A fair swag of folk have said silly things in sport over the last ten days or so - but it's yet to be seen whether any or all of them recognise that.
Alternatively of course there is the possibility that there are two valid views on each issue.
Surely driving the final nail into the coffin of Sport Australia's now despatched elite funding formula Winning Edge was Cricket Australia's women's high performance coach Leah Poulton. Her theory was that more need to be done by other nations to lift the women's game.
So having pushed all and sundry in Australia for significant funding to raise elite women's cricket to new levels and dominate the rest of the world, then it is fine to complain about other countries not doing the same thing - more than a fraction bizarre from Poulton.
May as well save all the cash Australia is spending on top end women's cricket so we can dumb it down to the level of others.
But should her words not fall on deaf ears beyond our shores, then let's get ready for the next catch cry - more dollars required for Poulton's programs from the public purse because everyone else is catching up.
And then there was Daisy Pearce's extraordinary logic about the delegate system that operates in the elite ranks of women's AFL. Pearce's theory was that it had failed because too many players voted down the latest proposal for a collective bargaining agreement.
Pearce who we can assume is bettered remunerated from the game than most other female players and a yes voter contended that the 30 percent who voted no would have been influenced by the way the information was delivered to them by their club delegates.
Not for a moment it seems conceding that the same might well have been the case in respect of the 70 percent for yes. The history of sport is littered with examples of where a better outcome has often been achieved by a well-reasoned minority holding out.
But the joint winners of the gold medal for questionable thought must go to those who preferred to give the benefit of the doubt to one of the globe's most prominent running coaches, Alberto Salazar after he was banned for a string of doping offences.
As background - Salazar was generously funded by footwear giant Nike from the turn of this century to establish and then run its Oregon Project. The concept was designed to close the gap in middle and long distance running between the dominant Africans and the rest of the world - particularly Americans.
Public allegations about the Cuban-born coach, himself a highly successful marathon runner, and his methods emerged in 2016 but it was not until the eve of this month's world athletics championships in Doha that an investigation by the US anti-doping authority, USADA was completed and a four year ban imposed.
No findings were made about any of the athletes under his control - many of them highly successful during the project's existence. But all of those still competing were formally warned that they must cease all contact with Salazar.
Prominent commentators led by the former British marathon star, Paula Radcliffe were more than happy to maintain that there was nothing to see. Radcliffe, in particular, has made a second career in the sport out of admonishing drug cheats - writing a book that had the subject as its main theme.
A few small matters this time may have influenced her new position such as her own generous connection with the shoe company and her husband's now coaching of a former NOP flagbearer.
Nike itself also saw few issues it seems, including making it clear that it supported Salazar in his appeal. Their view of his sometimes daily contact with USADA to check whether a substance or method was acceptable was not seen as the red flag that would have been readily observed by others.
Nike CEO Mark Parker announced on Friday that The Oregon Project would be wound down. It will be interesting so see if others engage in their own reconsideration.