GSP's reaction the whole ANnderson Silva hearing ordeal

First of all, I have no vested interest in him taking or not taking PEDs. My point, being reasonable as the day is long, is that your "He was adamant" means nothing. The "he took it upon himself to go above and beyond" says little more on face value than this: GSP chose a drug-testing system he understood very well, to the point he wanted it to be the system that tested him. You cannot deny this is the extent of what we know. You cannot deny that despite his claim we know no more than that in regards to his usage (or lack thereof) of performance enhancing drugs. We also know without a doubt that he left as testing was improving. That testing proved, at least in the short term, to catch more individuals than ever before. YOU have jumped to the conclusion: "That means he was clean." I have made no such jump, nor have I jumped to the contrary.

Your cognitive skills, as great as they may be on any number of levels (are surpassing mine in any number of key cognitive areas) has not and will not surpass mine in the area of linguistic analytics. Your logic is flawed.

And it should be stated, that while you, a single poster on Sherdog seem quite assured that he did not take substances, I have heard quite the contrary from those I would describe as "close to the issue" and "experts in the field". But let us be clear, appealing to their authority does us no better than believing your own stance. I'm just not so foolish as to proclaim otherwise.

Can you reiterate, but with smaller words and shorter sentences please. I'm fucken wasted
 
First of all, I have no vested interest in him taking or not taking PEDs. My point, being reasonable as the day is long, is that your "He was adamant" means nothing. The "he took it upon himself to go above and beyond" says little more on face value than this: GSP chose a drug-testing system he understood very well, to the point he wanted it to be the system that tested him. You cannot deny this is the extent of what we know. You cannot deny that despite his claim we know no more than that in regards to his usage (or lack thereof) of performance enhancing drugs. We also know without a doubt that he left as testing was improving. That testing proved, at least in the short term, to catch more individuals than ever before. YOU have jumped to the conclusion: "That means he was clean." I have made no such jump, nor have I jumped to the contrary.

Your cognitive skills, as great as they may be on any number of levels (are surpassing mine in any number of key cognitive areas) has not and will not surpass mine in the area of linguistic analytics. Your logic is flawed.

And it should be stated, that while you, a single poster on Sherdog seem quite assured that he did not take substances, I have heard quite the contrary from those I would describe as "close to the issue" and "experts in the field". But let us be clear, appealing to their authority does us no better than believing your own stance. I'm just not so foolish as to proclaim otherwise.

Sigh....

My point was not that he was adamant - everyone is adamant that they are clean - even when caught.

My point is that he did go above and beyond what anyone has done prior and short of having you watch him 24/7, he has earned the right to be considered 100% innocent until proven guilty

Also, you can claim you're neither partial or impartial to the claims but your comments on the issue are so thinly veiled that no one is blinded to your true thoughts.

Or, you're just a shit disturber

Unless you're just super cynical and want to discredit someone for never being caught and willing to go above protocol to demonstrate that.

Oh wait, you neither here ot there on the subject.


Also, no point in saying "I heard from people in the know" if you are not going to provide names to sources.
 
Sigh....

My point was not that he was adamant - everyone is adamant that they are clean - even when caught.

My point is that he did go above and beyond what anyone has done prior and short of having you watch him 24/7, he has earned the right to be considered 100% innocent until proven guilty

Your Innocent Until Guilty in a court of law. A court of law this is not... but we're not worried about his guilt or innocence we're worried about where this all started and why I picked up on you and you got flustered.

Also, you can claim you neither partial or impartial to the claims but your comments on the issue are so thinly veiled that no one is blinded to your true thoughts.

Herein lies the genesis of the issue. I slapped you and you felt it was because of your boyfriend and so you're mad. So let me clear this up. I don't care about GSP. I mean that in the literal sense. If you say his name to my face, I shrug. I could take him or leave him. Don't hate him. By all accounts he's a cool duder. I've met him briefly and he was nice enough.

All that said, none of it plays into any of his clean/unclean issue. You got rustled by someone saying something that you misunderstood to begin with. Hyper-defensive to start, which made you an incredibly easy target if I was targeting, but quite frankly I wasn't. I just saw some poor logic and pointed it out.

His "willingness to test himself" is the entire foundation of your feigned outrage is based upon the notion that clears him of any cocked-brow at the concept of him having a clean career. THAT..... is foolish. And by "foolish" I mean the logic of a fool. The fool in this case being you, but only because you used this logic. I am sure there are plenty of times where you are not a fool.

If I want to look innocent while also avoiding being caught, I find myself a system that catches almost all things. But me, being the one who wishes to not be caught while still looking innocent, would surely want a system that catches much without catching me. That's just basic logic. I get both things, looking clean, sounding innocent as I am adamant that others are so very in the wrong, while not having to defend myself for the results prove me righteous. --PLEASE NOTE-- I am not claiming that is what GSP did. I am simply saying to your supposed genesis of truth... therein lies your folly.



Or, you're just a shit disturber

Unless you're just super cynical and want to discredit someone for never being caught and willing to go above protocol to demonstrate that.

I'm not interested in anything but your faulty logic.



Also, no point in saying "I heard from people in the know" if you are not going to provide names to sources.

There's been enough posted about me and what I do that it is clear why I won't be naming names and sources. That may frustrate you and it may give you an out to cry folly. And that's all well and good. However, it doesn't change the fact that when you speak to those in the industry and close to the source you hear quite a different story than the fervent fans on Sherdog.
 
GSP regularly greased himself up before fights so obviously he was willing to do what it takes to win. If you think he wasn't on stuff you are crazy.
 
That's quite the accusation since he never tested for anything ever. He also submitted to intrusive testing during his training camp with Hendricks while Johny didn't (even though he was the vocal one prior).

Which means nothing's and has all been said before to make the other guy look good when he knows it won't happen.
 
And don't forget he had a second acl surgery during his hiatus which might be enough to tip the scale into staying retired.

Yeah and it was the other leg too. That had to suck, I don't blame him he would lose too much explosive power for take downs with those injuries piling up. Same with Cain and his labrum tears.
 
Your Innocent Until Guilty in a court of law. A court of law this is not... but we're not worried about his guilt or innocence we're worried about where this all started and why I picked up on you and you got flustered.



Herein lies the genesis of the issue. I slapped you and you felt it was because of your boyfriend and so you're mad. So let me clear this up. I don't care about GSP. I mean that in the literal sense. If you say his name to my face, I shrug. I could take him or leave him. Don't hate him. By all accounts he's a cool duder. I've met him briefly and he was nice enough.

All that said, none of it plays into any of his clean/unclean issue. You got rustled by someone saying something that you misunderstood to begin with. Hyper-defensive to start, which made you an incredibly easy target if I was targeting, but quite frankly I wasn't. I just saw some poor logic and pointed it out.

His "willingness to test himself" is the entire foundation of your feigned outrage is based upon the notion that clears him of any cocked-brow at the concept of him having a clean career. THAT..... is foolish. And by "foolish" I mean the logic of a fool. The fool in this case being you, but only because you used this logic. I am sure there are plenty of times where you are not a fool.

If I want to look innocent while also avoiding being caught, I find myself a system that catches almost all things. But me, being the one who wishes to not be caught while still looking innocent, would surely want a system that catches much without catching me. That's just basic logic. I get both things, looking clean, sounding innocent as I am adamant that others are so very in the wrong, while not having to defend myself for the results prove me righteous. --PLEASE NOTE-- I am not claiming that is what GSP did. I am simply saying to your supposed genesis of truth... therein lies your folly.





I'm not interested in anything but your faulty logic.





There's been enough posted about me and what I do that it is clear why I won't be naming names and sources. That may frustrate you and it may give you an out to cry folly. And that's all well and good. However, it doesn't change the fact that when you speak to those in the industry and close to the source you hear quite a different story than the fervent fans on Sherdog.

Ok, wow. Even analyzing what he typed and shared how you came up with he was rustled without seeing a facial clue, a revealing eyeball twitch or eyelid tic, any number of physical signs, that is just bullshit and flawed.

Sorry, but unless they invent a way to transfer thought (or simple video chat -no way!) across bandwidth and share it with another person simply typing something really gives no insight into another person on a deeper level.

The cues physical, verbal and aural just are not there for you to analyze so you fall back on Occam's razor style of logic and reasoning. But hey, thanks for trying.

Online Intent to defend a position, person, object or ideal cannot be evaluated by simple reading of digital responses. I forgot to mention. I do agree with your point even though I believe GSP did NOT use. Both are sensible enough to be reasonably true, even if all parts are not necessarily true.
 
Your Innocent Until Guilty in a court of law. A court of law this is not... but we're not worried about his guilt or innocence we're worried about where this all started and why I picked up on you and you got flustered.



Herein lies the genesis of the issue. I slapped you and you felt it was because of your boyfriend and so you're mad. So let me clear this up. I don't care about GSP. I mean that in the literal sense. If you say his name to my face, I shrug. I could take him or leave him. Don't hate him. By all accounts he's a cool duder. I've met him briefly and he was nice enough.

All that said, none of it plays into any of his clean/unclean issue. You got rustled by someone saying something that you misunderstood to begin with. Hyper-defensive to start, which made you an incredibly easy target if I was targeting, but quite frankly I wasn't. I just saw some poor logic and pointed it out.

His "willingness to test himself" is the entire foundation of your feigned outrage is based upon the notion that clears him of any cocked-brow at the concept of him having a clean career. THAT..... is foolish. And by "foolish" I mean the logic of a fool. The fool in this case being you, but only because you used this logic. I am sure there are plenty of times where you are not a fool.

If I want to look innocent while also avoiding being caught, I find myself a system that catches almost all things. But me, being the one who wishes to not be caught while still looking innocent, would surely want a system that catches much without catching me. That's just basic logic. I get both things, looking clean, sounding innocent as I am adamant that others are so very in the wrong, while not having to defend myself for the results prove me righteous. --PLEASE NOTE-- I am not claiming that is what GSP did. I am simply saying to your supposed genesis of truth... therein lies your folly.





I'm not interested in anything but your faulty logic.





There's been enough posted about me and what I do that it is clear why I won't be naming names and sources. That may frustrate you and it may give you an out to cry folly. And that's all well and good. However, it doesn't change the fact that when you speak to those in the industry and close to the source you hear quite a different story than the fervent fans on Sherdog.


Your Innocent Until Guilty in a court of law. A court of law this is not... but we're not worried about his guilt or innocence we're worried about where this all started and why I picked up on you and you got flustered.


So only in law should i adopt the mantra that if a man that hasn't be proven guilty should be considered innocent? That is some interesting logic. Again, giving the benefit the doubt to someone who has never been proven otherwise, is not foolish.

I think you are relating the nature of the world to the individual. There is a problem with a the whole so there is reason to question the individual; that sir, is also foolish.

If you were black living in Chicago - is it reasonable to assume you have shot someone?

If you were white living in the antebellum - is it reasonable to assume you are racist?

If you are Miles from Ottawa, Canada - Is it reasonable to assume you know Steve from Toronto?


All that said, none of it plays into any of his clean/unclean issue. You got rustled by someone saying something that you misunderstood to begin with. Hyper-defensive to start, which made you an incredibly easy target if I was targeting, but quite frankly I wasn't. I just saw some poor logic and pointed it out.

His "willingness to test himself" is the entire foundation of your feigned outrage is based upon the notion that clears him of any cocked-brow at the concept of him having a clean career. THAT..... is foolish. And by "foolish" I mean the logic of a fool. The fool in this case being you, but only because you used this logic. I am sure there are plenty of times where you are not a fool.


What exactly did i misconstrued? I was merely stating that A, he has never been caught and B, he is only person to volunteer to go above and beyond. From there, i personally feel that there is no reason to doubt this.

Now, hypothetically speaking, lets say you were talented at something athletic. People claim you were on PED's but you never failed a test. How would you try to prove your claims of being clean? If you did everything the organization asked, as well as the commission (and you have been tested by several different commissions) and always come up clean - you should have doubt because others have been found guilty? From there, you decide to go a mile above what was required and take it upon yourself to do further testing - and still come clean' would you, yourself not feel that you have done enough to earn the right to be considered truthful in your claims?

If I want to look innocent while also avoiding being caught, I find myself a system that catches almost all things. But me, being the one who wishes to not be caught while still looking innocent, would surely want a system that catches much without catching me. That's just basic logic. I get both things, looking clean, sounding innocent as I am adamant that others are so very in the wrong, while not having to defend myself for the results prove me righteous. --PLEASE NOTE-- I am not claiming that is what GSP did. I am simply saying to your supposed genesis of truth... therein lies your folly.

Are you saying GSP could of found a system that would catch everyone but himself? Seriously you are reaching with the word "logic: with that thought process.




There's been enough posted about me and what I do that it is clear why I won't be naming names and sources. That may frustrate you and it may give you an out to cry folly. And that's all well and good. However, it doesn't change the fact that when you speak to those in the industry and close to the source you hear quite a different story than the fervent fans on Sherdog

I have no idea what you do - i was just responding to your claims of knowing people in the know - thus hearing whatever suspicions or claims from them.

However, i dont pay any credence to someone who says "i heard from a source" without providing the source.
 
First of all, I have no vested interest in him taking or not taking PEDs. My point, being reasonable as the day is long, is that your "He was adamant" means nothing. The "he took it upon himself to go above and beyond" says little more on face value than this: GSP chose a drug-testing system he understood very well, to the point he wanted it to be the system that tested him. You cannot deny this is the extent of what we know. You cannot deny that despite his claim we know no more than that in regards to his usage (or lack thereof) of performance enhancing drugs. We also know without a doubt that he left as testing was improving. That testing proved, at least in the short term, to catch more individuals than ever before. YOU have jumped to the conclusion: "That means he was clean." I have made no such jump, nor have I jumped to the contrary.

Your cognitive skills, as great as they may be on any number of levels (are surpassing mine in any number of key cognitive areas) has not and will not surpass mine in the area of linguistic analytics. Your logic is flawed.

And it should be stated, that while you, a single poster on Sherdog seem quite assured that he did not take substances, I have heard quite the contrary from those I would describe as "close to the issue" and "experts in the field". But let us be clear, appealing to their authority does us no better than believing your own stance. I'm just not so foolish as to proclaim otherwise.

really good post

and the point i highlighted, it would be really good if you could provide a bit more details on that
 
GSP is not impressed by Anderson Silva's PERFORMANCE... enhancing drugs.

GSP retired as a champion and Anderson Silva is going to retire as a chump, cheater.
 
gsp nuthuggers getting rustled here
 
GSP regularly greased himself up before fights so obviously he was willing to do what it takes to win. If you think he wasn't on stuff you are crazy.

Yeah cause the ref doesn't check your gloves and body before you enter the Octagon....Idiot!
 
Yep. I don't think anyone was really surprised that he retired that night. It seemed like it had been coming for a while. I think it was mental burnout. GSP was a perfectionist as a fighter to the point of seeming almost OCD at times. It had to takes its toll on him over the years.

qft.

Largely overlooked by casual fan's too, leading many of them to jump to conclusions and finger-pointing.


Jimmies all rustled up in this motherfucker

Lol, no doubt.

GSP regularly greased himself up before fights so obviously he was willing to do what it takes to win. If you think he wasn't on stuff you are crazy.


paper-bag-o.gif
 
Back
Top