Now has same PR for half as former London marathon winner Eamonn Martin.
Martin was also Commonwealth 10,000m in 1990 beating the Kenyan opposition before the Italians brought EPO from cycling to East Africa leading to this situation
Rojo you have sold out.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Now has same PR for half as former London marathon winner Eamonn Martin.
Martin was also Commonwealth 10,000m in 1990 beating the Kenyan opposition before the Italians brought EPO from cycling to East Africa leading to this situation
Rojo you have sold out.
I just bought some boats so please cry me a river.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Now has same PR for half as former London marathon winner Eamonn Martin.
Martin was also Commonwealth 10,000m in 1990 beating the Kenyan opposition before the Italians brought EPO from cycling to East Africa leading to this situation
Rojo you have sold out.
Also same PB as Stewart McSweyn
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So Gidey running a men's record would not suggest doping to you. No further proof is needed of the extent of your denial or your ignorance. You have confirmed that no level of performance is capable of rousing your suspicions in a sport rife with doping.
You also misquote me. Of course you do. I do not say and have not said that it is "impossible" to tell the clean performance from the doped one as an absolute. Doubts may apply to the runner in the middle of the pack, about whom we have little personal information, but with outlier performances like Gidey's they ring out "doping" like a police klaxon. Only someone utterly ignorant of the extent of doping in sports and its effect on performance will not see that. But that is you. You are like someone who attends a concert but is unable to tell that it is music. Tone deaf. To doping.
This poster is an admitted liar and will not read.
Ignore.
Like you do? Or don't.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But you don't. You respond to everything I say. With your vacuous indignant spluttering.
I ignore what you say and my point is to tell others that you are a self admitted liar and won’t read.
Yes. You are a stuck record. Who still can't ignore what I post. You're setting a great example.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So Gidey running a men's record would not suggest doping to you. No further proof is needed of the extent of your denial or your ignorance. You have confirmed that no level of performance is capable of rousing your suspicions in a sport rife with doping.
You also misquote me. Of course you do. I do not say and have not said that it is "impossible" to tell the clean performance from the doped one as an absolute. Doubts may apply to the runner in the middle of the pack, about whom we have little personal information, but with outlier performances like Gidey's they ring out "doping" like a police klaxon. Only someone utterly ignorant of the extent of doping in sports and its effect on performance will not see that. But that is you. You are like someone who attends a concert but is unable to tell that it is music. Tone deaf. To doping.
The only thing I ever deny are products of your imagination.
Gidey running a men's world record is just more of your imagination.
If doping could lead Gidey to run 57xx, we should have seen many more sub-64 performances by now, given all of your assumptions about extent and effect. The fact that we haven't undermines assumptions of extent, or effect, or both.
The reasons for Gidey running 57xx will be something local, and not something global, with a long history, like doping.
Furthermore, there are too many obvious anomalies to which you remain blind and deaf.
Answer me this: If doping is so extensive, and has such a powerful effect, shouldn't it be powerful everywhere and anytime? Why is Ingrid Kristiansen from 1987 still #3 all time among all non-Africans world wide in all of history? Doesn't effective doping extend as far as non-Africans? Is doping more effective for altitude born and raised athletes, and powerless for sea-level athletes? Are top non-Africans not doping, and doping only extends to middle of the pack wannabes?
One or more of your assumptions needs serious refinement, if not complete rejection.
In which thread did you ever suggest that outlier performances would be an exception to what you repeatedly claim is "impossible"? What would be the basis, in the real world, for any such exception? Is such a suggestion something that others suggest, or simply another product your imagination?
You're still arguing that no performance would lead you to a conclusion of doping. You would always find a reason to justify it - however fast. Or ridiculous. That's what a doping denier does.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
...the Italians brought EPO from cycling to East Africa leading to this situation.
EXACTLY.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:
...the Italians brought EPO from cycling to East Africa leading to this situation.
EXACTLY.
EPO isn't a performance enhancer.
Tell me how EPO circumvents thermoregulation?
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The only thing I ever deny are products of your imagination.
Gidey running a men's world record is just more of your imagination.
If doping could lead Gidey to run 57xx, we should have seen many more sub-64 performances by now, given all of your assumptions about extent and effect. The fact that we haven't undermines assumptions of extent, or effect, or both.
The reasons for Gidey running 57xx will be something local, and not something global, with a long history, like doping.
Furthermore, there are too many obvious anomalies to which you remain blind and deaf.
Answer me this: If doping is so extensive, and has such a powerful effect, shouldn't it be powerful everywhere and anytime? Why is Ingrid Kristiansen from 1987 still #3 all time among all non-Africans world wide in all of history? Doesn't effective doping extend as far as non-Africans? Is doping more effective for altitude born and raised athletes, and powerless for sea-level athletes? Are top non-Africans not doping, and doping only extends to middle of the pack wannabes?
One or more of your assumptions needs serious refinement, if not complete rejection.
In which thread did you ever suggest that outlier performances would be an exception to what you repeatedly claim is "impossible"? What would be the basis, in the real world, for any such exception? Is such a suggestion something that others suggest, or simply another product your imagination?
You're still arguing that no performance would lead you to a conclusion of doping. You would always find a reason to justify it - however fast. Or ridiculous. That's what a doping denier does.
Ignore this poster. He admits lying and not bothering to read.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
I ignore what you say and my point is to tell others that you are a self admitted liar and won’t read.
Yes. You are a stuck record. Who still can't ignore what I post. You're setting a great example.
I ignore what you post but not that you post nor that you are a liar and a non reader.
question... wrote:
Sprintgeezer wrote:
EXACTLY.
EPO isn't a performance enhancer.
Tell me how EPO circumvents thermoregulation?
Jon, take your flat-earthism elsewhere.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're still arguing that no performance would lead you to a conclusion of doping. You would always find a reason to justify it - however fast. Or ridiculous. That's what a doping denier does.
Ignore this poster. He admits lying and not bothering to read.
How can I admit it if I dispute it? I think the men in white coats should be calling for you soon.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Ignore this poster. He admits lying and not bothering to read.
How can I admit it if I dispute it? I think the men in white coats should be calling for you soon.
Ignore this poster,he has admitted in this thread and the SH thread that he lies. Further in the SH thread also said he can’t be bothered reading stuff.
Armstronglivs wrote:
question... wrote:
EPO isn't a performance enhancer.
Tell me how EPO circumvents thermoregulation?
Jon, take your flat-earthism elsewhere.
rojo, are you on amphetamine based psych medication?
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're still arguing that no performance would lead you to a conclusion of doping. You would always find a reason to justify it - however fast. Or ridiculous. That's what a doping denier does.
You were correct the first time — how do you keep bungling it up?
We were not talking about “conclusion” but about “suspicion”.
As you have claimed many times, performances can be clean or doped, and it is impossible to tell.
Your repeated claim is backed up by a peer-reviewed paper — but surely you already knew that:
"It is tempting to attribute outstanding performances to the alleged use of doping. The main problem with such a line of thinking is that the athlete will always lose in any such discussion: no matter how much he trains without the use of any prohibited substance, as soon as he excels he is, by default, a doping suspect. The essence of sport is to excel, and if excelling becomes synonymous with suspicions of cheating, each and every sport performance turns into an attack on the essence of sport itself. If such reasoning persists, this will seriously jeopardise the credibility of sport."
"It can be concluded that, on the basis of performances alone, an individual assessment on possible doping is simply not possible, and, in addition, any attempt to try to do this will violate the essence of sport. Linking extraordinary athletic performances to doping use is highly insulting to clean champions. Both scientifically and morally it is not recommended to try and link performance levels to doping use; at best performances can be used to identify general influences of anti-doping measures on the entire population of elite athletes."
Reference:
Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods
Olivier de Hon • Harm Kuipers • Maarten van Bottenburg
Sports Med (2015) 45:57–69 DOI 10.1007/s40279-014-0247-x
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're still arguing that no performance would lead you to a conclusion of doping. You would always find a reason to justify it - however fast. Or ridiculous. That's what a doping denier does.
You were correct the first time — how do you keep bungling it up?
We were not talking about “conclusion” but about “suspicion”.
As you have claimed many times, performances can be clean or doped, and it is impossible to tell.
Your repeated claim is backed up by a peer-reviewed paper — but surely you already knew that:
"It is tempting to attribute outstanding performances to the alleged use of doping. The main problem with such a line of thinking is that the athlete will always lose in any such discussion: no matter how much he trains without the use of any prohibited substance, as soon as he excels he is, by default, a doping suspect. The essence of sport is to excel, and if excelling becomes synonymous with suspicions of cheating, each and every sport performance turns into an attack on the essence of sport itself. If such reasoning persists, this will seriously jeopardise the credibility of sport."
"It can be concluded that, on the basis of performances alone, an individual assessment on possible doping is simply not possible, and, in addition, any attempt to try to do this will violate the essence of sport. Linking extraordinary athletic performances to doping use is highly insulting to clean champions. Both scientifically and morally it is not recommended to try and link performance levels to doping use; at best performances can be used to identify general influences of anti-doping measures on the entire population of elite athletes."
Reference:
Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods
Olivier de Hon • Harm Kuipers • Maarten van Bottenburg
Sports Med (2015) 45:57–69 DOI 10.1007/s40279-014-0247-x
You are wasting your time to ask the liar to read.
He refuses.
Ignore him.
I see we are still talking about the most doped women’s distance result of all time.
When she goes sub 2:10 I look forward to the same arguments.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
How can I admit it if I dispute it? I think the men in white coats should be calling for you soon.
Ignore this poster,he has admitted in this thread and the SH thread that he lies. Further in the SH thread also said he can’t be bothered reading stuff.
I love the way you keep drawing readers' attention to my posts.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're still arguing that no performance would lead you to a conclusion of doping. You would always find a reason to justify it - however fast. Or ridiculous. That's what a doping denier does.
You were correct the first time — how do you keep bungling it up?
We were not talking about “conclusion” but about “suspicion”.
As you have claimed many times, performances can be clean or doped, and it is impossible to tell.
Your repeated claim is backed up by a peer-reviewed paper — but surely you already knew that:
"It is tempting to attribute outstanding performances to the alleged use of doping. The main problem with such a line of thinking is that the athlete will always lose in any such discussion: no matter how much he trains without the use of any prohibited substance, as soon as he excels he is, by default, a doping suspect. The essence of sport is to excel, and if excelling becomes synonymous with suspicions of cheating, each and every sport performance turns into an attack on the essence of sport itself. If such reasoning persists, this will seriously jeopardise the credibility of sport."
"It can be concluded that, on the basis of performances alone, an individual assessment on possible doping is simply not possible, and, in addition, any attempt to try to do this will violate the essence of sport. Linking extraordinary athletic performances to doping use is highly insulting to clean champions. Both scientifically and morally it is not recommended to try and link performance levels to doping use; at best performances can be used to identify general influences of anti-doping measures on the entire population of elite athletes."
Reference:
Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods
Olivier de Hon • Harm Kuipers • Maarten van Bottenburg
Sports Med (2015) 45:57–69 DOI 10.1007/s40279-014-0247-x
You've already indicated that if Gidey ran as fast as the men's world mark you still wouldn't say doping. That's all you need to say. There is no limit to your doping denial. But we saw that when you refused to accept Shelby was a doper despite her confirmed violation. You defend them all.
1338 giddy wrote:
I see we are still talking about the most doped women’s distance result of all time.
When she goes sub 2:10 I look forward to the same arguments.
And 2.05.