Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to:
Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl
Modus tollens, a logical proof
Proof of impossibility, mathematics
Unfair burden, in law, a plaintiff need not prove a negative about a defendant
Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove
Sometimes it is mistaken for an argument from ignorance, which is non-proof and a logical fallacy.
Where did you see a word proof in the post quoted? If you read my post you'll see such words as "opinion", "general suspicion". There is as possible to prove that Stevens or Tocchet doped as it does for Krutov. It still ok to mention him though.
- the testimony of Igor Larionov
- the testimony of the Canucks training staff
Knowing this, we can look at the circumstantial evidence (Krutov's highly unusual athletic profile - ie. his size/strength ratio, Krutov's very sudden fall-off while still in his late 20's after leaving Russia, background information about steroid use in Soviet sports) and get a picture of Krutov's career that is highly suspicious, but the circumstantial evidence, alone, is useless.
You are basing your argument on purely circumstantial evidence.
Larionov accused Soviet coaches of providing PED to athlets, not Krutov of taking it.
To me it's really not okay to mention either Stevens or Tocchett. We literally have no sort of evidence that either used. None. Just because other athletes did in the 80s doesn't mean you can disparage the name of two others. That is libel.
To me it's really not okay to mention either Stevens or Tocchett. We literally have no sort of evidence that either used. None. Just because other athletes did in the 80s doesn't mean you can disparage the name of two others. That is libel.
That may be true, but i think if krutov's name is mentioned the others are fair game. I think i shouldn't have mentioned them in the context of playoff series, since it brought the focus from it to this topic.
Where did you see a word proof in the post quoted? If you read my post you'll see such words as "opinion", "general suspicion". There is as possible to prove that Stevens or Tocchet doped as it does for Krutov. It still ok to mention him though.
You just used the word prove. You're working backwords with no evidence and just cause it could be plausible doesn't mean it's worth mentioning.
In Larionov’s autobiography, his famous 1988 letter to Ogonyok is reprinted. He states that all members of the “Green Unit”–including Vladimir Krutov–refused to accept mysterious injections from national team doctors prior to the 1982 World Championships in Finland. However, in Gretzky to Lemieux, you write: “Larionov intimated that Krutov had been fed steroids on a consistent basis when he played for the national team that helped account for his great strength on the puck.” So the picture is a bit murky. Is it your view that we’re looking at an East German women’s swimming team-type scenario, so to speak?
- That’s my view, but to be clear, we’re talking about Krutov here, not Larionov. I talked to two members of the Vancouver Canucks organization who were around when both players came over in 1989, and they both said one of the reasons Krutov was so bad was because he’d been cut off from his supply of steroids. Can I prove that? No.
Larionov fingered Krutov specifically, in addition to his indictment of the Soviet system. You don't have a ledge to stand on here.
Yeah, there is no way Stevens would touch such a bad thing like PEDs. You know if Krutov is accused of using them, than Stevens and Tocchets of this league should be too. And drug dependence goes hand in hand with PED usage.
Was Fuhr on roids because he did coke? Anderson? Fleury? Nonsense. Just because Stevens did coke later in his career (likely as a way to cope with having his face crushed) doesn't mean he was on roids.
Quote:
As for Risebrough feel free to correct me, but AFAIK he was used with Lambert and Tremblay (or Houle) as 4 th line. And Jarvis played with gainey and got toughest assignment.
I don't think the top 60 defensemen project represents any kind of majority opinion, other than the "majority" of the people who voted in that project, a number of whom had opinions that seem rather problematic, to put it mildly. Specifically with regards to old-time defensemen, there is a strong "sunshine" effect apparent in the results of their voting. Arguments were made for the old-timers, but very little was said against them, and some of the material used on their behalf (like Ian Fyffe's analysis) is so obviously devoid of any recognition of the differences between eras that it ends up being clearly biased in favor of old-time players.
Let a comparison of Patrick and Stapleton stand on its own merits. That list is a crutch. BM67 pieced together all-star lists for the PCHA here. Looks like Lester shows up as a four time PCHA first team all-star, though the quality of competition for PCHA all-star nods on defense is questionable, and of course Patrick was president of the league. He also seems to have had strong seasons in 1910 in the NHA, and in 1906 in the ECAHA, though how we should value those seasons is a matter of some controversy.
Stapleton is no pushover. I'm not at all sure that an honest comparison between the two which critically evaluates era and strength of competition would show that Patrick is clearly the better player.
Seems like a reasonable distribution of eras to me.
I do think there was a little bit of a sense that the list should take historical significance into account, which probably helped Lester Patrick and Harvey Pulford in particular, and is a factor less relevant to the ATD.
Towards the end of the list, only 3-4 participants were doing original research, which made some of the arguments pretty shallow. Harvey Pulford was actually an exception though - there were pretty in depth cases made both for and against him
You're going to have to sell me on this one. I think Atlanta has a pretty clear edge on each of the top 2 pairings
yes, but only the first pairing edge is clear. They have 4 top-4 defensemen who are all more or less even if you aggregate the four head to head comparisons.... with the very huge exception of Clancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand
I see them more as successors than true contemporaries, Worters was a star before Gardiner even made the league, and Gardiner took over as Worters started winding down.
I see it like that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator
The exact quote, from a book review interview with Willes:
