So just catching up... Emma has basically withdrawn a claim that her team mate is clean? Which pretty much means she is dirty.
So just catching up... Emma has basically withdrawn a claim that her team mate is clean? Which pretty much means she is dirty.
Late to the thread wrote:
So just catching up... Emma has basically withdrawn a claim that her team mate is clean? Which pretty much means she is dirty.
No, she's withdrawn the statement that she and Courtney get tested on average once a week.
Anyway, this is not a good look for Emma because it shows she cannot be trusted when it comes to being factual and lets face it, to make a statement like that can't be put down to a slip of the tongue, as you either are or you aren't tested on average once a week.
So now we have a person who can't be trusted to be factual impugning the actions and reputation of another athlete without a skerrick of evidence. I thought you Americans had laws against this sort of thing.
No, but... wrote:
Late to the thread wrote:
So just catching up... Emma has basically withdrawn a claim that her team mate is clean? Which pretty much means she is dirty.
No, she's withdrawn the statement that she and Courtney get tested on average once a week.
As long as she doesn't delete the photo of them rolling around on the track, I'm good.
No, but... wrote:
Late to the thread wrote:
So just catching up... Emma has basically withdrawn a claim that her team mate is clean? Which pretty much means she is dirty.
No, she's withdrawn the statement that she and Courtney get tested on average once a week.
Anyway, this is not a good look for Emma because it shows she cannot be trusted when it comes to being factual and lets face it, to make a statement like that can't be put down to a slip of the tongue, as you either are or you aren't tested on average once a week.
So now we have a person who can't be trusted to be factual impugning the actions and reputation of another athlete without a skerrick of evidence. I thought you Americans had laws against this sort of thing.
Not when the person running the country sets such an example. It rots from the head and Emma is just one of many following suit.
As for the withdrawn statement, what if it isn't a lie but mere confirmation that she is tested weekly by her team? That would open a whole new pandora's box, wouldn't it? She could've have inadvertently spilled the beans about how the team ensures she maintains thresholds.
ok dawg....too bad i saw a reply from you once that said you were from chicago lolz
Chepkoech puts her incredible season down to gaining experience in the two previous ones, 42 second mark of video:
Her hurdling technique may have had something to do with her incredible season too:
http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Beatrice+Chepkoech/IAAF+Continental+Cup+Day+2/1F6S7IzxRa5
Some of you need to check out what proper hurdlers do. The lead leg comes out straight and the trailing leg lifts directly out to the side with the knee bent to about 45degrees, and torso inclined forward. Chepkoech hurdles like a giraffe trying to drink at a waterhole, legs splayed. Lucky for her the hurdles are low.
Livstrong7 wrote:
Some of you need to check out what proper hurdlers do. The lead leg comes out straight and the trailing leg lifts directly out to the side with the knee bent to about 45degrees, and torso inclined forward. Chepkoech hurdles like a giraffe trying to drink at a waterhole, legs splayed. Lucky for her the hurdles are low.
Guess what sunshine, she does what a proper steeplechaser should do hurdling a steeple. Why?, because guess what sunshine, unlike a 400m/100m hurdle, a steeple doesn't fall over if you hit it. Go and try it with both sometime.
Something like this sunshine:
http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Beatrice+Chepkoech/Athletics+Olympics+Day+8/IFWMz1qsJlk
Oh, right. She's a "steeplechaser" now, not a real "hurdler". So she pretty much just jumps over the barriers like everyone else. Let's just change the terms to suit the facile argument then. But irrelevant to the key question of whether she is doping or not.
If technique decided the issue then you would have to conclude that no athlete with great form, for example, could be doping, because you are seeking to justify their performance for technical reasons i.e. efficiency rules out doping. But we know that great technicians can still dope - and have doped. We also know that runners with less than ideal form or technique can still be great runners. Technique doesn't decide the issue. But if a runner makes dramatic gains in performance late in their career then a red flag has to go up. And if it is a world record by a huge margin then a bunch of flags start waving in the breeze. But although a lot of you don't like to see it, flags have been waving on the track for decades.
From 4th in the worlds last year in 9.10 to 8.44 this year. At 27. Yup - must have really done some work on her "hurdling" technique in the last year.
With this rate of improvement, in another year she'll be giving Kipruto a run for his money.
Livstrong7 wrote:
From 4th in the worlds last year in 9.10 to 8.44 this year. At 27. Yup - must have really done some work on her "hurdling" technique in the last year.
Oh, man. Really. Just stop.
Why? It's got you wound up.
Livstrong7 wrote:
From 4th in the worlds last year in 9.10 to 8.44 this year. At 27. Yup - must have really done some work on her "hurdling" technique in the last year.
Not only are the conditions different (what next, compare Rio to Monaco?), but this so-called "9:10" could also have been payed off by shoe companies to ensure their USA hi-finish.
BC cut 15s off her PB in perfect conditions for a WR. ("The race was expected to be quick with six of the top eight women in history lining up for what was expected to be the season's best chance to run fast. ")
USA girl CF cut 17s off hers in a watered-down WC where every place would ensure heaps of shoe sponsorship.
Which is the more likely to have doping incentive?