The Tiger Woods/PED Thread

[jamo]

Also, I call BS on the whole "the truth will eventually come out" line.  You can say that until you die and think that you are correct.  You're asking those who disagree with you to prove a negative - how the heck is that even possible??

The other option is that you just accept the corollary - that if "the truth" doesn't come out, "the truth" already is out.

[Abu3baid]

Prove it.  I can state accusations about you as truths (I won't)  based on some of your questionable posts on this site but that doesn't mean they would be accurate. Unless you have visual evidence of him taking PED's or failed blood tests you're stating an opinion which is fine, but shouldn't be confused with fact or truth no matter how emphatically you state them.

I won't get into my "questionable" posts comment what ever that is suppose to mean. Please don't confuse my opinions with facts or truths.. I'm basing my opinions and making a case based on what I have read. It doesn't really matter if people hold those same opinions or not, everyone can make up their own mind on what they read.. Heck, I actually believed A Rod when he came out and said he didn't do and would never do PED.. Drew, you don't need to prove he didn't, I'm not asking you or any one else to.. And you can go back to previous posts of mine where I discussed that Haney would not know since he only attended a small fraction of the sessions.. If nothing ever comes out verifying that he did do PEDs then maybe I'll change my opinion, otherwise I consider what ever available cercumstantial evidence enough to push me over into the he did camp. It's not a big deal guys, it's not like I'm coming out and saying this out of no where, this has all been published and reported on a long time ago..

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gboroman

LOL. What's idiotic is believing he absolutely did not take banned substances just because there is no "court-worthy" evidence.  By the way, there are many things listed in this thread that could make one suspect.  I'm not going to re-list them.

Like what?

He's as large as a linebacker? No. He's more injury prone? Right, because nobody just gets injured playing golf. He knows a guy? So do thousands of others. He's recovered more quickly than he should have? Oh wait, no, he hasn't…

So what is it? Because I think 99% of the time the only evidence necessary to many is that they hate Tiger Woods.

"All they need is hate.... hate is all they need, hate is all they need" to paraphrase the Beatles (apologies to John Lennon).  Some people have just one purpose in life and that is to display their unreasoning hatred and jealousy for someone who has made it big in the public eye.  They have nothing but hatred to support their contention, but find some peculiar justification in our lack of proof to the contrary - it's a well known fact that it's nearly impossible to prove he didn't, because how can you show video or other evidence of someone NOT doing something?

[Ernest Jones]

The other option is that you just accept the corollary - that if "the truth" doesn't come out, "the truth" already is out.

I almost posted the same thing. I like the cut of your jib, Goon.

[saevel25]

Like what?

He's as large as a linebacker? No. He's more injury prone? Right, because nobody just gets injured playing golf. He knows a guy? So do thousands of others. He's recovered more quickly than he should have? Oh wait, no, he hasn't…

So what is it? Because I think 99% of the time the only evidence necessary to many is that they hate Tiger Woods.

This is probably the most proving evidence that he did NOT take steroids. Just the fact that steroids help prevent injuries, allowing players to play longer, especially later in their careers. Tiger Woods has broken down over the past 6 years. He wasn't like Armstrong that was able to win Tour De France at the age of 34, when clearly he was suppose to be out of his prime. He wasn't like Roger Clemens who was able to put together a Cy Young award winning season at the age of 37 and then again at the age of 41.

This is a matter of public opinion, I'm not trying nor do I care to prove anything in a court of law.. Sooner or later the truth will come out, but to say that for the people who believe he did PED don't have any ground to stand on is a little naive because of the history of PED and superstar athletes. And it isn't not like Tiger can stand on high moral ground and say that he he is above that, I'm sure he has no credibility in that sense, so I'm left with a whole bunch of cercumstantial evidence against his word.. Evidence wins..

Or the truth is already out and he has taken nothing. That phrase is used a lot by people who already made up their mind that someone is guilty, damn the facts.

There really isn't much circumstantial evidence against Tiger. Has he ever tested positive, nope. Does he exhibit any traits common to those who took steroids, nope. Did he get stronger, not really. He had a pretty steady decline from the top of the driving distance stats over the years. Has he maintained his health, or improved his longevity, nope. You got nothing except guilty by association. That isn't even good circumstantial evidence.

[Abu3baid]

This is probably the most proving evidence that he did NOT take steroids. Just the fact that steroids help prevent injuries, allowing players to play longer, especially later in their careers. Tiger Woods has broken down over the past 6 years. He wasn't like Armstrong that was able to win Tour De France at the age of 34, when clearly he was suppose to be out of his prime. He wasn't like Roger Clemens who was able to put together a Cy Young award winning season at the age of 37 and then again at the age of 41.  Or the truth is already out and he has taken nothing. That phrase is used a lot by people who already made up their mind that someone is guilty, damn the facts.  There really isn't much circumstantial evidence against Tiger. Has he ever tested positive, nope. Does he exhibit any traits common to those who took steroids, nope. Did he get stronger, not really. He had a pretty steady decline from the top of the driving distance stats over the years. Has he maintained his health, or improved his longevity, nope. You got nothing except guilty by association. That isn't even good circumstantial evidence.

Guilty by association would be like you knowing someone or hanging out with him, and it would be more like me saying he knew and was friends with A Rod and thus he must have used PEDs.. This is different.. This is he was getting treatments from basically the number 1 PED provider to sports athletes.. You certainly can say that it is weak evidence and that's your right.. As far as he didn't heal quicker than usual, I can always make the argument than he would have never come back and competed at all if he didn't use those PEDs.. I could also say look at his last couple attempts at a comeback this year? If he had been using PED like before his glutes would have fired like they were suppose to.. Anyway, everything I have to say has been said previously, and I wonder who Williams is talking about when he says that this stuff goes on as I haven't yet read about who does it on the PGA?

[iacas]

Eyad, just say you hate Tiger and be done with it. Guilty by association? And YOU are the one using that? It's not even circumstantial evidence. It's weaker than that. The simple facts are ALL pointing to no except the "he knew a guy" one. You have one shred pointing to yes and several bits saying no. You don't like Tiger and are using the slimmest of shreds to take that for your opinion. Confirmation bias. Tiger hate. Plain and simple. And that's fine. But stop lying to yourself and us. Admit it and move on. So much simpler.

[ghalfaire]

I certainly don't know one way or another for sure.  But I don't believe Tiger would do that and risk his career and legacy.  I suppose you could make a case for the other option because of his "growth" over the years, but somehow I don't think he used PEDs.

[billchao]

Guilty by association would be like you knowing someone or hanging out with him, and it would be more like me saying he knew and was friends with A Rod and thus he must have used PEDs..

This is different.. This is he was getting treatments from basically the number 1 PED provider to sports athletes.. You certainly can say that it is weak evidence and that's your right..

I've mentioned this before, but not every athlete who was a client of Galea's has been implicated in PED use. Galea was well known as a specialist and one of the best in the world at what he did before he became known as a PED dispenser. Turns out, you can go to a dirty Dr. and get clean treatments.

Oh, it was a response to something you wrote, in fact:

Galea has other clients, some of whom are high profile athletes, who have never been implicated in PED use. Dara Torres for example, who was subject to IOC Anti-Doping Rules during her competitive career. You can't assume everyone who sees Galea for treatment got PEDs.

If you're going to cite the fact that Galea dispensed PEDs to some high level athletes as evidence against Tiger, I'm going to cite the fact that he didn't dispense PEDs to others as evidence in defense of Tiger.

[k-troop]

I will say that Stevie's denial has no weight for me. He claimed to know nothing about eighty-something mistresses as well. Either he's lying or grossly uninformed about Tiger's private life.

[Abu3baid]

Eyad, just say you hate Tiger and be done with it. Guilty by association? And YOU are the one using that? It's not even circumstantial evidence. It's weaker than that. The simple facts are ALL pointing to no except the "he knew a guy" one. You don't like Tiger and are using the slimmest of shreds to take that for your opinion. Confirmation bias. Tiger hate. Plain and simple. And that's fine. But stop lying to yourself and us. Admit it and move on. So much simpler.

C'mon.. That's not like you Erik.. If that is the case then take the Tiger loving glasses off and look at things objectively.. Labeling me for holding an opinion one way or another doesn't really further this conversation much IMO. Plus, your wrong I don't hate him, nor have any feelings one way or another towards him...

[billchao]

Plus, your wrong I don't hate him, nor have any feelings one way or another towards him...

I'm fairly certain you've demonstrated your contempt for him on more than one occasion due to his adultery...

[Golfingdad]

If nothing ever comes out verifying that he did do PEDs then maybe I'll change my opinion, otherwise I consider what ever available cercumstantial evidence enough to push me over into the he did camp.

LOL ... Again with putting the burden of proof on the negative?? For this statement to even make sense, you would have to establish some arbitrary statute of limitations on what "ever" means to you.  Is it 5 more years of no evidence?  10 years?  50 years?  See what I mean??  This statement makes absolutely no sense unless you assign a time frame.  And then once you do, it makes even LESS sense.

"If something doesn't come out in the next 74 days, then I'll admit that Tiger didn't use PEDs."  That's even more absurd.

There's no evidence that points towards him being a doper and plenty pointing the other way ... so the logical conclusion for anybody who's not biased against him for whatever reason is that he hasn't taken PEDs.

The fact that we're even having the conversation is stupid.

[Abu3baid]

I'm fairly certain you've demonstrated your contempt for him on more than one occasion due to his adultery...

I can hate what someone does without hating that person.. I hate many actions, doesn't mean I hate the people who do them.. We all make mistakes. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/80150/the-tiger-woods-ped-thread/280_10#post_1150026"]LOL ... Again with putting the burden of proof on the negative??  :doh:   For this statement to even make sense, you would have to establish some arbitrary statute of limitations on what "ever" means to you.  Is it 5 more years of no evidence?  10 years?  50 years?  See what I mean??  This statement makes absolutely no sense unless you assign a time frame.  And then once you do, it makes even LESS sense. "If something doesn't come out in the next 74 days, then I'll admit that Tiger didn't use PEDs."  That's even more absurd. There's no evidence that points towards him being a doper and plenty pointing the other way ... so the logical conclusion for anybody who's not biased against him for whatever reason is that he hasn't taken PEDs. The fact that we're even having the conversation is stupid. [/quote] Well, someone made a poll and opened up the forum for discussion.. and it wasn't me. The evidence out there just doesn't convince you, it has convinced me.. Different people have different thresholds on what sways their opinion one way or another.. It has nothing to do with bias or other wise.. I believe if there is more evidence or if someone knows something it will come out probably after he retires and is no longer relevant.. How about 5 years after he retires? Then I will come back here and say hey you know what nothing came up and I was wrong back then.. I'll even come back to this thread and start the timer right after he announces retirement. Deal?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by billchao

I'm fairly certain you've demonstrated your contempt for him on more than one occasion due to his adultery...

I can hate what someone does without hating that person.. I hate many actions, doesn't mean I hate the people who do them.. We all make mistakes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

LOL ... Again with putting the burden of proof on the negative??     For this statement to even make sense, you would have to establish some arbitrary statute of limitations on what "ever" means to you.  Is it 5 more years of no evidence?  10 years?  50 years?  See what I mean??  This statement makes absolutely no sense unless you assign a time frame.  And then once you do, it makes even LESS sense.

"If something doesn't come out in the next 74 days, then I'll admit that Tiger didn't use PEDs."  That's even more absurd.

There's no evidence that points towards him being a doper and plenty pointing the other way ... so the logical conclusion for anybody who's not biased against him for whatever reason is that he hasn't taken PEDs.

The fact that we're even having the conversation is stupid.

Well, someone made a poll and opened up the forum for discussion.. and it wasn't me.

The evidence out there just doesn't convince you, it has convinced me.. Different people have different thresholds on what sways their opinion one way or another.. It has nothing to do with bias or other wise..

I believe if there is more evidence or if someone knows something it will come out probably after he retires and is no longer relevant.. How about 5 years after he retires? Then I will come back here and say hey you know what nothing came up and I was wrong back then.. I'll even come back to this thread and start the timer right after he announces retirement. Deal?

The point is that there is NO evidence.  There is innuendo and supposition.  This is what you base your opinion on, and it's purely opinion, based purely on you personal bias, and relatively uninformed since there is nothing that you've said that could possibly lead to an indictment.  Your view is based on nothing but personal prejudice.

[Golfingdad]

The point is that there is NO evidence.  There is innuendo and supposition.  This is what you base your opinion on, and it's purely opinion, based purely on you personal bias, and relatively uninformed since there is nothing that you've said that could possibly lead to an indictment.  Your view is based on nothing but personal prejudice.

Bingo.

[David in FL]

I'm fairly certain you've demonstrated your contempt for him on more than one occasion due to his adultery...

That was me! :-D Still don't see any evidence of PED's though.

[Abu3baid]

The point is that there is NO evidence.  There is innuendo and supposition.  This is what you base your opinion on, and it's purely opinion, based purely on you personal bias, and relatively uninformed since there is nothing that you've said that could possibly lead to an indictment.  Your view is based on nothing but personal prejudice.

Personal prejudice? Interesting... I don't want to get off topic so I'm not going to address how silly this is.. If that's all your going to answer with then I think your position is purely based on your love for him and your choice to ignore all that was mentioned.. See how silly that sounds? My opinion is based on the fact that he had personal treatments with a well known PED dispenser.. Where is the prejudice there?? I didn't tell Tiger to go to the doctor, and spare me the there aren't any other doctors theory.. It's not like I the first one to bring about these questions about Tiger.. It isn't like it was public information that he was seeing this doctor either، it was being kept a secret IIRC. Not anymore Obviously we are all going around in circles and everyone is taking their turn accusing me of hating tiger, personal prejudice and making questionable posts in the past. So, I'll just bow out since the discussion is centered more towards me than the issue.