easily enough to counter any silliness about two directs making an indirect and therefore he is guilty.

Here is the real problem, the blamecasters cannot point to the PE part of any PED use.  His distance increased as he got older but so did the distance of virtually everyone.  His distance did not increase disproportionately compared to everyone else.  Other than "he is really really good" they essentially have nothing in his performance or appearance that lends the slightest credence to their theories.

Look at all the known PED users.  In virtually all cases they were first suspected because of their out of the ordinary performance - a big increase in production, performing at an exceptional level for the age.  Where has that happened with Tiger?  What has he done in his career that was not foreseeable based on what came before before he could possibly be using anything?

Or, was he supposedly using PEDs when he became the first to win 3 US Juniors?  Or 3 US Amateurs?  Just how far back is this nefariousness supposed to go?  Was he using them when he was on the Mike Douglas show as almost a toddler?  So just WHEN in his career arc did this PED use and its PE occur?  Because it is sure hard to find any kind of jump in performance - other than year to year variations (drops in play during swing changes) his performance from 1997 to 2008 was remarkably level and stable.  No big jumps in performance at all.

The surprise about Tiger as his career progressed was that no one thought that as he moved from one level up to the next, that he could continue his dominance.  Remember the vets chuckling when he said he expected to win every time he teed it up?  There is absolutely nothing in his career arc, starting from when he was a teen to now, that would suggest any change in performance other than the fact that he was the same dominant player as a pro that he was at every other level he ever played at.

Get it haters?  He was ALWAYS good.  There were NO jumps in performance.  Starting from when he was a kid - what we saw was just the development of a kid who at every stage was recognized as a very special talent into an adult who brought that talent into fruition and production.  His performance arc was a very smooth path.  No big jumps.

[Deryck Griffith]

Tiger has physical signs that could be related to steroid use.

What are the physical signs?  I'm asking because I'm curious to know.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

Tiger has physical signs that could be related to steroid use.

What are the physical signs?  I'm asking because I'm curious to know.

Objection!  Council is speculating.

Sustained.

Strike Council's statement from the record.  The jury will disregard Council's statement.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

Tiger has physical signs that could be related to steroid use.

What are the physical signs?  I'm asking because I'm curious to know.

There are none.  This is just more bull.

[k-troop]

Tiger has little to no physical signs of steroid use. It is highly more likely his body growth is natural and very typical for an athlet who trained as much as he did. That aspect of his argument holds no water. All he has is guilty by association.

What are the physical signs?  I'm asking because I'm curious to know.

There are none.  This is just more bull.

Increased musculature, deterioration of bone/joint, and hair loss all could result from steroid use. As in I could find dozens of experts that would testify to exactly that. Which is why I said this:

@9iron I'm a trial lawyer and I'll buy your logic. There is direct evidence that Galea provided PEDs to athletes, that Tiger received treatment from him, and that Tiger has physical signs that could be related to steroid use.

From an evidentiary and logical perspective, your argument is sound and the judge will let the jury hear it.

Of course they could also be the natural result of aging 15 years and working the crap out of your body while playing/working through numerous injuries.  If I were cross-examining the above-mentioned expert, he would undoubtedly agree that it would be unusual for someone to train at a world-class level for 20 years and not show signs of physical deterioration.  I would also show him tons of pictures of fat bald 35-year olds and have him agree that their hair loss is likely not the result of steroid use.

Thus, this:

Problem is that the jury thinks it's weak and biased. If you want to win you need to find new facts or a new argument.

Reasonableness is a two-way street, guys.  I haven't said anywhere that anyone should conclude from Tiger's physical symptoms that he used steroids.  Y'all are cherry-picking one clause of a sentence that doesn't even conclude anything.

BTW y'all are the jury.  And you're making my argument.  It doesn't matter if 9iron's evidence and argument are logically relevant.  No one is convinced, and because he's pushing it well beyond the natural conclusion the jury is assuming he must be biased.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Tiger has little to no physical signs of steroid use. It is highly more likely his body growth is natural and very typical for an athlet who trained as much as he did. That aspect of his argument holds no water. All he has is guilty by association.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

What are the physical signs?  I'm asking because I'm curious to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

There are none.  This is just more bull.

Reasonableness is a two way street, guys. Increased musculature, deterioration of bone/joint, and hair loss all could result from steroid use. As in I could find dozens of experts that would testify to exactly that. Which is why I said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

@9iron I'm a trial lawyer and I'll buy your logic. There is direct evidence that Galea provided PEDs to athletes, that Tiger received treatment from him, and that Tiger has physical signs that could be related to steroid use.

From an evidentiary and logical perspective, your argument is sound and the judge will let the jury hear it.

Of course they could also be the natural result of aging 15 years and working the crap out of your body while playing/working through numerous injuries.  If I were cross-examining the above-mentioned expert, he would undoubtedly agree that it would be unusual for someone to train at a world-class level for 20 years and not show signs of physical deterioration.  I would also show him tons of pictures of fat bald 35-year olds and have him agree that their hair loss is likely not the result of steroid use.

Thus, this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

Problem is that the jury thinks it's weak and biased. If you want to win you need to find new facts or a new argument.

Cherry-picking and bandwagon gang-attacks are one option.  Seeing my post, and this argument, for what they are is another option.  I haven't said anywhere that anyone should conclude from Tiger's physical symptoms that he used steroids.

Fair enough.

[k-troop]

Fair enough.

BTW I edited my post to make it sound less snarky.  Snarkyness wasn't my intent.

[9iron]

@9iron I'm a trial lawyer and I'll buy your logic. There is direct evidence that Galea provided PEDs to athletes, that Tiger received treatment from him, and that Tiger has physical signs that could be related to steroid use.

From an evidentiary and logical perspective, your argument is sound and the judge will let the jury hear it.

Problem is that the jury thinks it's weak and biased. If you want to win you need to find new facts or a new argument.

You actually get my point. I never said he "did" PED's.I technically didn't even say I believed he did PED's. What I said is that I believed it was possible he did PED's, which I stand behind. Despite all the claims to the contrary, that is what I actually wrote. That it is possible. People can place what ever value on that they wish. I won't be offended one bit.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

@9iron I'm a trial lawyer and I'll buy your logic. There is direct evidence that Galea provided PEDs to athletes, that Tiger received treatment from him, and that Tiger has physical signs that could be related to steroid use.

From an evidentiary and logical perspective, your argument is sound and the judge will let the jury hear it.

Problem is that the jury thinks it's weak and biased. If you want to win you need to find new facts or a new argument.

You actually get my point. I never said he "did" P{ED's.I technically didn't even say I believed he did PED's. What I said is that I believed it was possible he did PED's, which I stand behind. . Despite all the claims to the contrary, that is what I actually wrote. That it is possible. People can place what ever value on that they wish. I won't be offended one bit.

The problem is that most if not all of your posts about Woods are negative.  Many posts elude to or insinuate wrong doing on his part.  You down play his accomplishments and bring invalid logic to your arguments against him.  Your intense dislike for him is obvious to even the most casual reader.  It is a compounding of all these items that make readers see more in your posts than may literally be there.

You've created this bias, not the other readers.

[Golfingdad]

You actually get my point. I never said he "did" PED's.I technically didn't even say I believed he did PED's. What I said is that I believed it was possible he did PED's, which I stand behind. Despite all the claims to the contrary, that is what I actually wrote. That it is possible. People can place what ever value on that they wish. I won't be offended one bit.

Again with the pedantic word games?  Oy.

[iacas]

Again with the pedantic word games?  Oy.

Seriously. Just own it @9iron .