Mo Katir admits whereabouts failures -- banned 2 years and will miss '24 Olympics

You didn't really deconstruct my arguments, so much as reconstruct them, only to deconstruct what you constructed.

- Generally, I do not argue "EPO doesn't work", but ask for better evidence of when it has worked in history.

- Not sure what you are trying to say about Russian/Soviet marathoners, but it looks wrong on two counts: 1) Russians have run faster than the Soviets, and 2) I did not ignore it but corrected you -- a correction you ignored.

- My "closer look at EPO-era performances" was based solely on all time historical performances (up to Jan. 2018), and based not on any "assumption that all continents and countries doped with EPO equally during the EPO era". After the data was collected and calculations completed, to kick off discussion, I used popular claims of widespread doping, "up to 57% according to recent surveys", as context, not to draw conclusions, but to ask a question about non-Africans: "why so few, and then by so little?" -- especially from countries like Spain and Morocco, famous for EPO. You were also corrected on this point, but again, you consistently ignore when posters correct your factual errors.

- Combining the previous two points, Russian and Soviet men were a complete non-factor in my "closer look", with their very best runners (2:09:xx) nearly 2 minutes slower than runners like Steve Jones and Carlos Lopes from the mid-1980s.

Look, you trained me well in semantics, so I'm no longer confident whether 'conceded to' and 'declaring' means the same because I can find 100 meanings and ways in which they are different!!!

I need your help to define the Greek and Hebrew etymology of 'conceded' and 'declaring' pls!!!! I'm lazy to do so pls!!!

Could you be more specific on who or what you are taking a swipe at about 'collection of mythical stories and persons passed from person to person....." I need specificity and not ambiguity didn't you teach me so???

Look, you are trying to run away from your error and mistake but I really need you to answer YES OR NO, whether you think scientific faith is different from Christian faith or otherwise???

I'm stupid in this regard as to me faith is faith, just like a white lie is a lie duh!!!!!!!!!

What are you getting at huh????

That doesn't seem like the right definition of "racist". After all, my "rest of the world" group included South and West Africans, as well as Caucasions, Indians, Asians, Indogenous Indians, Hispanic, etc.

I did pre-select three groups to count quality and quantity metrics separately for comparison, giving my rationale based on several popular claims I often heard, but I also invited everyone to create groups of their own choosing to make their own points I might have overlooked.

For the men, my choice of ethnicity over citizenship reclassified 17 East Africans and 8 North Africans out of 403 "top" athletes. My choice highlights a high correlation for both quality and quantity between East/North Africans and high performance, regardless of citizenship, during nearly three decades spanning (nearly?) the entire EPO-era, that cannot be observed from the best of the rest of the world from athletes originating from the remaining 5-continents plus South and West Africa.

Note my "arguments" still "work" in terms of "quantity" without reclassifying East/North African expats by ethnic origin. When I counted "top athletes" (faster than my 1990-benchmark), there were:

- 226 Kenyans competing for Kenya (56%)

- 88 Ethiopians competing for Ethiopia (22%)

- 10 East Africans from and competing for other East African countries (Uganda, Eritrea, Somalia, Burundi, Tanzania) (2.5%)

- 17 East African expats competing for non-African countries (4%)

- 30 North Africans (19 Moroccans, 3 Algerians, and 8 expats: 3 Moroccans and 5 Algerians) (7.5%)

- 32 non-East/North Africans (5-continents) (8%)

The "quality" difference would obviously be masked when the best performances of non-African countries are coming from the African expats, who perform similarly to athletes from their home country rather than their new country.

"concede": 1. to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit

"declare": 1. to make known or state clearly

Regarding defining Greek and Hebrew etymology, I am also too lazy.

Regarding mythical stories, I mean unambiguously any and all of them. For a specific example, let's say effects of blood doping on elite distance marathon running performance. Or alternatively, RF/EMF harmful effects on elite distance running performance.

"faith": 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something; 2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

My faith in the scientific method fits the first definition, and not the second.

Hope this helps. Keep the faith.

I get it that you can be dissatisfied with posters ignoring your arguments and just repeating their own. Or if their reasoning is “patently absurd”. I myself meet these things all the time, and I am as annoyed as you are.

But here is the thing: We can more or less all throw these allegations (about bad debate technique) against each other, and opponents will say back that I/you/we are the problem, and there’s no objective way to decide who’s wrong or right. I think we just must argue and form a reasoning the best we can about a matter, and that’s it.

But I wouldn’t call bad debate technic trolling! Heck, not even an insult is that if it’s an onetime thing, or connected to something my debater explain he doesn’t like in my reasoning.

I have had a look on some other posts, and can clearly see that you f.ex have met some real trolling there, but not by “rekrunner” it seems. And here’s how I view “trolling”: A sort of bullying, and persecution by repeatedly using unfounded allegations of being this and that, that never are being properly connected by discussion to something one pose or reason. This mean that frequently one’s posts are being met by multiple registered or unregistered handles that tell you what idiot you are, but always without any further reasoning or argumentative connection to the content of your post. One pretty much get the same reaction to one’s posts even if one tries to nuance something, admit something or adjust or explain.

The strange thing is this: I can’t see that rekrunner is trolling at all (sticking to my definition above). He seems to give thoroughly explanations for everything he means and criticise.
And paradoxically the allegations of him trolling seem to be a kind of trolling themselves, since he doesn’t seem to troll. Of course he can do things in hiding, but I have a hard time finding it fits his agenda. He takes too much pleasure in doing things his way, and in the open it seems. Just my impression.

Upvote if you think the mods should limit rekrunner to no more than ten posts a day.

Rekrunner is one of the most educated poster of LRC.

The trolls are:

CoEvett and ArmstrongisLiv who are motivated by racist considerations.

I don't like doping. That's my motivation. The rest is your projection. Rekrunner spends his life denying or minimising doping. Of course you agree with him. The runners you wish to believe are clean - many of whom are Kenyan - are probably doping.

No, you are motivated by racist considerations. You are full of praise for Femke after she broke Kratochvilová's record.

49.17 for the athlete concerned doesn't cry out doping. How many Dutch athletes have incurred doping violations? I have previously suggested doping amongst certain European and American runners, most of whom are Caucasian. Is that a racist motivation? You are an idiot who can't deal with the fact that most of the doping violations in running come out of Africa.

^This guy (Hoady) has a fetish for the idea of Africans having special adaptations, and has claimed that Kenyans dominate because their brains use less energy.

There’s a lot of things in your writings I disagree in, but I have never even considered you being a troll.

I gave you an upvote. But have to add that I f.ex never have seen something racist from Armstronglivs.

Where there is free speech there must be disagreement. On most subjects I say what I think but if the subject or comment is absurd I treat it as such.

I regularly respond to what I consider racism on these boards, which I find offensive. But identifying that doping in sports is more of a problem in some countries than others - like Kenya - is not "racist" simply because of the racial background of those athletes.

IF rekrunner is one of the most educated or intellectual persons to ever graced LRC, then I narcissistically shudder if I'm out of this world right????

If Rekrunner is akin to Cristiano Ronaldo the King of Football, then I Khamis must be akin to Lionel Messi the GOD of Football or otherwise!!!!

Rekrunner can be objectively measured and sized up but I Khamis can't even be subjectively imagined and fathomed and simply out of this world right???

I agree with you Armstrong, In my latest comments, I discover Kipchoge to be a king of doping!

Look dear rekrunner, precisely you can see concede and declare are defined differently, meaning that there is a semantical lag between the 2 which you precisely love to take advantage of to enhance your pro-doping agenda!!!!!! I know how you operate sir!!!! You love to weave in and out of statement clauses and word meanings/definitions and take advantage of the tiniest gap in the conscious understanding of all these frames of existence to remain impregnable and indistinguishable as a pro-doper!!!!!!!!! Filthy pervert!!!

Luckily I Khamis the RF king exist on LRC because I remain the only type of man and person to be able to dismantle and expose your perverse and immoral ways of thinking, speaking and acting!!!

I don't think you were referring to mythical stories as blood doping and RF/EMF and sport performance. I subjectively know your soul so well right now that it's quite uncharacteristic of you to call these domains as mythical and mythical stories. Instead, and you may deny btw, I don't just believe but presciently know that you were referring to the Christian Bible and God actually!!!

"complete trust or confidence in someone or something (other than religion)"

That just means you have faith in something or everything else than religion. It could your mum, your dad, your wife, whoever, or your government etc but it's faith all the same!!!

The definition of faith does not discern that religious faith is any more or less superior or inferior than all other faiths in everybody and anything such as the scientific method, so what gives you the right to think better of one over the other????

Are you bigoted and discriminatory??? Pls read the rules of the LRC forum I urge you!!!!

Even if, which it isn't, RF and EMF harmful effects on sport performance is completely religiously rendered and proven, the definition of faith does not give you the right to discriminate it against the scientific method.

"out of this world" is one way to put it.