Steeplecahse WR holder Ruth Jebet Banned for 4 years

Armstronglivs wrote:

And yet here you are, making judgments about doping based on the testimonies of others - your favoured researchers - rather than personal experience or knowledge. You have no experience of what you speak. And then, while thousands of athletes continue to dope you dismiss their experiences - which you have just indicated above are key to informed judgment - as mere "belief". Contradiction much. I look forward to seeing how you try to slither out of it.

The basis for my judgments, in the rare cases I give my judgment, are any data presented and logic and a critical assessment of arguments presented, including arguments from expert researchers.

While I agree with some researchers, based on their data and arguments, the primary basis for my ideas about elite performance is historical performance data.

I do not dismiss the experiences of thousands of athletes, but only disagreed we could call it knowledge, and further disagreed that you knew what their actual experience was.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But you can't ignore them - because they have an impact on your very sensitive ego. And they hit the mark.

I skip over the personal criticisms but do try to correct any false characterizations. That alone takes a lot of effort.

Yes, you do care. As you show yet again. But no one else does.

Armstronglivs wrote:If you don't even understand the reason for someone's response how can you possibly grasp the arguments you engage in? No one expects to persuade you. But correcting you is always justifiable.

I was asked to believe Lance and Eddy. How is this not an attempt to persuade me to change my ideas?

+++++!

whats classic is he will respond to this with more quotes within quotes and act as if you are the moran hahaha....i mean how many times has gary rekked threads? TOOO MANY TIMES....how many times has a thread been GUTTED and destroyed and peoples comments deleted to only have 10 pages of garys comments left.

again i have no idea why he posts or why he is protected but its annoying. hey brojos its not just me, there are LOTS of others who are annoyed by the narcissist arrogant self proclaimed smartest guy in the world gary. enough of letting him rekk threads

thanks

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

Yet another thread ruined by Rekrunner,

You should thank Armstronglivs mostly, and in small part, a small handful of others.

rekrunner wrote:

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

Yet another thread ruined by Rekrunner,

You should thank Armstronglivs mostly, and in small part, a small handful of others.

Yes I should thank him because it's his fault for engaging with a monumental moran such as yourself. What a waste.

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You should thank Armstronglivs mostly, and in small part, a small handful of others.

Yes I should thank him because it's his fault for engaging with a monumental moran such as yourself. What a waste.

lolz i told you he would reply and accuse you of being the moran haha...god how pathetic he thinks he is so hip...can you imagine him in real life? NO FRIENDS cause he is such a narcissist. i learned my lesson a few yrs ago dealing with gary. i was banned, my handles were banned and brojos acted like they had no idea how it happened. then they let me back on but still couldnt use my handles and said to just not engage with him....like wow right? so dont be surprised if armstronglivs gets them ban, cause arguing with gary is a no no for some reason

bannnedd i got wrote:

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

Yes I should thank him because it's his fault for engaging with a monumental moran such as yourself. What a waste.

lolz i told you he would reply and accuse you of being the moran haha...god how pathetic he thinks he is so hip...can you imagine him in real life? NO FRIENDS cause he is such a narcissist. i learned my lesson a few yrs ago dealing with gary. i was banned, my handles were banned and brojos acted like they had no idea how it happened. then they let me back on but still couldnt use my handles and said to just not engage with him....like wow right? so dont be surprised if armstronglivs gets them ban, cause arguing with gary is a no no for some reason

this is how i imagine gary is in real life, acting so smart and using too many words and rambling on and on even after no one is listening haha

Slithering is too kind a description. So your researchers know more about doping than Lance Armstrong, et al? Yet without the experiences of dopers like Armstrong (who would surely know better than anyone the difference between a clean and a doped performance) what have they got to go on for their data? At the same time, you fail to acknowledge your own contradiction, which was to indicate that personal experience rates above second-hand information - like that of your researchers - or your opinions. Dopers will know more than you. You could even call it knowledge.

Absurdity in your case goes hand-in-hand with a second-rate mind.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:If you don't even understand the reason for someone's response how can you possibly grasp the arguments you engage in? No one expects to persuade you. But correcting you is always justifiable.

I was asked to believe Lance and Eddy. How is this not an attempt to persuade me to change my ideas?

Nuances of expression are beyond you. Don't worry about it. Your prejudices are safe.

rekrunner wrote:

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

Yet another thread ruined by Rekrunner,

You should thank Armstronglivs mostly, and in small part, a small handful of others.

And you have to defend yourself against every perceived slight and "false characterisation". - as effortful as it is. It's hard to imagine what it would be like if you weren't so mature, as you say.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You should thank Armstronglivs mostly, and in small part, a small handful of others.

And you have to defend yourself against every perceived slight and "false characterisation". - as effortful as it is. It's hard to imagine what it would be like if you weren't so mature, as you say.

According to Nichols and Rothstein, people with narcissistic personality disorder have these traits, which they demonstrate in all contexts (not just at work, for instance):

- Lack empathy and don’t care about others’ feelings

- Have grandiose thoughts about themselves (e.g., might exaggerate their achievements or talents)

- Have an entitled point of view

- Don’t take responsibility or ownership of their actions; they think that nothing is ever their fault, which results in a string of bad relationships and/or work experiences

- Believe they’re superior to others

- Desire admiration from others and constant attention, making conversations or topics all about themselves

- Strive for power

- Manipulate situations to work in their favor, regardless of how this affects others.

and some more

- Conversation Hoarder and Interrupter....or on LR its just called rekked

- Name and Status Dropper....dropping renato as if they are buddies

- Spotlight Hogger....again rekked

- Sensitive to Criticism. Blame Others for Failings....classic, never has any data to give but demands everyone else to have data

- Passive-Aggressive Tendencies.....subtlety calling people morans and making fun of their "beliefs"

then to call out the narcissist, they will deflect and insult you but brag about themselves

pretty sure narcissist=gary.....now that we all agree, no more need to try and engage with him and then threads wont get rekked

this is the best way to sum up what happens when you engage with gary and a thread gets rekked....

"Malignant narcissists and sociopaths use word salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way. They do this in order to discredit, confuse and frustrate you, distract you from the main problem and make you feel guilty for being a human being with actual thoughts and feelings that might differ from their own. In their eyes, you are the problem if you happen to exist.

Spend even ten minutes arguing with a toxic narcissist and you’ll find yourself wondering how the argument even began at all. You simply disagreed with them about their absurd claim that the sky is red and now your entire childhood, family, friends, career and lifestyle choices have come under attack. That is because your disagreement picked at their false belief that they are omnipotent and omniscient, resulting in a narcissistic injury."

"Remember: toxic people don’t argue with you, they essentially argue with themselves and you become privy to their long, draining monologues. They thrive off the drama and they live for it. Each and every time you attempt to provide a point that counters their ridiculous assertions, you feed them supply. Don’t feed the narcissists supply – rather, supply yourself with the confirmation that their abusive behavior is the problem, not you. Cut the interaction short as soon as you anticipate it escalating and use your energy on some decadent self-care instead."

"Abusive narcissists and sociopaths employ a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalposts” in order to ensure that they have every reason to be perpetually dissatisfied with you. This is when, even after you’ve provided all the evidence in the world to validate your argument or taken an action to meet their request, they set up another expectation of you or demand more proof."

pretty sure gary does this ALL THE TIME.....WR holders, olympic champs, etc...yet he demands MORE proof, yet never once has any proof to show us...lolz what a tool

rekrunner wrote:

Absolutely sure. Much of the time is spent debunking strawmen ideas which are not mine, or explaining why I am not persuaded by some arguments.

.

You have yet to debunk any thing though.

"2:11:50"...sub-elite? The Olympic A-standard for the 96 games was 2:13:22 - so when do "sub-elites" qualify for the Olympics?

The 94 time could have been doped - you don't know with him (According to the AAA, there was misleading testimony in his hearings - hard to believe a doper wouldn't be honest. Lol). USADA later filed a motion with the AAA to extend back in time his period of ineligibility and disqualifying results based on the info he gave in the RW interview vs CAS testimony. The AAA ruled there were several incidents of EPO doping from 2001 through 2004 - all results were disqualified during that period (AAA CASE NO. 77 190 168 11 JENS)

He set four PBs during that time frame (10k rd, 15k, 10m & 20k).

Also, in his RW interview he made some interesting statements on the benefits he received while experimenting with EPO.

"Hellebuyck was convinced that doping was the rule among elite distance runners. Besides Shvetsov, Hellebuyck accepted the open invitation from French runners to sample their EPO. Gradually, he says, “I came to the conclusion that if I had used EPO in my prime, I could have run low 27 for the 10K and 2:06 for the marathon. Because I’ve got the leg speed and everything else. I just didn’t have the endurance. That’s what EPO gives you, endurance.”

Hellebuyck got his qualifying time, and later the press asked him how he did it. “I told the reporters that I finally figured out how to run a marathon,” Hellebuyck says. “I told them that I’d started training with high school runners, doing the strides and drills, becoming a lot quicker. That was somewhat true, but the real reason was I was having extra good blood. So then I was absolutely, totally believing that the EPO really works for me.”

Too funny - I'm surprised he didn't add in there altitude training, box jumps and yoga. Lol.

no need to waste your time, gary will make some annoying conclusion that only he is smart enough to think up to discredit this....i mean he gaslights on ramzi dropping 9 seconds!

"but but but how do we know he wasnt being optimally trained?" well after his ban he was back to pre EPO times....but gary just ignores that fact...thats his fallacy...present him with facts and he changes the criteria of the argument like a spoiled brat. then accuses you of arguing the wrong point. like really how is it he is the one in charge of the conversation? well he isnt he just thinks he is so he can change it up anytime he wants when FACTS are presented.

so back to the REALITY...WR holder took EPO and got BANNED....holy hell those are FACTS not some fallacy hahaha. why gary thinks he can change the FACTS by his annoying ramblings i dont know....maybe he doesnt know either haha

ps stable...are those names ever going to drop, or is it going to be like kiprop and take 4 months to slowly leak out and then shared on here via coevett?

Haha. I refer you to my previous post...