Cheers was never my sort of thing. Frasier was!
New evidence cheating scandal
Sort:
Sep 20, 2022
0
#143
Agreed. But I was referring to Frasier when in Cheers, I don’t think his dad ever featured in cheers - Nialls did I think?
I would highly doubt Hans cheated, at least in this game. But theoretically an engine wouldn’t be the only way to do it. Suppose he had some way to hear instructions it could be from a large group of highly skilled players. In which case he could achieve a small advantage while still only playing “human” moves. But that would just take us further down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. But Magnus may also feel that if Hans used cheating to get where he is today, Magnus should never have had to play a rated game against him. Perhaps like doping to get to the Olympics but then playing the games “clean” to pass the drug tests.
Sep 20, 2022
0
#146
The funniest thing I've heard in all of this is Anish (I think) said that there used to be a problem in professional cycling, but they managed to sort that out! 5 of the last 11 tours have been won by 'severe asthmatics', who had been given therapeutic usage exemptions for dosages of an asthma drug that were above what even people who are hospitalised with asthma get given - and yet unlike Lance Armstrong their names are still on the official record of winners.
(and yeah if you look at the flag next to my name, and then have a look at the flags next to the Tour de France winners find the matches, those are the people I am talking about - the most recent one maybe innocent, but he was riding for the same team, so from my perspective even though it is less clear cut, it is almost certain he is a cheat. There has never been a legitimate UK winner of the Tour de France, despite what the records might say.)
Sep 20, 2022
0
#147
crocodilestyle1 wrote:
The funniest thing I've heard in all of this is Anish (I think) said that there used to be a problem in professional cycling, but they managed to sort that out! 5 of the last 11 tours have been won by 'severe asthmatics', who had been given therapeutic usage exemptions for dosages of an asthma drug that were above what even people who are hospitalised with asthma get given - and yet unlike Lance Armstrong their names are still on the official record of winners.
(and yeah if you look at the flag next to my name, and then have a look at the flags next to the Tour de France winners find the matches, those are the people I am talking about - the most recent one maybe innocent, but he was riding for the same team, so from my perspective even though it is less clear cut, it is almost certain he is a cheat. There has never been a legitimate UK winner of the Tour de France, despite what the records might say.)
IMO it was more interesting 1000 years ago when people were still discovering things. These days science can give you a near perfect workout and diet and sleep schedule etc. so the winner is the freak of nature who happened to be born with legs that are 2 centimeters longer (for example).
The best power lifters, for example, have short limbs. Why? Because simple physics. They're effectively lifting less weight.
If my lungs and heart happen to be slightly larger than normal, then my VO2max will be too. etc.
Sep 20, 2022
0
#148
llama36 wrote:
crocodilestyle1 wrote:
The funniest thing I've heard in all of this is Anish (I think) said that there used to be a problem in professional cycling, but they managed to sort that out! 5 of the last 11 tours have been won by 'severe asthmatics', who had been given therapeutic usage exemptions for dosages of an asthma drug that were above what even people who are hospitalised with asthma get given - and yet unlike Lance Armstrong their names are still on the official record of winners.
(and yeah if you look at the flag next to my name, and then have a look at the flags next to the Tour de France winners find the matches, those are the people I am talking about - the most recent one maybe innocent, but he was riding for the same team, so from my perspective even though it is less clear cut, it is almost certain he is a cheat. There has never been a legitimate UK winner of the Tour de France, despite what the records might say.)
IMO it was more interesting 1000 years ago when people were still discovering things. These days science can give you a near perfect workout and diet and sleep schedule etc. so the winner is the freak of nature who happened to be born with legs that are 2 centimeters longer (for example).
The best power lifters, for example, have short limbs. Why? Because simple physics. They're effectively lifting less weight.
If my lungs and heart happen to be slightly larger than normal, then my VO2max will be too. etc.
But that is not quite true, athletic performance like any other biological trait has quite well defined bounds, there are no 12ft tall people, and it is very rare that the No.1 in the world say runs the marathon in 2hrs and his nearest competition in 3hrs, most high performance athletes are divided by 0.25% in ability - very few outlying, outstanding 'freaks' in sport, most often there is more than one at a similar level; drugs can give you that 0.5% or 1% to take you way ahead of your competitors.
I guess in chess you could point to Magnus as an 'outlier' being consistently ahead by a long way in the ratings - but Kasparov was in his day, and you could possibly say the same about Fischer; so perhaps the dynamics or how the game is organised allows for a front runner to get significantly ahead.
Sep 20, 2022
0
#149
@crocodilestar1 - you shouldn’t badmouth the British cycling team….they have shown that debilitating asthma is no barrier to becoming world class endurance athletes. They are an inspiration. 🙂
Sep 20, 2022
0
#150
crocodilestyle1 wrote:
llama36 wrote:
crocodilestyle1 wrote:
The funniest thing I've heard in all of this is Anish (I think) said that there used to be a problem in professional cycling, but they managed to sort that out! 5 of the last 11 tours have been won by 'severe asthmatics', who had been given therapeutic usage exemptions for dosages of an asthma drug that were above what even people who are hospitalised with asthma get given - and yet unlike Lance Armstrong their names are still on the official record of winners.
(and yeah if you look at the flag next to my name, and then have a look at the flags next to the Tour de France winners find the matches, those are the people I am talking about - the most recent one maybe innocent, but he was riding for the same team, so from my perspective even though it is less clear cut, it is almost certain he is a cheat. There has never been a legitimate UK winner of the Tour de France, despite what the records might say.)
IMO it was more interesting 1000 years ago when people were still discovering things. These days science can give you a near perfect workout and diet and sleep schedule etc. so the winner is the freak of nature who happened to be born with legs that are 2 centimeters longer (for example).
The best power lifters, for example, have short limbs. Why? Because simple physics. They're effectively lifting less weight.
If my lungs and heart happen to be slightly larger than normal, then my VO2max will be too. etc.
But that is not quite true, athletic performance like any other biological trait has quite well defined bounds, there are no 12ft tall people, and it is very rare that the No.1 in the world say runs the marathon in 2hrs and his nearest competition in 3hrs, most high performance athletes are divided by 0.25% in ability - very few outlying, outstanding 'freaks' in sport, most often there is more than one at a similar level; drugs can give you that 0.5% or 1% to take you way ahead of your competitors.
I guess in chess you could point to Magnus as an 'outlier' being consistently ahead by a long way in the ratings - but Kasparov was in his day, and you could possibly say the same about Fischer; so perhaps the dynamics or how the game is organised allows for a front runner to get significantly ahead.
Exactly, there is more than 1 "freak" at top level events. There are no average people at the Olympics, but I guess that goes without saying.
Cheers had 8 or 10 characters. I didn't watch it much, but it was funny. All of the characters went on to more successes in Hollywood.
Sam
Carla
Norm!
Cliff
Diane - who contributed nothing to the show.
Coach
The rest added fodder, but not much else.
Not a "Frasier" fan then? No, me neither.