Off Topic Thread 3.0

wp_rathead

Swan Curry wrote: »

The idea that Sanders supporters are going to vote for Trump is a perfect example of how the media has been used by Dem establishment against him. If you look at polls, 92% of strong Sanders voters say they're going to vote for Hillary in the election. In 2008, the percentage of Clinton voters who went on to vote for Obama was actually lower than that.

Have any of you read some of the emails that Wikileaks put out? The level of delusion among mainstream Democrats is unbelievable. They think that they can just appeal for the status quo and that there's enough of a centre for Clinton to breeze through. I really hope they're right but the US is far more polarised than they think and Clinton as a politician is a perfect example of the reason so many desperate voters are resorting to Trump.

I'm aware of that , I was referring to the section of Bernie supporters at the DNC last night
fact they were heckling Lewis spoke volumes of their ignorance - like children having a tantrum as they didn't get their favourite toy
Really pissed me off to a degree I didnt think I cared ha

Synode

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Nothing at all, missed a test and took it later that day, passed and got an 8 month ban for missing the rest.
That's why I'd be fairly confident that there's nothing to any rumour about widespread drug usage in the EPL

It was 24 hours later when he took it which would have been time for stuff to clear from his system

ClanofLams

stephen_n wrote: »

I'm not sure Clinton would be a better option than Trump. That's a very sad state of affairs. I think in a global sense Clinton could be far more dangerous. Though it's very hard to tell what Trump will do in terms of foreign policy. Behind his rhetoric, there doesn't seem to be much consistency in what his policies may look like. Clinton's track record is very clear and scarey.

I would agree that Clinton has been too hawkish in the past and you're hoping those failures have been learned from.

She is an infinitely better option than Trump though in any case. A racist US president is not what the world needs and that's just picking one of his disqualifing flaws. Nor is he merely playing to his base on race, he has discriminated against blacks all his life.

Felix Jones is God

Synode wrote: »

It was 24 hours later when he took it which would have been time for stuff to clear from his system

Sorry, he tried to take the test later that day and couldn't, he got a ban for missing the test....at no point was it even suggested he had taken anything illicit.... nothing to suggest that there is any form of PED culture in the EPL whatsoever

pickarooney

In what ways is Clinton different to a Republican?

Clearlier

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

I have seen absolutely no evidence of doing in the EPL, in fact quite the opposite.
I think broad generalizations seen to be the norm when trying to taint a sport

I don't recall saying anything about the EPL? If anyone mentioned it on this thread in the last few days I completely missed it. If anything, the relatively poor performance in Europe of English teams could be an argument for the lack of doping within the EPL considering their relative financial might.

As for generalisations, that works both ways. Case in point being the next quote I have from you below.

Synode wrote: »

Rio Ferdinand a few years ago? Although that could have been weed or coke knowing him

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Nothing at all, missed a test and took it later that day, passed and got an 8 month ban for missing the rest.
That's why I'd be fairly confident that there's nothing to any rumour about widespread drug usage in the EPL

Synode wrote: »

It was 24 hours later when he took it which would have been time for stuff to clear from his system

It wouldn't have been weed as that takes weeks to clear from your system but many performance enhancing drugs could have cleared his system within the relevant time frame.

The 8 month ban was a joke and made a complete mockery of the anti-doping system. It tells a tale which worried and worries me about football's attitude to doping. Far too many people think that because a lot of skill is involved in football that doping doesn't really make a difference.

Synode

Weed only takes weeks if you're a heavy user. A couple of drags off a joint and you'd be clear in a few days.

I think he fully deserved the 8 month ban. You do the test when your told to and expect heavy punishment if you don't.

ClanofLams

pickarooney wrote: »

In what ways is Clinton different to a Republican?

Healthcare
Gun control (although not sure how much difference this makes, both sides seem petrified of the NRA) but I guess even light regulation is better than none
Immigration - Pro Reform Republicans anti reform

I would think there is substantive differences in almost every policy area but those three came to mind quickest.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ Obama's 8 years in charge are proof that it's pretty much irrelevant what the candidates stance on gun control is. Nothing will change. You'd need to have both houses filled 100% with Democrats and even then they probably still wouldn't do anything.

Zzippy

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Sorry, he tried to take the test later that day and couldn't, he got a ban for missing the test....at no point was it even suggested he had taken anything illicit.... nothing to suggest that there is any form of PED culture in the EPL whatsoever

Premier League stars 'given banned drugs' by British doctor



Yes. Nothing at all. Never mind the obscene salaries on offer to players who make it - no incentive at all to cheat...

Felix Jones is God

Clearlier wrote: »

I don't recall saying anything about the EPL? If anyone mentioned it on this thread in the last few days I completely missed it. If anything, the relatively poor performance in Europe of English teams could be an argument for the lack of doping within the EPL considering their relative financial might.

As for generalisations, that works both ways. Case in point being the next quote I have from you below.







It wouldn't have been weed as that takes weeks to clear from your system but many performance enhancing drugs could have cleared his system within the relevant time frame.

The 8 month ban was a joke and made a complete mockery of the anti-doping system. It tells a tale which worried and worries me about football's attitude to doping. Far too many people think that because a lot of skill is involved in football that doping doesn't really make a difference.

Totally irrelevant in the case of Ferdinand as he was charged with missing a test and hair tests proved he hadn't taken any illicit substances.
Not sure what point you're trying to make really

Felix Jones is God

Zzippy wrote: »

Premier League stars 'given banned drugs' by British doctor



Yes. Nothing at all. Never mind the obscene salaries on offer to players who make it - no incentive at all to cheat...

We get it, you don't like footie...now when you've actual proof come back to me

bilston

thomond2006 wrote: »

Am I correct to think Sanders as President would try to close the tax loopholes that allow many multinationals to domicile in Ireland?

The more and more I see of this Presidental Campaign, the more I think Trump might win.

I wouldn't want Trump as my President but what would his foreign policy look like (which is more relevant for those of us not living in the States)?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

bilston wrote: »

I wouldn't want Trump as my President but what would his foreign policy look like (which is more relevant for those of us not living in the States)?

I don't think he has any policy. He has some buzz words that he keep repeating. He was saying something the other day about taking US troops out of all the countries they're protecting for free. They'll only get involved in placed that it's financially beneficial for them to, is what it sounded like.

b.gud

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't think he has any policy. He has some buzz words that he keep repeating. He was saying something the other day about taking US troops out of all the countries they're protecting for free. They'll only get involved in placed that it's financially beneficial for them to, is what it sounded like.

One day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the presidential race just a few weeks before. As a candidate, Kasich declared in March that Trump was “really not prepared to be president of the United States,” and the following month he took the highly unusual step of coordinating with his rival Senator Ted Cruz in an effort to deny Trump the nomination. But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html?_r=0

Clearlier

Synode wrote: »

Rio Ferdinand a few years ago? Although that could have been weed or coke knowing him

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Nothing at all, missed a test and took it later that day, passed and got an 8 month ban for missing the rest.
That's why I'd be fairly confident that there's nothing to any rumour about widespread drug usage in the EPL

Synode wrote: »

It was 24 hours later when he took it which would have been time for stuff to clear from his system

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Totally irrelevant in the case of Ferdinand as he was charged with missing a test and hair tests proved he hadn't taken any illicit substances.
Not sure what point you're trying to make really

A hair test did not prove did he hadn't taken any illicit substances. It proved that when they conducted the test that they couldn't find any evidence of his having taken illicit substances.

A missed test like his is considered to be a failed test (3 strikes and you're out only applies if you're not where you said you would be) because it was essentially a refusal.

I get that you don't understand what I'm saying as you're replying tangentially to my posts but if you don't understand what I'm saying why do you keep attempting to refute them? Why not instead ask for clarification about the bits that you don't understand?

bilston

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

I wouldn't want Trump as my President but what would his foreign policy look like (which is more relevant for those of us not living in the States)?

I don't think he has any policy. He has some buzz words that he keep repeating. He was saying something the other day about taking US troops out of all the countries they're protecting for free. They'll only get involved in placed that it's financially beneficial for them to, is what it sounded like.

Haven't their been hints that he'd want to buddy up to Putin a bit more? Given he has already suggested an end to NATO's article 5 that could be very bad news for Eastern Europe (all of Europe really), or alternatively it could be great news as it might lead to a reduction in tensions.

Felix Jones is God

Clearlier wrote: »

A hair test did not prove did he hadn't taken any illicit substances. It proved that when they conducted the test that they couldn't find any evidence of his having taken illicit substances.

A missed test like his is considered to be a failed test (3 strikes and you're out only applies if you're not where you said you would be) because it was essentially a refusal.

I get that you don't understand what I'm saying as you're replying tangentially to my posts but if you don't understand what I'm saying why do you keep attempting to refute them? Why not instead ask for clarification about the bits that you don't understand?

Because you aren't saying anything...the nub of the matter is that Ferdinand was never accused of doping and no suggestion that he ever was....so I'm not seeing a link between a player getting suspended for missing a test and so called widespread doping in football

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

bilston wrote: »

Haven't their been hints that he'd want to buddy up to Putin a bit more? Given he has already suggested an end to NATO's article 5 that could be very bad news for Eastern Europe (all of Europe really), or alternatively it could be great news as it might lead to a reduction in tensions.

Apparently the FBI believe the Russians were behind the leaked emails too. So you never know.

Dave_The_Sheep

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Apparently the FBI believe the Russians were behind the leaked emails too. So you never know.

That's the line that HRC's campaign and supporters are parrotting at the moment. "The Russians want Trump to win", instead of admitting that the DNC rigged the game from the start and dealing with that.

It's a sad state of affairs when there's a candidate going up against Donald Trump (an absolutely bat**** crazy nutjob racist with no experience qualifications for the role) and there's even a question about who to vote for. Some recent national polls have him leading (though the weekend ones will be the interesting ones).

That's how badly Hillary's campaign has been. She's a despicable candidate whose suitability is genuinely questionable given some of the crap that's gone on, who lies constantly, doesn't even bother hiding the corruption and acts like she's untouchable. Sadly, she seems to be. Imagine her up against a half decent Republican? I'd vote third party if I was from the US, though would prefer Sanders obviously.

And the ****show hasn't even started yet. If it wasn't actually really depressing, it'd be hilarious.

Clearlier

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Because you aren't saying anything...the nub of the matter is that Ferdinand was never accused of doping and no suggestion that he ever was....so I'm not seeing a link between a player getting suspended for missing a test and so called widespread doping in football

I dunno. You say that you don't understand what I'm saying. I agree and suggest that you tell me what you don't understand. You respond by saying that I'm not saying anything and then proceed to say that I'm saying something that I haven't said.

I'm not convinced that this will help but it's worth one more try and please if you are going to respond don't put words in my mouth that I haven't said. We all make mistakes on message boards but I'm fairly careful about what I say when it comes to doping in sport.

I haven't said that Ferdinand doped. I have objected to the suggestion that he didn't dope because he passed a test shortly after he didn't take a test that he was supposed to. There are all kinds of difficulties with that assertion. Timing is critical in the anti-doping world and a lot of the system is built around ensuring that athletes have no prior knowledge of a test. I've also pointed out that the test that he didn't take was treated as a failed test and that the punishment he received for it was a joke.

I also didn't suggest that because Ferdinand didn't take a test when he was supposed to that doping was therefore widespread within football. I did object to the suggestion that systematic doping could not occur within football seeing as it has actually already happened.

stephen_n

molloyjh wrote: »

I'd rather know what I'm getting from one dodgy fecker than not have a clue from another. Especially when that other dodgy fecker has no experience and speaks in bat s**t crazy all the time. They are bad options all right, but one would appear quite categorically worse than the other at this stage.

The positive to take from it all is the level of support Sanders got. The huge numbers of the electorate that wanted him as the next President means they're not all completely nuts.

The problem being the power of the media to influence public opinion is obvious. Sanders would have had a decent chance, but the main stream media did their best to make it look like Clinton was the only electable option.

Bazzo

bilston wrote: »

Haven't their been hints that he'd want to buddy up to Putin a bit more? Given he has already suggested an end to NATO's article 5 that could be very bad news for Eastern Europe (all of Europe really), or alternatively it could be great news as it might lead to a reduction in tensions.

He's said he admires Putin but he's also said he that the US "have gotta shoot at" Russian planes who were performing barrell rolls over their US counterparts in a dick measuring contest over international waters. Take your pick on which is worse there.

Felix Jones is God

TL:DR

Zzippy

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

We get it, you don't like footie...now when you've actual proof come back to me

Where you got that from I don't know, I actually like football - not as much as rugby obviously, but still... all I was saying was it's naive in the extreme to think it's not going on. The lack of positive tests is not evidence for no PEDs when the drug testing regime is totally inadequate.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/feb/15/drug-testing-football

Fahey argued that Premier League players are tested too infrequently for EPO, the prime performance-enhancing drug injected into the bloodstream, favoured by Armstrong and other cyclists and athletes. Fahey compared the regime operating in the Premier League unfavourably to the frequent testing now undergone by Major League Baseball players, saying pointedly: "Team sports players can go their entire career without being tested once."

Last season, the FA's figures show that 1,278 tests were carried out at all levels of professional football

Let's look at that. There are 4 professional leagues under FA jurisdiction, with 92 teams. Given an average squad size of 35, that's 3,220 professional football players, which works out at an average of just under one test per 2.5 players per year. In other words, less than a 40% chance of being tested in any one year, or one test every 2.5 years. No wonder there are feck all positive tests...

Felix Jones is God

Zzippy wrote: »

Where you got that from I don't know, I actually like football - not as much as rugby obviously, but still... all I was saying was it's naive in the extreme to think it's not going on. The lack of positive tests is not evidence for no PEDs when the drug testing regime is totally inadequate.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/feb/15/drug-testing-football





Let's look at that. There are 4 professional leagues under FA jurisdiction, with 92 teams. Given an average squad size of 35, that's 3,220 professional football players, which works out at an average of just under one test per 2.5 players per year. In other words, less than a 40% chance of being tested in any one year, or one test every 2.5 years. No wonder there are feck all positive tests...

When the quote is from an unsubstantiated disgraced doc and you mention obscene amounts of money .....and yet ....nobody has shown systemic drug abuse in football, just a load of rubbish thrown about, nothing more

Zzippy

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

When the quote is from an unsubstantiated disgraced doc and you mention obscene amounts of money .....and yet ....nobody has shown systemic drug abuse in football, just a load of rubbish thrown about, nothing more

The quote I posted was from the head of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

You would think with all the obscene amounts of money that the FA could afford to run a proper testing regime. But I suppose they have their reasons not to... hard to show any kind of doping, never mind systematic, with a paltry one test every 2.5 years per player. It's like saying we don't have a drink-driving problem but not having any checkpoints to check...

irishbucsfan

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

When the quote is from an unsubstantiated disgraced doc and you mention obscene amounts of money .....and yet ....nobody has shown systemic drug abuse in football, just a load of rubbish thrown about, nothing more

A team has been stripped of a Champions League trophy because of systematic drug abuse. You can argue it's not widespread but to argue it doesn't exist is mad

Edit: Actually the same 96 team weren't stripped of the title in the end, my mistake. Probably shows how serious the issue is taken.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

What will Bill Clinton be called if Hillary wins? Will he have a First Lady style title or will they just call him Former President Bill Clinton?

CatFromHue

He's going to be the First Man Playaaaaa