I'm more a fan of looking for mathematical correlations in data, whether it is an African connection (seems to be one for sprinters and distance runners), or whether it is shoes in the modern supershoe era.
You're not a fan of anything. You're a fanatic.
Says the guy with 40000 posts, 10000+ regarding Ingebrigtsen. Any single one of them negative.
I'm more a fan of looking for mathematical correlations in data, whether it is an African connection (seems to be one for sprinters and distance runners), or whether it is shoes in the modern supershoe era.
You're not a fan of anything. You're a fanatic.
Oh, dear, the ignorance. Where do you think the word "fan" comes from?
LOL. That AR was set by a fraud who was caught red-handed using EPO and was let off due to the ‘muh poor Africans’ mentality of crooked officials trying to make social statements. Lagat was one of the dirtiest athletes of the EPO era.
American athletes have learned from his example.
You’resimply angry brcause New Zealanders are becoming increasingly feminized, hence fewer and fewer are threats on the world stage.
I think the Americans have been pretty smart about this new drug, only using it sparingly (maybe it's expensive), making it very hard to detect.
Hocker, Rooks, Hoppel were likely on it at the OG. They didn't really use it before (their PRs, results seem to show that) , or after - except perhaps Hocker on his 7:22.
Once the deug becomes cheaper and more systemic, WADA will find a way to detect it and it will be banned. But unfortunately the results will stand.
I think the Americans have been pretty smart about this new drug, only using it sparingly (maybe it's expensive), making it very hard to detect.
Hocker, Rooks, Hoppel were likely on it at the OG. They didn't really use it before (their PRs, results seem to show that) , or after - except perhaps Hocker on his 7:22.
Once the deug becomes cheaper and more systemic, WADA will find a way to detect it and it will be banned. But unfortunately the results will stand.
This is my naivety and I just don’t get how drugs work. Is it that black and white? You’re on it, you run fast. You’re off, you run slow. I thought that taking drugs allowed you to do crazy training by helping you recover, which lead to better performances. Although the drugs themselves also provide a bit of a boost but the training benefit is what really drives things up.
This is my naivety and I just don’t get how drugs work. Is it that black and white? You’re on it, you run fast. You’re off, you run slow. I thought that taking drugs allowed you to do crazy training by helping you recover, which lead to better performances. Although the drugs themselves also provide a bit of a boost but the training benefit is what really drives things up.
It's all broscience. brojos know this, they even admitted it a while back.
wejo said in a podcast "there are no magic bullets, and rojo repeated this asertion.
But then again, they both know that drug talk is good click bait and good business.
I think the Americans have been pretty smart about this new drug, only using it sparingly (maybe it's expensive), making it very hard to detect.
Hocker, Rooks, Hoppel were likely on it at the OG. They didn't really use it before (their PRs, results seem to show that) , or after - except perhaps Hocker on his 7:22.
Once the deug becomes cheaper and more systemic, WADA will find a way to detect it and it will be banned. But unfortunately the results will stand.
Yes they are, only the idiots overdosing are caught - think burrito girl, it’s all about micro dosing and frequently at different points, a little HGH after heavy sessions pre season, mix with some testosterone for recovery whether are a gel massage or pill over night, then injections of B12 and EPO when required though out the month - this is where you see the no whereabouts if the testers come the same or next day.
we need to move to testing daily to caught the cheats. One thing for certain the next Olympics will be the dirtiest ever for doping. It’s not just the US and Africa but a lot of countries following the same pattern and of “shared” knowledge
You are surely one of the densest posters here. I never suggested the classical masters in either art or music used methods or techniques that had never been employed before but that they created works that have never been surpassed. You dig deeper only to bury yourself in your stupidity and your vanity at trying to show your falsehoods are somehow true. It's all you do.
That's laughable coming from the one whose density rivals blackholes.
Who said "methods and techniques"? Nothing I ever said was about "methods or techniques". Notes and chords are not "methods or techniques". The paints used by artists are not "methods or techniques". Talk about digging yourself deeper in your own stupidity.
Since you say advances in music and are not the same as scientific knowledge, how can you say none of their works have never been surpassed? I'm genuinely curious who has judged all works. Is there some kind of scorecard somewhere? How about Bach vs Mozart vs Beethoven? Did none of them surpass each other, or is it a three-way tie? What is their score? Whose "works" is #4? How do their scores compare to 20th century artists like Oscar Peterson or Leonard Bernstein, or John Williams, or Hans Zimmer?
I'm more a fan of looking for mathematical correlations in data, whether it is an African connection (seems to be one for sprinters and distance runners), or whether it is shoes in the modern supershoe era.
You're not a fan of anything. You're a fanatic.
Ok. I'm a fanatic for mathematical correlations in data.
Says the guy with 40000 posts, 10000+ regarding Ingebrigtsen. Any single one of them negative.
But factually correct. And all on threads posted by others and populated by posters like you.
It usually takes 3 or 4 pages and many many posts which correct you until you finally get one of your very few Ingebrigtsen-points (which you therefore repeat dozens and dozens of time) correct.
You are surely one of the densest posters here. I never suggested the classical masters in either art or music used methods or techniques that had never been employed before but that they created works that have never been surpassed. You dig deeper only to bury yourself in your stupidity and your vanity at trying to show your falsehoods are somehow true. It's all you do.
That's laughable coming from the one whose density rivals blackholes.
Who said "methods and techniques"? Nothing I ever said was about "methods or techniques". Notes and chords are not "methods or techniques". The paints used by artists are not "methods or techniques". Talk about digging yourself deeper in your own stupidity.
Since you say advances in music and are not the same as scientific knowledge, how can you say none of their works have never been surpassed? I'm genuinely curious who has judged all works. Is there some kind of scorecard somewhere? How about Bach vs Mozart vs Beethoven? Did none of them surpass each other, or is it a three-way tie? What is their score? Whose "works" is #4? How do their scores compare to 20th century artists like Oscar Peterson or Leonard Bernstein, or John Williams, or Hans Zimmer?
Works of art today have not surpassed the great works of art in the past. You won't know that in your supreme ignorance. So as an analogy for advances in training it fails - as do all your contrived arguments.