So defensive and idiotic. Let me try to explain this to you again. If I say I believe something is not on the level and is doping in a doping sport, that is an opinion and a perfectly reasonable one. If I falsely say I saw so and so using peds, thats libel. Also, and pay attention, libel requires harm. It requires damages. A person (again in a sport where doping is epidemic) merely stating an opinion on a small message board with no wider publication and no material effect is meaningless. I mean, freaking Wiley got a pro contract enmeshed in the HU ugliness. I definitely think Valby doped, and all she got was a huge pro contract, etc. I think the ncaa has fallen into rotten semipro status and that persons in the byu orbit decided to fight fire with fire and go for broke. Deal with it. Idiot. And better still, explain to me why I am wrong. Successful pros in this sport are all doping. All. Of. Them. What changed imho is that the guardrails that prevented this in college came off.
You clearly don't understand libel.
Let me help you.
Libel is defined as a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. ”Notice the "or." Libel does not have to damage a person's occupation nor does it need to cause them monetary damage, a false statement that causes them to be ridiculed, publicly criticized or verbally abused is libelous. It doesn't matter what size the publication is or how many people saw it.
You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to state that opinion as fact. When sued for libel, the burden of proof is on you to prove your statement is factual. The injured party need not do anything to disprove it.
So, unless you have proof Riley doped, you will lose and it will cost $$$ both in the judgement and the court costs, which you will be ordered to pay for both yourself and the injured party.
For real. Chamberlain ran 1:59.75 and 4:02.03 before turning 21, and now she’s added 14:58.97. I know the game is changing, but that’s unprecedented range for an NCAA woman, is it not? She could run 3:57 this coming summer.
You guys forget the cheater shoes… 15:00 5k 15:15 5k at BU last weekend in Jasari’s.
But it is wild how the ‘PO has proportional gains to performance vs all the not so talented 👟 👟 prodigies 2023 and on.
Yo! Give it a rest. Unless you're at practice and one on one conversations. In the actual know of what's going on. No one has anything of importance to contribute to conspiracy theories like this site continuously does. Go serve meals at a homeless center. Help support local elementary school. Contribute more
Hartman doesn’t have that lower range that Chamberlain has but is respectable at the 1500 & mile with 4:06.74 & 4:24.76 PRs. She’s also has a 31:20 in the 10 to her name.
Tuohy’s 3000m collegiate indoor record (8:35) is hers. Unless of course Jane beats her to it. Even then, I think that Jane and Riley are pretty much on par @ 3000m.
Riley is already 4th on the indoor 3000m list (8:40.8) and only 0.4s away from 2nd,
Not sure why this even got a down vote:
Riley : 1:57.7/4:02.0/14:58 (18:47 XC)
Tuohy: ?/4:06.4/15:03 (19:08 XC)
Clearly, if Tuohy was able to run 8:35, Riley can run faster than that.
As for Riley and Jane being close to par at 3000m, I point to the fact that Jane only has a 4:04.6 PB at 1500m and that Riley closed her 5000m in 2:48 vs Jane’s 2:49. Jane would probably still win over 3000m, but Riley could surprise her. One or both of them will go sub 8:30.
Long story short, there should be more threads on Riley than on Tuohy
So defensive and idiotic. Let me try to explain this to you again. If I say I believe something is not on the level and is doping in a doping sport, that is an opinion and a perfectly reasonable one. If I falsely say I saw so and so using peds, thats libel. Also, and pay attention, libel requires harm. It requires damages. A person (again in a sport where doping is epidemic) merely stating an opinion on a small message board with no wider publication and no material effect is meaningless. I mean, freaking Wiley got a pro contract enmeshed in the HU ugliness. I definitely think Valby doped, and all she got was a huge pro contract, etc. I think the ncaa has fallen into rotten semipro status and that persons in the byu orbit decided to fight fire with fire and go for broke. Deal with it. Idiot. And better still, explain to me why I am wrong. Successful pros in this sport are all doping. All. Of. Them. What changed imho is that the guardrails that prevented this in college came off.
You clearly don't understand libel.
Let me help you.
Libel is defined as a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. ”Notice the "or." Libel does not have to damage a person's occupation nor does it need to cause them monetary damage, a false statement that causes them to be ridiculed, publicly criticized or verbally abused is libelous. It doesn't matter what size the publication is or how many people saw it.
You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to state that opinion as fact. When sued for libel, the burden of proof is on you to prove your statement is factual. The injured party need not do anything to disprove it.
So, unless you have proof Riley doped, you will lose and it will cost $ both in the judgement and the court costs, which you will be ordered to pay for both yourself and the injured party.
Don't believe me?
Think I'm joking?
Say it again!
Astro's whole schtick of accusing people of doping is uncalled for and getting old, I agree, but suing for libel is not as easy as you make it seem, particularly when it is on anonymous forum like this one.
Judges are reluctant to issue subpoenas for the records of ISPs. This would be needed to reveal the identity of Astro. Cyber libel cases are extremely difficult to pursue and there is a heavy burden of proof placed on the plaintiff.
I am not a fan of Astro and his loose accusations and am merely pointing out the reality of the situation. He will continue with his allegations and it will be without repercussions, unfortunately.
Tuohy’s 3000m collegiate indoor record (8:35) is hers. Unless of course Jane beats her to it. Even then, I think that Jane and Riley are pretty much on par @ 3000m.
Riley is already 4th on the indoor 3000m list (8:40.8) and only 0.4s away from 2nd,
Not sure why this even got a down vote:
Riley : 1:59.7/4:02.0/14:58 (18:47 XC)
Tuohy: ?/4:06.4/15:03 (19:08 XC)
Clearly, if Tuohy was able to run 8:35, Riley can run faster than that.
As for Riley and Jane being close to par at 3000m, I point to the fact that Jane only has a 4:04.6 PB at 1500m and that Riley closed her 5000m in 2:48 vs Jane’s 2:49. Jane would probably still win over 3000m, but Riley could surprise her. One or both of them will go sub 8:30.
Long story short, there should be more threads on Riley than on Tuohy
Clearly, if Tuohy was able to run 8:35, Riley can run faster than that.
As for Riley and Jane being close to par at 3000m, I point to the fact that Jane only has a 4:04.6 PB at 1500m and that Riley closed her 5000m in 2:48 vs Jane’s 2:49. Jane would probably still win over 3000m, but Riley could surprise her. One or both of them will go sub 8:30.
Long story short, there should be more threads on Riley than on Tuohy
She ran 3:13.67 for 1200m
Worth 4:21 or 4:22 for the mile?
Collegiate record is 4:23.4
Definitely a strong showing, probably more impressibe than Jane's 1600m split in the DMR today.
Clueless. That statement has no basis in US jurisprudence. Zero. It sounds like maybe a crude statement of the British standard. Please dont lecture about things you dont understand. But anyway, by all means show me how my supposition is wrong. I mean didn't byu just run a dmr time on a slow track that supposedly converts to a wr set by a pro team? Seems odd.
Oh wait. Are you that disturbed stalker that was always hinting at dire consequences when UF finally had enough of my evil opinion about Valby to sue me into oblivion? Lollll. Priceless. The idea that an sec school would be scandalised by anything was always hilarious. But sure died off when a couple of UF runners got popped.
Clueless. That statement has no basis in US jurisprudence. Zero. It sounds like maybe a crude statement of the British standard. Please dont lecture about things you dont understand. But anyway, by all means show me how my supposition is wrong. I mean didn't byu just run a dmr time on a slow track that supposedly converts to a wr set by a pro team? Seems odd.
Aaaaand, we are all STILL waiting for you to show your proof.
Clearly, if Tuohy was able to run 8:35, Riley can run faster than that.
As for Riley and Jane being close to par at 3000m, I point to the fact that Jane only has a 4:04.6 PB at 1500m and that Riley closed her 5000m in 2:48 vs Jane’s 2:49. Jane would probably still win over 3000m, but Riley could surprise her. One or both of them will go sub 8:30.
Long story short, there should be more threads on Riley than on Tuohy