Steeplecahse WR holder Ruth Jebet Banned for 4 years

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

If you are referring to my meta-study researchers, they were critical of other EPO research, not drawing any conclusions about real world doping in grand tours beyond saying that existing EPO research would be inapplicable for many reasons to the conditions of elite riders in grand tours.

You were the one who placed a value on personal experience. I placed value on data. I only brought it up to expose your hypocrisy.

lolz at the narcissist....

physics defiant wrote:

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.

But simply for the record, I have disowned ideas attributed to me which are not mine, which I do not argue, nor believe.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

You have yet to debunk any thing though.

But simply for the record, I have disowned ideas attributed to me which are not mine, which I do not argue, nor believe.

read this out loud hahaha, deer lorde.....who talks like that? pretentious much? lolz

its as if gary is trying to speak with some old school Shakespeare style to further promote his intellectual superiority over us commoner LRers....i just lolz

Let's tell it like it is wrote:

"2:11:50"...sub-elite? The Olympic A-standard for the 96 games was 2:13:22

Alltime-athletics stops at 2:10:30.

Derek Clayton ran 2:08:34 in 1969.

bannnedd i got wrote:

i learned my lesson a few yrs ago ...

Of course.

rekrunner wrote:

bannnedd i got wrote:

i learned my lesson a few yrs ago ...

Of course.

lolz are you trying to subtley insult me gary? sorry big guy your self importance doesnt rile me up anymore.....you have no friends, you have no connection to the sport of running and you have no medical background...so your "beliefs" are only true in your sad silly little mind.....but that doesnt mean i cant try to get you to leave....

your goal: to make people think you are SOOOO SMART and important on LR

my goal: to get you to leave LR for good

your a narcissist so you think you have achieved your goal, thus i doubt i will ever achieve mine

rekrunner wrote:

Let's tell it like it is wrote:

"2:11:50"...sub-elite? The Olympic A-standard for the 96 games was 2:13:22

Alltime-athletics stops at 2:10:30.

Derek Clayton ran 2:08:34 in 1969.

You didn't answer my question and you're playing games again. So, an athlete who qualifies for the 96 Olympics at 2:13:21 would be considered sub-elite?

Let's tell it like it is wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Alltime-athletics stops at 2:10:30.

Derek Clayton ran 2:08:34 in 1969.

You didn't answer my question and you're playing games again. So, an athlete who qualifies for the 96 Olympics at 2:13:21 would be considered sub-elite?

again he is a narcissist so he is going to change up the criteria of the argument to suite his insecurities of being a man full of fallacies. then he will reply to you with some subtle insult at you that you are a moran and didnt understand what he was saying....then go on with some quotes within quotes and brag about his "magnum opus" thread he did a few years ago to try and feel superior...so yeah just more rekking to be had

That meta-analysis you keep referencing is about EPO doping and cyclists’ performances - there's no mention of running performance. In fact, in the list of studies Lodewijkx et al "analyzed" there's no mention of Brien et al nor Durussel et al - two key studies involving transfusions/10k runners and EPO/3000m TT. Are you trying to pull another fast one? Lol.

lolz! he will now claim its some other study that you havent read yet...hahahaha

2:11 is still a world class time you dolt. Clayton was not just world class he was for that short period one of the very best marathoners in the world. Not only that but you used a BS time since that was almost certainly a short course. Belgian federation drove the course with several cars and used the average on those odometers. That was a bogus world record. Also the marathon is fickle and it's very difficult to use performance from this event to make assumptions. Differences in weather, course, and competition make it impossible to extrapolate this way. Was Kamworor fitter in 2019 NYC versus 2018? He ran much slower but most likely he was fitter. Terrible arguments all over.

"This kind of "expert" testimony helps demonstrate why some of the thousands of athletes/coaches/physicians turn to doping -- they make the decision on the perceived experiences and testimonies of others rather than personal experience and knowledge".

I was the one who placed a value on personal experience? Do you even understand what you wrote, when you said athletes "make the decision (to dope) on the perceived experiences and testimonies of others rather than personal experience and knowledge"? You have just elevated personal experience over second-hand knowledge - like yours.

Your capacity to demonstrate stupidity and lie at the same time is truly of Trumpian proportions.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

You have yet to debunk any thing though.

But simply for the record, I have disowned ideas attributed to me which are not mine, which I do not argue, nor believe.

I don't think anyone has given you credit for having an idea.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But simply for the record, I have disowned ideas attributed to me which are not mine, which I do not argue, nor believe.

I don't think anyone has given you credit for having an idea.

lolz but he prances around LR like he is some super smart respectable authority hahaha what a tool

Let's tell it like it is wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Alltime-athletics stops at 2:10:30.

Derek Clayton ran 2:08:34 in 1969.

You didn't answer my question and you're playing games again. So, an athlete who qualifies for the 96 Olympics at 2:13:21 would be considered sub-elite?

Yes.

rekrunner wrote:

Let's tell it like it is wrote:

You didn't answer my question and you're playing games again. So, an athlete who qualifies for the 96 Olympics at 2:13:21 would be considered sub-elite?

Yes.

lolz

Armstronglivs wrote:

I was the one who placed a value on personal experience? Do you even understand what you wrote, when you said athletes "make the decision (to dope) on the perceived experiences and testimonies of others rather than personal experience and knowledge"? You have just elevated personal experience over second-hand knowledge - like yours.

Your capacity to demonstrate stupidity and lie at the same time is truly of Trumpian proportions.

Interesting interpretation.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I was the one who placed a value on personal experience? Do you even understand what you wrote, when you said athletes "make the decision (to dope) on the perceived experiences and testimonies of others rather than personal experience and knowledge"? You have just elevated personal experience over second-hand knowledge - like yours.

Your capacity to demonstrate stupidity and lie at the same time is truly of Trumpian proportions.

Interesting interpretation.

OMG you are soooooo smooth!