The Tiger Woods PED/Steroids Speculation has to end

[Tim Meitner]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1402623843' post='9484543']
[quote name='Tim Meitner' timestamp='1402622961' post='9484453']
[quote name='golfs453' timestamp='1402615254' post='9483497']
Not to mention people actually saying Woods did not use PEDs.
[/quote]


But according to "golfer", just as someone's say-so isn't proof of guilt, the same should apply with those that are adamant about innocence. Unless this is only a one-way street we're talking about here.

I happen to believe that he's been clean.

But, considering he has been found to have committed numerous acts of adultery, it wouldn't be all that much of a reach for some to call his moral compass into question, and as a result suspect that he could have cheated in other ways.
[/quote]

Why do you think he is clean?

Hard question considering the fact that his character is questionable in other areas.

Compartmentalization.

One can, per the records of many high performers across sports, politics, business, act on the highest levels of ethics in their profession/passion. Yet act in an improper way in other areas of their life.
[/quote]

I believe he's clean for one reason only: that I believe he wouldn't risk tarnishing his legacy. Nothing more, nothing less.

[golfer]

[quote name='Tim Meitner' timestamp='1402627771' post='9484893']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1402623843' post='9484543']
[quote name='Tim Meitner' timestamp='1402622961' post='9484453']
[quote name='golfs453' timestamp='1402615254' post='9483497']
Not to mention people actually saying Woods did not use PEDs.
[/quote]


But according to "golfer", just as someone's say-so isn't proof of guilt, the same should apply with those that are adamant about innocence. Unless this is only a one-way street we're talking about here.

I happen to believe that he's been clean.

But, considering he has been found to have committed numerous acts of adultery, it wouldn't be all that much of a reach for some to call his moral compass into question, and as a result suspect that he could have cheated in other ways.
[/quote]

Why do you think he is clean?

Hard question considering the fact that his character is questionable in other areas.

Compartmentalization.

One can, per the records of many high performers across sports, politics, business, act on the highest levels of ethics in their profession/passion. Yet act in an improper way in other areas of their life.
[/quote]

I believe he's clean for one reason only: that I believe he wouldn't risk tarnishing his legacy. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]



Wow! I'll alert the media.

[golfer]

[quote name='Tim Meitner' timestamp='1402627689' post='9484889']
[quote name='golfs453' timestamp='1402625241' post='9484685']
[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1402624233' post='9484591']
[quote name='golfs453' timestamp='1402624039' post='9484577']






It's a difference between someone's speculation versus the people directly related to the story saying Tiger did not take PEDs.
[/quote]


Who exactly are those people?

And again for the record, I don't believe he actually did partake...
[/quote]


[url="http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/6760484/tiger-woods-use-peds-patient-says-lawyer-anthony-galea-assistant"]http://espn.go.com/g...galea-assistant[/url]

[url="http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/sports/os-mike-bianchi-hank-haney-0403-20120402_1_galea-hank-haney-tiger-woods"]http://articles.orla...ney-tiger-woods[/url]
[/quote]

So the [b]lawyer[/b] for the [b]assistant[/b] for the [b]doctor[/b] who treated [b]Woods [/b]sounds ironclad to you? Or is it a case of them telling us what we want to hear?

Haney said he [b]believes[/b] Tiger didn't take PED's.....hardly a "he did NOT" take PED's.
[/quote]


Let's see, hogans71 asked golfs453 for names, golfs453 provides the information, and you don't like the answer so you question the credibility of the sources but we should accept your opinion as credible.

"C'mon man"!

[golfs453]

[quote name='Tim Meitner' timestamp='1402627771' post='9484893']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1402623843' post='9484543']
[quote name='Tim Meitner' timestamp='1402622961' post='9484453']
[quote name='golfs453' timestamp='1402615254' post='9483497']
Not to mention people actually saying Woods did not use PEDs.
[/quote]


But according to "golfer", just as someone's say-so isn't proof of guilt, the same should apply with those that are adamant about innocence. Unless this is only a one-way street we're talking about here.

I happen to believe that he's been clean.

But, considering he has been found to have committed numerous acts of adultery, it wouldn't be all that much of a reach for some to call his moral compass into question, and as a result suspect that he could have cheated in other ways.
[/quote]

Why do you think he is clean?

Hard question considering the fact that his character is questionable in other areas.

Compartmentalization.

One can, per the records of many high performers across sports, politics, business, act on the highest levels of ethics in their profession/passion. Yet act in an improper way in other areas of their life.
[/quote]

I believe he's clean for one reason only: that I believe he wouldn't risk tarnishing his legacy. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]

The first article is what I was actually referencing. I added the Haney article because he is one of the people who where around Tiger, and you're right he says he doesn't believe Woods did PEDs. This would be a different conversation if someone who was around Tiger said they believe he did PEDs, but that hasn't happened.At the end of the day, some people will believe he did no matter what, and it's nothing that would change their opinion.

[Ajlepisto]

Actually the injuries make sense.

Left achilles, left knee, then back and eventually neck pain. Throw out the elbow, that's also not uncommon for golfers.

As someone who has had leg injuries, I can tell you that they can easily impact having more down the chain of your body. The achilles is forced to work harder when something like the ACL has damage, for example. I had knee pain and limped, because I fractured the entire top of my hip in an accident...but never felt any hip pain.

Your body makes a ton of compensations to help out when parts of your body are injured or weak, so I don't buy the notion that those injuries aren't related. It makes a lot of sense for them to be.

If his knee goes, it would be completely plausible it would impact his left foot and eventually his back. I have left ankle issues from my injury to this day.

[TorreyPines]

"Maybe this will help you understand the question pertaining to "evidence":

[b]ev·i·dence[/b]

[color=#000000][size=3][i]noun[/i][/size][/color][color=#000000][size=3][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][/size][/color][color=#717274][size=3]\ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=3]: [b]something which shows that something else exists or [color=#ff0000]is true[/color][/b]
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3][b]spec·u·la·tion[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\ˌspe-kyə-ˈlā-shən\[/size][/color]

: [b]ideas or guesses about something that is not known[/b]

[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3][b]cir·cum·stan·tial[/b]

[i]adjective[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\ˌsər-k[sup]ə[/sup]m-ˈstan(t)-shəl\[/size][/color]

[i]law[/i] : [b]based on information which suggests that something is true but does not prove that it is true[/b]
: [u]providing or including the details of a particular situation or event[/u]

[b] [/b][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3][b]con·jec·ture[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\kən-ˈjek-chər\[/size][/color]

: [b]an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence[/b]


[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3][b]li·bel[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\ˈlī-bəl\[/size][/color]

: [b]the act of publishing a false statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone[/b][/size][/color]"



This has already been addressed in post #287 of this thread, but I'll elaborate in order to help you understand better. If there was conclusive [i]evidence[/i] that Tiger had dabbled with PEDs in the past, then this thread would not exist - he would have already been found guilty and faced the appropriate sanctions. Given that this hasn't transpired, why do you think there are so many people out there who believe that Woods juiced? These accusations have not just emerged out of thin air, they have come about because there are too many [i]signs[/i] that have emerged between his years of most intense mass gain and current bodily break down post-Galea to suggest pure coincidence as a rational explanation for each stage of his career. I'm not going to outline these signs again, as I've already done so to a satisfactory standard.

I have to ask, despite it being a cliche to bring this man into an argument about PEDs, but did you honestly believe Lance Armstrong was clean until he actually sat down with Oprah and admitted it himself? That's not a dig by the way, I'm genuinely curious.

Another thing that never seems to be mentioned is that Tiger's physical stature is [i]nowhere near[/i] what it was around 2006-2008/2009. His body has reduced in size year-on-year post-Galea, with the exception of this one after he appeared to have made some gains in the off-season, but remains far from the adonis he once was. Before anyone tries to claim that this is somehow subjective or that valuation of his body size all depends on whether he is wearing a tight or loose fit shirt, [i]Tiger himself[/i] even said during a presser earlier this year that he is "nowhere near as big" as he once was.

[OBbogey5]

[quote name='Tim Meitner' timestamp='1402627771' post='9484893']

I believe he's clean for one reason only: that I believe he wouldn't risk tarnishing his legacy. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but you must be joking. He risked everything with his indiscretions.

[nochct1]

[quote name='TorreyPines' timestamp='1402660944' post='9486283']
"Maybe this will help you understand the question pertaining to "evidence":

[b]ev·i·dence[/b]

[color=#000000][size=3][i]noun[/i][/size][/color][color=#000000][size=3][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][/size][/color][color=#717274][size=3]\ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=3]: [b]something which shows that something else exists or [color=#ff0000]is true[/color][/b]
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something[/size][/color]


[color=#000000][size=3][b]spec·u·la·tion[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\ˌspe-kyə-ˈlā-shən\[/size][/color]

: [b]ideas or guesses about something that is not known[/b][/size][/color]


[color=#000000][size=3][b]cir·cum·stan·tial[/b]

[i]adjective[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\ˌsər-k[sup]ə[/sup]m-ˈstan(t)-shəl\[/size][/color]

[i]law[/i] : [b]based on information which suggests that something is true but does not prove that it is true[/b]
: [u]providing or including the details of a particular situation or event[/u]

[b] [/b][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3][b]con·jec·ture[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\kən-ˈjek-chər\[/size][/color]

: [b]an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence[/b][/size][/color]



[color=#000000][size=3][b]li·bel[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\ˈlī-bəl\[/size][/color]

: [b]the act of publishing a false statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone[/b][/size][/color]"



This has already been addressed in post #287 of this thread, but I'll elaborate in order to help you understand better. If there was conclusive [i]evidence[/i] that Tiger had dabbled with PEDs in the past, then this thread would not exist - he would have already been found guilty and faced the appropriate sanctions. Given that this hasn't transpired, why do you think there are so many people out there who believe that Woods juiced? These accusations have not just emerged out of thin air, they have come about because there are too many [i]signs[/i] that have emerged between his years of most intense mass gain and current bodily break down post-Galea to suggest pure coincidence as a rational explanation for each stage of his career. I'm not going to outline these signs again, as I've already done so to a satisfactory standard.

I have to ask, despite it being a cliche to bring this man into an argument about PEDs, but did you honestly believe Lance Armstrong was clean until he actually sat down with Oprah and admitted it himself? That's not a dig by the way, I'm genuinely curious.

Another thing that never seems to be mentioned is that Tiger's physical stature is [i]nowhere near[/i] what it was around 2006-2008/2009. His body has reduced in size year-on-year post-Galea, with the exception of this one after he appeared to have made some gains in the off-season, but remains far from the adonis he once was. Before anyone tries to claim that this is somehow subjective or that valuation of his body size all depends on whether he is wearing a tight or loose fit shirt, [i]Tiger himself[/i] even said during a presser earlier this year that he is "nowhere near as big" as he once was.
[/quote]

I assume its because you didn't start watching golf until the early 2000s, but Tiger didn't just come out of nowhere to dominate the PGA Tour. He wasn't battling injuries in the late 90s and then had some big recovery before dominating golf. And he wasn't just an above average tour pro who suddenly came back one season bigger than everyone else before winning a bunch of majors.

Tiger was the best golfer at every level and continued that success on the PGA Tour. His success is pretty similar to other great (as in once in a lifetime athletes). He was the best junior golfer, the best amateur golfer and then became the best pro golfer, peaking in his late 20s and early 30s before injuries set him back. It was well known that he spent more time on the range than anyone besides Vijay, and that goes back to his amateur days.

His body starting to break down and his success slowing down seems to be pretty normal for a guy pushing 40. In fact his career arc doesn't seem abnormal at all. For your "proof" you point to his success in the 2000s and assume that he must have used PEDs in order to achieve that success, and he stopped using them because of testing and his body broke down.

I don't see how that's proof of anything. You have created a story to fit your assumption that he used PEDs. All you did was take the career arc of a dominant golfer and added in some stuff about PEDs.

Again, since you didn't actually watch golf in Tiger's early years, go back and read up on his record.

And while you're evaluating body mass, can you let us know who else took PEDs? What about Adam Scott? Maybe Phil? What about Rory? His body changed over the years (or he just went to the gym).

[bscinstnct]

Torrey Pines wrote,

[b][color=#282828]"Another thing that never seems to be mentioned is that Tiger's physical stature is [/color][i]nowhere near[/i][color=#282828] what it was around 2006-2008/2009. His body has reduced in size year-on-year post-Galea, with the exception of this one after he appeared to have made some gains in the off-season, but remains far from the adonis he once was. Before anyone tries to claim that this is somehow subjective or that valuation of his body size all depends on whether he is wearing a tight or loose fit shirt, [/color][i]Tiger himself[/i][color=#282828] even said during a presser earlier this year that he is "nowhere near as big" as he once was."[/color][/b]

[color=#282828]That's how it is for hard gainers with high metabolisms. They go up and down. [/color]

Again, this is the case for millions who are thin, lift a lot and put on muscle, then can't lift as much/often as life goes on and drop the weight/muscle.

It's actually a pretty normal pattern for millions of guys who lifted a lot when younger, for sports or just to get bigger, and then you just can't as much as you get into your mid/late 30s from all the responsibilities that life brings and if you have a good metabolism, you lose the weight.

[klbrown514]

 

Rory is on the juice!!!!!!!!

[Redhill]

For his own benefit, I agree with the OP, it's time for him to get off those PEDs.

[DTXgolfer12]

[quote name='m5power' timestamp='1400660587' post='9337627']
If Tiger took PED's , it wasn't to be a better golfer, it was to be yoked so he can b@ng chicks
[/quote]

I agree with this statement.

[nochct1]

[quote name='texchad12' timestamp='1402675156' post='9488087']
[quote name='m5power' timestamp='1400660587' post='9337627']
If Tiger took PED's , it wasn't to be a better golfer, it was to be yoked so he can b@ng chicks
[/quote]

I agree with this statement.
[/quote]

Pro golfers don't need PEDs to bang chicks. Their bank account gets them whoever they want.

[hogans71]

If Tiger took PED's , it wasn't to be a better golfer, it was to be yoked so he can b@ng chicks

 

I agree with this statement.

 

Pro golfers don't need PEDs to bang chicks. Their bank account gets them whoever they want.

 

 

 

Case in point :)

[TorreyPines]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1402667405' post='9487027']
[quote name='TorreyPines' timestamp='1402660944' post='9486283']
"Maybe this will help you understand the question pertaining to "evidence":

[b]ev·i·dence[/b]

[color=#000000][size=3][i]noun[/i][/size][/color][color=#000000][size=3][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][/size][/color][color=#717274][size=3]\ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=3]: [b]something which shows that something else exists or [color=#ff0000]is true[/color][/b]
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something[/size][/color]


[color=#000000][size=3][b]spec·u·la·tion[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\ˌspe-kyə-ˈlā-shən\[/size][/color]

: [b]ideas or guesses about something that is not known[/b][/size][/color]


[color=#000000][size=3][b]cir·cum·stan·tial[/b]

[i]adjective[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\ˌsər-k[sup]ə[/sup]m-ˈstan(t)-shəl\[/size][/color]

[i]law[/i] : [b]based on information which suggests that something is true but does not prove that it is true[/b]
: [u]providing or including the details of a particular situation or event[/u]

[b] [/b][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3][b]con·jec·ture[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\kən-ˈjek-chər\[/size][/color]

: [b]an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence[/b][/size][/color]



[color=#000000][size=3][b]li·bel[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274][size=3]\ˈlī-bəl\[/size][/color]

: [b]the act of publishing a false statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone[/b][/size][/color]"



This has already been addressed in post #287 of this thread, but I'll elaborate in order to help you understand better. If there was conclusive [i]evidence[/i] that Tiger had dabbled with PEDs in the past, then this thread would not exist - he would have already been found guilty and faced the appropriate sanctions. Given that this hasn't transpired, why do you think there are so many people out there who believe that Woods juiced? These accusations have not just emerged out of thin air, they have come about because there are too many [i]signs[/i] that have emerged between his years of most intense mass gain and current bodily break down post-Galea to suggest pure coincidence as a rational explanation for each stage of his career. I'm not going to outline these signs again, as I've already done so to a satisfactory standard.

I have to ask, despite it being a cliche to bring this man into an argument about PEDs, but did you honestly believe Lance Armstrong was clean until he actually sat down with Oprah and admitted it himself? That's not a dig by the way, I'm genuinely curious.

Another thing that never seems to be mentioned is that Tiger's physical stature is [i]nowhere near[/i] what it was around 2006-2008/2009. His body has reduced in size year-on-year post-Galea, with the exception of this one after he appeared to have made some gains in the off-season, but remains far from the adonis he once was. Before anyone tries to claim that this is somehow subjective or that valuation of his body size all depends on whether he is wearing a tight or loose fit shirt, [i]Tiger himself[/i] even said during a presser earlier this year that he is "nowhere near as big" as he once was.
[/quote]

I assume its because you didn't start watching golf until the early 2000s, but Tiger didn't just come out of nowhere to dominate the PGA Tour. He wasn't battling injuries in the late 90s and then had some big recovery before dominating golf. And he wasn't just an above average tour pro who suddenly came back one season bigger than everyone else before winning a bunch of majors.

Again, since you didn't actually watch golf in Tiger's early years, go back and read up on his record.
[/quote]

I know everything there is to know about Tiger's career, so please don't patronize me.

Also, it's becoming pretty clear that this argument is going nowhere. None of the points made from the "Tiger is clean" camp have been even remotely persuasive enough to make me think twice, let alone change my opinion on the matter, whereas the points I have made are clearly going in one ear and out the other given that my posts are constantly being misconstrued, intentionally or otherwise.

Anyway, I'll have a proper think about investigating this on a more serious scale, having recently graduated from University with a Journalism degree. Part of me would rather cling to that last bit of hope that all of Tiger's accomplishments are legitimate, because he has been my sporting idol from an early age, but David Walsh, the [i]Times[/i] journalist who famously took down Lance Armstrong, gave a talk at my University a few months ago about how he exposed the endless lies and cover-ups, and he would surely say that where there are obvious signs of corruption, there must be a full and proper investigation. We've been tricked by sportsmen and sportswomen so many times, particularly in recent memory, that we must at some point wake up and realise that when there are so many indicators that something is amiss about an athlete, the least we can do is delve deeper to find out whether that is the case.

[bscinstnct]

^Uh oh. Look out, TW

Torrey Pines on the case.

Hope he doesn't start interviewing the pancakehouse waitresses.

Could find....you know, Woodward & Bernsteins key informant ; )

[redfirebird08]

Torrey, here's what I don't get about your accusations. You believe he was clean during the period of winning 7 out of 11 majors including 4 in a row (and one of them by an unbelievable 15 shots). But you think he was roiding later in his career.

Golfers do not usually peak in their early 20's. In fact when Woods was in the middle of winning 4 majors in a row, a lot of people speculated what would come later since he wasn't even in the prime years yet. It stands to reason that he was a more wise golfer in his late 20's/early 30's. This might explain the higher win rate on Tour.

He never matched the 7 of 11 or 4 in a row major romp of 2000-2002. He never came close to winning a major by double digits. But at that late 20's stage of his career he was probably a smarter golfer. 2006 at Hoylake comes to mind. Hogan/Nicklaus-esque strategy.

[Ajlepisto]

[quote name='TorreyPines' timestamp='1402693069' post='9490541']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1402667405' post='9487027']
[quote name='TorreyPines' timestamp='1402660944' post='9486283']
"Maybe this will help you understand the question pertaining to "evidence":

[b]ev·i·dence[/b]

[color=#000000][size=3][i]noun[/i][/size][/color][color=#000000][size=3][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][/size][/color][color=#717274][size=3]\ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=3]: [b]something which shows that something else exists or [color=#ff0000]is true[/color][/b]
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something[/size][/color]


[color=#000000][size=3][b]spec·u·la·tion[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274]\ˌspe-kyə-ˈlā-shən\[/color]

: [b]ideas or guesses about something that is not known[/b][/size][/color]


[color=#000000][size=3][b]cir·cum·stan·tial[/b]

[i]adjective[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274]\ˌsər-k[sup]ə[/sup]m-ˈstan(t)-shəl\[/color]

[i]law[/i] : [b]based on information which suggests that something is true but does not prove that it is true[/b]
: [u]providing or including the details of a particular situation or event[/u]

[b] [/b][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3][b]con·jec·ture[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274]\kən-ˈjek-chər\[/color]

: [b]an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence[/b][/size][/color]



[color=#000000][size=3][b]li·bel[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274]\ˈlī-bəl\[/color]

: [b]the act of publishing a false statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone[/b][/size][/color]"



This has already been addressed in post #287 of this thread, but I'll elaborate in order to help you understand better. If there was conclusive [i]evidence[/i] that Tiger had dabbled with PEDs in the past, then this thread would not exist - he would have already been found guilty and faced the appropriate sanctions. Given that this hasn't transpired, why do you think there are so many people out there who believe that Woods juiced? These accusations have not just emerged out of thin air, they have come about because there are too many [i]signs[/i] that have emerged between his years of most intense mass gain and current bodily break down post-Galea to suggest pure coincidence as a rational explanation for each stage of his career. I'm not going to outline these signs again, as I've already done so to a satisfactory standard.

I have to ask, despite it being a cliche to bring this man into an argument about PEDs, but did you honestly believe Lance Armstrong was clean until he actually sat down with Oprah and admitted it himself? That's not a dig by the way, I'm genuinely curious.

Another thing that never seems to be mentioned is that Tiger's physical stature is [i]nowhere near[/i] what it was around 2006-2008/2009. His body has reduced in size year-on-year post-Galea, with the exception of this one after he appeared to have made some gains in the off-season, but remains far from the adonis he once was. Before anyone tries to claim that this is somehow subjective or that valuation of his body size all depends on whether he is wearing a tight or loose fit shirt, [i]Tiger himself[/i] even said during a presser earlier this year that he is "nowhere near as big" as he once was.
[/quote]

I assume its because you didn't start watching golf until the early 2000s, but Tiger didn't just come out of nowhere to dominate the PGA Tour. He wasn't battling injuries in the late 90s and then had some big recovery before dominating golf. And he wasn't just an above average tour pro who suddenly came back one season bigger than everyone else before winning a bunch of majors.

Again, since you didn't actually watch golf in Tiger's early years, go back and read up on his record.
[/quote]

I know everything there is to know about Tiger's career, so please don't patronize me.

Also, it's becoming pretty clear that this argument is going nowhere. None of the points made from the "Tiger is clean" camp have been even remotely persuasive enough to make me think twice, let alone change my opinion on the matter, whereas the points I have made are clearly going in one ear and out the other given that my posts are constantly being misconstrued, intentionally or otherwise.

Anyway, I'll have a proper think about investigating this on a more serious scale, having recently graduated from University with a Journalism degree. Part of me would rather cling to that last bit of hope that all of Tiger's accomplishments are legitimate, because he has been my sporting idol from an early age, but David Walsh, the [i]Times[/i] journalist who famously took down Lance Armstrong, gave a talk at my University a few months ago about how he exposed the endless lies and cover-ups, and he would surely say that where there are obvious signs of corruption, there must be a full and proper investigation. We've been tricked by sportsmen and sportswomen so many times, particularly in recent memory, that we must at some point wake up and realise that when there are so many indicators that something is amiss about an athlete, the least we can do is delve deeper to find out whether that is the case.
[/quote]

But journalists know better than to make up their mind before they actually know the facts.

Don't confuse suspicion and gut feelings with facts and evidence. You're really committed to a line of thinking that goes against what some sources are saying. That isn't journalism. If you can find sources that back up what you're thinking, that's one thing, but drumming up a story with circumstantial evidence isn't going to go over well.

I would think that you would have learned by now that you need credible sources who you can cite in order to make a story. Not just circumstantial timelines. Right now that's what you've got...so, until you get more, I don't get how you feel like people aren't acknowledging your points.

Right now your opposition has sources that counter your opinion, which doesn't have any backbone other than a potential timeline link. If you remember in school, they taught you (I hope) about primary and secondary sources, as well as background reporting. Right now you have background reporting. It doesn't hold up to secondary sources.

Your main problem is that you aren't objective at all. You say the argument against isn't persuasive enough, and then complain that your argument is going in one ear and out the other.

You have a circumstantial timeline that may or may not be true, and you're expecting that to hold up against actual sources who are closer to the situation who are saying otherwise. Sure, you can argue against their credibility...but as a journalist, I would hope you know that unless you get some sort of actual proof, you can't really make a valid point.

[nochct1]

[quote name='TorreyPines' timestamp='1402693069' post='9490541']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1402667405' post='9487027']
[quote name='TorreyPines' timestamp='1402660944' post='9486283']
"Maybe this will help you understand the question pertaining to "evidence":

[b]ev·i·dence[/b]

[color=#000000][size=3][i]noun[/i][/size][/color][color=#000000][size=3][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][/size][/color][color=#717274][size=3]\ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=3]: [b]something which shows that something else exists or [color=#ff0000]is true[/color][/b]
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something[/size][/color]


[color=#000000][size=3][b]spec·u·la·tion[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274]\ˌspe-kyə-ˈlā-shən\[/color]

: [b]ideas or guesses about something that is not known[/b][/size][/color]


[color=#000000][size=3][b]cir·cum·stan·tial[/b]

[i]adjective[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274]\ˌsər-k[sup]ə[/sup]m-ˈstan(t)-shəl\[/color]

[i]law[/i] : [b]based on information which suggests that something is true but does not prove that it is true[/b]
: [u]providing or including the details of a particular situation or event[/u]

[b] [/b][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3][b]con·jec·ture[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274]\kən-ˈjek-chər\[/color]

: [b]an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence[/b][/size][/color]



[color=#000000][size=3][b]li·bel[/b]

[i]noun[/i][background=rgb(232, 236, 245)] [/background][color=#717274]\ˈlī-bəl\[/color]

: [b]the act of publishing a false statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone[/b][/size][/color]"



This has already been addressed in post #287 of this thread, but I'll elaborate in order to help you understand better. If there was conclusive [i]evidence[/i] that Tiger had dabbled with PEDs in the past, then this thread would not exist - he would have already been found guilty and faced the appropriate sanctions. Given that this hasn't transpired, why do you think there are so many people out there who believe that Woods juiced? These accusations have not just emerged out of thin air, they have come about because there are too many [i]signs[/i] that have emerged between his years of most intense mass gain and current bodily break down post-Galea to suggest pure coincidence as a rational explanation for each stage of his career. I'm not going to outline these signs again, as I've already done so to a satisfactory standard.

I have to ask, despite it being a cliche to bring this man into an argument about PEDs, but did you honestly believe Lance Armstrong was clean until he actually sat down with Oprah and admitted it himself? That's not a dig by the way, I'm genuinely curious.

Another thing that never seems to be mentioned is that Tiger's physical stature is [i]nowhere near[/i] what it was around 2006-2008/2009. His body has reduced in size year-on-year post-Galea, with the exception of this one after he appeared to have made some gains in the off-season, but remains far from the adonis he once was. Before anyone tries to claim that this is somehow subjective or that valuation of his body size all depends on whether he is wearing a tight or loose fit shirt, [i]Tiger himself[/i] even said during a presser earlier this year that he is "nowhere near as big" as he once was.
[/quote]

I assume its because you didn't start watching golf until the early 2000s, but Tiger didn't just come out of nowhere to dominate the PGA Tour. He wasn't battling injuries in the late 90s and then had some big recovery before dominating golf. And he wasn't just an above average tour pro who suddenly came back one season bigger than everyone else before winning a bunch of majors.

Again, since you didn't actually watch golf in Tiger's early years, go back and read up on his record.
[/quote]

I know everything there is to know about Tiger's career, so please don't patronize me.

Also, it's becoming pretty clear that this argument is going nowhere. None of the points made from the "Tiger is clean" camp have been even remotely persuasive enough to make me think twice, let alone change my opinion on the matter, whereas the points I have made are clearly going in one ear and out the other given that my posts are constantly being misconstrued, intentionally or otherwise.

Anyway, I'll have a proper think about investigating this on a more serious scale, having recently graduated from University with a Journalism degree. Part of me would rather cling to that last bit of hope that all of Tiger's accomplishments are legitimate, because he has been my sporting idol from an early age, but David Walsh, the [i]Times[/i] journalist who famously took down Lance Armstrong, gave a talk at my University a few months ago about how he exposed the endless lies and cover-ups, and he would surely say that where there are obvious signs of corruption, there must be a full and proper investigation. We've been tricked by sportsmen and sportswomen so many times, particularly in recent memory, that we must at some point wake up and realise that when there are so many indicators that something is amiss about an athlete, the least we can do is delve deeper to find out whether that is the case.
[/quote]

Ummmm ok. You should start investigating every top athlete from the last 20 years to see what you can find.

Now if Tiger really was using PEDs, how do you explain his dominant play from the time he was a kid, through his amateur years and then his early years as a pro?

In your timeline he wasn't using PEDs during those years and he still dominated, and practiced as much if not more than he did in the mid 2000s.

And if you're going to point to his adding muscle, then how do you explain the changes that guys like Adam Scott and Rory McIlroy have had over the years? Was that PEDs or were they able to magically add muscle while Tiger had to use PEDs?

Again, still haven't seen more than an opinion and a god story that you've created.

[ethanlculver]

[quote name='Tiger512' timestamp='1400667671' post='9337781']
After he won his last major (June 2008) he had knee surgery and took time off. It was also a month before the PGA started the drug testing, 7/08. Since then Tiger hasn't won a major.
[/quote]

Almost won 2009 PGA, 2010 Masters, 2010 U.S. Open, 2011 Masters, 2012 British Open, 2013 Masters, 2013 British Open.

The reasons he missed some crucial putts late in those tournaments was because he's been off the roids, right?

Laughing my head off.

[curitiba]

Can someone tell me how PED helps a golfer? My local pro is 6 feet and 170 pounds and hits 300 yard drives consistently. What would PED add? 10 yards? TW's body did change. He was big, but who gives a crap if he was on PED or not.

[golfheaven69]

Do you think PED's helped Sosa, Mcquire, Bonds and the boatload of other players on the needle?


[quote name='curitiba' timestamp='1402707600' post='9492055']
Can someone tell me how PED helps a golfer? My local pro is 6 feet and 170 pounds and hits 300 yard drives consistently. What would PED add? 10 yards? TW's body did change. He was big, but who gives a crap if he was on PED or not.
[/quote]

[deasy55]

[quote name='MrElculver2424' timestamp='1402706995' post='9491989']
[quote name='Tiger512' timestamp='1400667671' post='9337781']
After he won his last major (June 2008) he had knee surgery and took time off. It was also a month before the PGA started the drug testing, 7/08. Since then Tiger hasn't won a major.
[/quote]

[b]Almost won[/b] 2009 PGA, 2010 Masters, 2010 U.S. Open, 2011 Masters, 2012 British Open, 2013 Masters, 2013 British Open.

The reasons he missed some crucial putts late in those tournaments was because he's been off the roids, right?

Laughing my head off.
[/quote]

"Almost won" all of those?

Jeez...other than the 09 PGA I must have been watching different majors.

[ethanlculver]

I don't think there's any reason to continue on trying to figure out or debate whether or not he's ever taken PEDs.

Sure, he could of. Anyone could have. PEDs in the world of golf wouldn't be only be used to gain strength or mass; they'd be used to recover from injury quicker.

You can try to correlate things all you like, but that's what it remains: correlation. Correlation doesn't imply causation. There are very logical and reasonable alternative explanations for why those things occurred.

Until there is evidence, or until there are no longer reasonable alternatives to explain the things we've observed, then he has never taken them. Same for every other golfer out there.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='golfheaven69' timestamp='1402708128' post='9492117']
Do you think PED's helped Sosa, Mcquire, Bonds and the boatload of other players on the needle?


[quote name='curitiba' timestamp='1402707600' post='9492055']
Can someone tell me how PED helps a golfer? My local pro is 6 feet and 170 pounds and hits 300 yard drives consistently. What would PED add? 10 yards? TW's body did change. He was big, but who gives a crap if he was on PED or not.
[/quote]
[/quote]

TW hit the equivalent of 98 HRs in 2000.

[ethanlculver]

[quote name='deasy55' timestamp='1402708411' post='9492141']
[quote name='MrElculver2424' timestamp='1402706995' post='9491989']
[quote name='Tiger512' timestamp='1400667671' post='9337781']
After he won his last major (June 2008) he had knee surgery and took time off. It was also a month before the PGA started the drug testing, 7/08. Since then Tiger hasn't won a major.
[/quote]

[b]Almost won[/b] 2009 PGA, 2010 Masters, 2010 U.S. Open, 2011 Masters, 2012 British Open, 2013 Masters, 2013 British Open.

The reasons he missed some crucial putts late in those tournaments was because he's been off the roids, right?

Laughing my head off.
[/quote]

"Almost won" all of those?

Jeez...other than the 09 PGA I must have been watching different majors.
[/quote]

Must have been.

2009 PGA 2
2010 Masters T4
2010 U.S. Open T4
2011 Masters T4
2012 British Open T3
2013 Masters T4
2013 British Open T6

Was right around the lead on Sunday during all of those.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='deasy55' timestamp='1402708411' post='9492141']
[quote name='MrElculver2424' timestamp='1402706995' post='9491989']
[quote name='Tiger512' timestamp='1400667671' post='9337781']
After he won his last major (June 2008) he had knee surgery and took time off. It was also a month before the PGA started the drug testing, 7/08. Since then Tiger hasn't won a major.
[/quote]

[b]Almost won[/b] 2009 PGA, 2010 Masters, 2010 U.S. Open, 2011 Masters, 2012 British Open, 2013 Masters, 2013 British Open.

The reasons he missed some crucial putts late in those tournaments was because he's been off the roids, right?

Laughing my head off.
[/quote]

"Almost won" all of those?

Jeez...other than the 09 PGA I must have been watching different majors.
[/quote]

But you are a big golf fan.

You have seen TW win

14 Majors and almost 80 PGA Tour tournaments.

You have watched him and followed him for over 15 years.

Do you believe that he took PEDs?

[deasy55]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1402708819' post='9492173']
[quote name='deasy55' timestamp='1402708411' post='9492141']
[quote name='MrElculver2424' timestamp='1402706995' post='9491989']
[quote name='Tiger512' timestamp='1400667671' post='9337781']
After he won his last major (June 2008) he had knee surgery and took time off. It was also a month before the PGA started the drug testing, 7/08. Since then Tiger hasn't won a major.
[/quote]

[b]Almost won[/b] 2009 PGA, 2010 Masters, 2010 U.S. Open, 2011 Masters, 2012 British Open, 2013 Masters, 2013 British Open.

The reasons he missed some crucial putts late in those tournaments was because he's been off the roids, right?

Laughing my head off.
[/quote]

"Almost won" all of those?

Jeez...other than the 09 PGA I must have been watching different majors.
[/quote]

But you are a big golf fan.

You have seen TW win

14 Majors and almost 80 PGA Tour tournaments.

You have watched him and followed him for over 15 years.

Do you believe that he took PEDs?
[/quote]

I was replying to a post stating he had "almost won" the above stated majors. I'm not getting dragged into the back and forth.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='deasy55' timestamp='1402709008' post='9492199']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1402708819' post='9492173']
[quote name='deasy55' timestamp='1402708411' post='9492141']
[quote name='MrElculver2424' timestamp='1402706995' post='9491989']
[quote name='Tiger512' timestamp='1400667671' post='9337781']
After he won his last major (June 2008) he had knee surgery and took time off. It was also a month before the PGA started the drug testing, 7/08. Since then Tiger hasn't won a major.
[/quote]

[b]Almost won[/b] 2009 PGA, 2010 Masters, 2010 U.S. Open, 2011 Masters, 2012 British Open, 2013 Masters, 2013 British Open.

The reasons he missed some crucial putts late in those tournaments was because he's been off the roids, right?

Laughing my head off.
[/quote]

"Almost won" all of those?

Jeez...other than the 09 PGA I must have been watching different majors.
[/quote]

But you are a big golf fan.

You have seen TW win

14 Majors and almost 80 PGA Tour tournaments.

You have watched him and followed him for over 15 years.

Do you believe that he took PEDs?
[/quote]

I was replying to a post stating he had "almost won" the above stated majors. I'm not getting dragged into the back and forth.
[/quote]

I understand. Would still be interested in your opinion on the subject.

[deasy55]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1402709172' post='9492219']
[quote name='deasy55' timestamp='1402709008' post='9492199']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1402708819' post='9492173']
[quote name='deasy55' timestamp='1402708411' post='9492141']
[quote name='MrElculver2424' timestamp='1402706995' post='9491989']
[b]Almost won[/b] 2009 PGA, 2010 Masters, 2010 U.S. Open, 2011 Masters, 2012 British Open, 2013 Masters, 2013 British Open.

The reasons he missed some crucial putts late in those tournaments was because he's been off the roids, right?

Laughing my head off.
[/quote]

"Almost won" all of those?

Jeez...other than the 09 PGA I must have been watching different majors.
[/quote]

But you are a big golf fan.

You have seen TW win

14 Majors and almost 80 PGA Tour tournaments.

You have watched him and followed him for over 15 years.

Do you believe that he took PEDs?
[/quote]

I was replying to a post stating he had "almost won" the above stated majors. I'm not getting dragged into the back and forth.
[/quote]

I understand. Would still be interested in your opinion on the subject.
[/quote]

And I gave it about 5/6 pages back.

If you're that interested you can go find it. I warn you though...it isn't a very interesting opinion on the subject