As ridiculous as Bad Wigins 2,600 prediction? Pretty close 😂
Probably every bit as foolish. Can’t believe he introduced Coe wanting Jackson to take the record into the discussion to support his claim that Jackson is dirty. My God you can’t fix stupid 😂😂😂
But but Lord Coe 😂😂😂
I didn't introduce Coe in the discussion to support my claim that Jackson is dirty but to support the claim that Gault asked a legitimate question about Flojo's record. I have said that repeatedly here but you and your fellow morons refuse to get it.
You have proven one thing: you have an IQ below 90.
So you know for a fact what an anonymous poster has done - or not done - with their career. I suspect you have made a career of ignorance.
I'm glad that you and the troglodytes on this thread don't believe me. If you did it would suggest you have sufficient discernment to be able to evaluate the arguments. You don't and you can't. None of you can. It does at least confirm for me that the view that prevails here comes from the most intellectually challenged posters on this board - and that is saying something.
Careful. You speak heresy here - even though you're right. The Letsrun "virtue-signallers" have formed a regiment here.
How about a virtual signal that you apologise for offending people with your admitted racist phrases?
A spade - the term I used - is a garden implement except to one who hasn't done a stroke of physical work in his life. The only stroke you have experienced is mental. It explains much.
Probably every bit as foolish. Can’t believe he introduced Coe wanting Jackson to take the record into the discussion to support his claim that Jackson is dirty. My God you can’t fix stupid 😂😂😂
But but Lord Coe 😂😂😂
I didn't introduce Coe in the discussion to support my claim that Jackson is dirty but to support the claim that Gault asked a legitimate question about Flojo's record. I have said that repeatedly here but you and your fellow morons refuse to get it.
You have proven one thing: you have an IQ below 90.
And in the process undermined one of your central points that Jackson is dirty.
You can stamps foot as much as you like but you made an error and gave us all a good laugh 😏
I didn't introduce Coe in the discussion to support my claim that Jackson is dirty but to support the claim that Gault asked a legitimate question about Flojo's record. I have said that repeatedly here but you and your fellow morons refuse to get it.
You have proven one thing: you have an IQ below 90.
And in the process undermined one of your central points that Jackson is dirty.
You can stamps foot as much as you like but you made an error and gave us all a good laugh 😏
You really are very slow, aren't you? The thread began with the claim that Gault's question re Flojo was unacceptable. Coe's response to the issue showed it was perfectly acceptable.
This doesn't show that Jackson is clean - only that Coe possibly thinks so. My own view, which is independent of the question, is that it takes a doper to beat a doped record. Gault's question does not prove my point, it simply puts the subject out there. It implicitly raises two points: can Jackson beat a doped mark (from Gault's question), and does she have to be doped to do it (which is my point). As I said earlier - her brushing the question aside is interesting, to say the least.
It is quite simple but beyond most on this thread.
And in the process undermined one of your central points that Jackson is dirty.
You can stamps foot as much as you like but you made an error and gave us all a good laugh 😏
You really are very slow, aren't you? The thread began with the claim that Gault's question re Flojo was unacceptable. Coe's response to the issue showed it was perfectly acceptable.
This doesn't show that Jackson is clean - only that Coe possibly thinks so. My own view, which is independent of the question, is that it takes a doper to beat a doped record. Gault's question does not prove my point, it simply puts the subject out there. It implicitly raises two points: can Jackson beat a doped mark (from Gault's question), and does she have to be doped to do it (which is my point). As I said earlier - her brushing the question aside is interesting, to say the least.
It is quite simple but beyond most on this thread.
Dishonest.
YOU repeatedly insinuated that Jackson was dirty and then produced an article where Coe said he’d like Jackson to erase Flo Jo’s dirty record.
It was a dumb move on your behalf and we’ve all had a laugh at your expense.
Take it on the chin instead of hissy fitting for a week straight.
You really are very slow, aren't you? The thread began with the claim that Gault's question re Flojo was unacceptable. Coe's response to the issue showed it was perfectly acceptable.
This doesn't show that Jackson is clean - only that Coe possibly thinks so. My own view, which is independent of the question, is that it takes a doper to beat a doped record. Gault's question does not prove my point, it simply puts the subject out there. It implicitly raises two points: can Jackson beat a doped mark (from Gault's question), and does she have to be doped to do it (which is my point). As I said earlier - her brushing the question aside is interesting, to say the least.
It is quite simple but beyond most on this thread.
Dishonest.
YOU repeatedly insinuated that Jackson was dirty and then produced an article where Coe said he’d like Jackson to erase Flo Jo’s dirty record.
It was a dumb move on your behalf and we’ve all had a laugh at your expense.
Take it on the chin instead of hissy fitting for a week straight.
You really are very slow, aren't you? The thread began with the claim that Gault's question re Flojo was unacceptable. Coe's response to the issue showed it was perfectly acceptable.
This doesn't show that Jackson is clean - only that Coe possibly thinks so. My own view, which is independent of the question, is that it takes a doper to beat a doped record. Gault's question does not prove my point, it simply puts the subject out there. It implicitly raises two points: can Jackson beat a doped mark (from Gault's question), and does she have to be doped to do it (which is my point). As I said earlier - her brushing the question aside is interesting, to say the least.
It is quite simple but beyond most on this thread.
Dishonest.
YOU repeatedly insinuated that Jackson was dirty and then produced an article where Coe said he’d like Jackson to erase Flo Jo’s dirty record.
It was a dumb move on your behalf and we’ve all had a laugh at your expense.
Take it on the chin instead of hissy fitting for a week straight.
It's hard to penetrate stupid. I didn't offer the Coe article to prove Jackson is dirty but to show that Gault's question - which caused so much offence here - was a justifiable question. I didn't argue that his question proved her to be a doper but that I could see why she didn't want to answer it. The level of comprehension here is barely grade school. That you have laughed at what you don't understand shows the joke's on you - but you can't see it. That would require slightly higher intelligence, unfortunately.
YOU repeatedly insinuated that Jackson was dirty and then produced an article where Coe said he’d like Jackson to erase Flo Jo’s dirty record.
It was a dumb move on your behalf and we’ve all had a laugh at your expense.
Take it on the chin instead of hissy fitting for a week straight.
It's hard to penetrate stupid. I didn't offer the Coe article to prove Jackson is dirty but to show that Gault's question - which caused so much offence here - was a justifiable question. I didn't argue that his question proved her to be a doper but that I could see why she didn't want to answer it. The level of comprehension here is barely grade school. That you have laughed at what you don't understand shows the joke's on you - but you can't see it. That would require slightly higher intelligence, unfortunately.
Yeah that’s the point really. Coe views Jackson as a clean option to take an unclean record.
That of course runs counter to YOUR main point that the question is fine because Jackson is dirty herself.
While letsrun does a great covering track and field, they are the worst interviewers in the world. You can ask those kind of questions, but they are best saved for sit-down, podcast type interviews, you just don't dive right into them post-race through the media tent.
So you know for a fact what an anonymous poster has done - or not done - with their career. I suspect you have made a career of ignorance.
I'm glad that you and the troglodytes on this thread don't believe me. If you did it would suggest you have sufficient discernment to be able to evaluate the arguments. You don't and you can't. None of you can. It does at least confirm for me that the view that prevails here comes from the most intellectually challenged posters on this board - and that is saying something.
Given the 100+ posts this guy has made just in this one thread, I think I might have a theory that explains why he’s no longer employed as a BBC journalist (if he ever was)…
You really are very slow, aren't you? The thread began with the claim that Gault's question re Flojo was unacceptable. Coe's response to the issue showed it was perfectly acceptable.
This doesn't show that Jackson is clean - only that Coe possibly thinks so. My own view, which is independent of the question, is that it takes a doper to beat a doped record. Gault's question does not prove my point, it simply puts the subject out there. It implicitly raises two points: can Jackson beat a doped mark (from Gault's question), and does she have to be doped to do it (which is my point). As I said earlier - her brushing the question aside is interesting, to say the least.
It is quite simple but beyond most on this thread.
Dishonest.
YOU repeatedly insinuated that Jackson was dirty and then produced an article where Coe said he’d like Jackson to erase Flo Jo’s dirty record.
It was a dumb move on your behalf and we’ve all had a laugh at your expense.
Take it on the chin instead of hissy fitting for a week straight.
Is English not your native tongue? It is the most charitable explanation I can come up with.