Gidey just ran the single greatest female running performance ever... Give her the black page! Letesenbet MF Gidey 1:02:52

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Ah -- but there is a clear and finite limit. It is the line between observed reality and imagination.

With respect to Houlihan, the reality I rely on can be found, not in your posts in your words based on your imagination, but in documents at the WADA and AIU websites. I accepted their findings on their terms

Your issue with what to call Houlihan is not with me, but with WADA, the AIU, and the CAS.

You are wasting your time with him because he just refuses to read anything let alone the WADA and AIU documents.

And then he lies.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

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.

It won’t take them much to realise you lie and refuse to read.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I love the way you keep drawing readers' attention to my posts.

It won’t take them much to realise you lie and refuse to read.

But they'll read my posts - you've made sure of that. And it won't take them much to realise all your posts are simply about me, such is your fixation.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Ah -- but there is a clear and finite limit. It is the line between observed reality and imagination.

With respect to Houlihan, the reality I rely on can be found, not in your posts in your words based on your imagination, but in documents at the WADA and AIU websites. I accepted their findings on their terms

Your issue with what to call Houlihan is not with me, but with WADA, the AIU, and the CAS.

The issue is that you cannot accept Houlihan is a doper despite a confirmed doping violation. That is what a doping violation means. You try to argue that because WADA, the AIU, and CAS don't use the term then she isn't a doper - despite her confirmed positive test, rule violation and subsequent ban that resulted from their prosecution and findings. But of course you would maintain that because in your world dopers don't actually exist.

I am amused that you say there is a " line between observed reality and imagination". You have never observed reality. But for you there is never line between a clean and a doped performance because no one dopes.

Ignore as he lies and refuses to read.

You continue to lie.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

It won’t take them much to realise you lie and refuse to read.

But they'll read my posts - you've made sure of that. And it won't take them much to realise all your posts are simply about me, such is your fixation.

You continue to lie.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The issue is that you cannot accept Houlihan is a doper despite a confirmed doping violation. That is what a doping violation means. You try to argue that because WADA, the AIU, and CAS don't use the term then she isn't a doper - despite her confirmed positive test, rule violation and subsequent ban that resulted from their prosecution and findings. But of course you would maintain that because in your world dopers don't actually exist.

I am amused that you say there is a " line between observed reality and imagination". You have never observed reality. But for you there is never line between a clean and a doped performance because no one dopes.

That's not an issue for me. If that's an issue for you, I suggest you take that up with WADA, the AIU, and the CAS who did not describe Houlihan the way you would like her to be described.

I'm happy you gave me the meaning of a doping violation, because you don't often give definitions.

Meanwhile, according to WADA, the AIU, and the CAS, Houlihan was found to have committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs).

I observe realities everyday. I have also observed plenty of imagination, particularly in your posts. I acknowledge that sometimes your posts state realities backed up by a peer-reviewed paper, like the many times you argued that it is impossible to see any line between a clean and a doped performance.

If you imagine now that there is such a line, I suggest you take that up with yourself. Once you do, I will be standing on the side that was backed up by a peer-reviewed paper.

He will not read and thus the concept of peer reviewing will be alien but he will still lie.

As it happens I agree with you .Wada never judge intent only that drugs are in the body: somehow.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But they'll read my posts - you've made sure of that. And it won't take them much to realise all your posts are simply about me, such is your fixation.

You continue to lie.

He is a narcissist. He thinks everyone else admires him.

He is incapable of understanding and admitting when he is wrong.

A few weeks ago he even said he has never been wrong here, and even when confronted with undeniable proof, he kept denying it.

Just a sad human being.

qregw wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

You continue to lie.

He is a narcissist. He thinks everyone else admires him.

He is incapable of understanding and admitting when he is wrong.

A few weeks ago he even said he has never been wrong here, and even when confronted with undeniable proof, he kept denying it.

Just a sad human being.

Correct.

A liar in all the threads he contaminants.

Well this thread took a dive into the dumpster - everyone above on this page should be banned and the thread locked at this point

RunningFromTime wrote:

Well this thread took a dive into the dumpster - everyone above on this page should be banned and the thread locked at this point

Lying trolls need removing ; the one in question has contaminated many many threads.

It sounds like people are protesting too much.

What do we know? Well we know that there is a magic elixir called EPO that Fignon once wrote could turn mules into race horses. See Ma's army as a great example. We know that it is virtually impossible to catch, that the bio passport can be easily circumvented. And we know that in speed and endurance sports (sprinting, running, cycling, swimming, etc) athletes have had no scruples about cheating, that to them it is just keeping up with the crowd. For decades every major sprinting champion has doped. Every major cyclist and their domestiques, whole cycling teams, have doped. In baseball virtually the entire sport, including players already very wealthy and famous, doped. And distance running has always been dirty, all the way back to the blood doping days of the 1970s. Human nature does not change.

So I would say that there is the strongest probability that every major pro distance runner is doping just as in cycling. That isn't cynicism, just simple realism. Why should distance running be any different than any other sport where incentive, means and opportunity exist? It isn't.

Wrong. In the absence of any accepted alternative explanation intent is presumed - as the Houlihan case showed.

liar soorer wrote:

RunningFromTime wrote:

Well this thread took a dive into the dumpster - everyone above on this page should be banned and the thread locked at this point

Lying trolls need removing ; the one in question has contaminated many many threads.

You're a bit harsh on yourself - but true.

qregw wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

You continue to lie.

He is a narcissist. He thinks everyone else admires him.

He is incapable of understanding and admitting when he is wrong.

A few weeks ago he even said he has never been wrong here, and even when confronted with undeniable proof, he kept denying it.

Just a sad human being.

I agree. Very sad. Liar soorer is quite the lying narcissist.

Of course you need a "peer-reviewed paper" to define the word "doper". I suppose the word "liar" also requires a peer-reviewed paper to define it. "Moron" is another that obviously comes to mind in your case.

What a performance by Gidey. That’s what this thread is about. Right?