No, we aren't getting anywhere. You remain where you always have been - in discussion with yourself. As you continue to show, no one works harder at avoiding what they find to be unpalatable realities.
It's a shame because it seemed like we agreed with disagreeing with Coevett, despite you spending two pages arguing for Coevett's baseless statement, only to finally agree he was wrong.
Of course I have remained firmly grounded where I started, in the reality based on all of the publicly available data, absent all the baseless mythology. I would gladly change my position in an instant if someone provided any compelling reason to do so. But everytime I have asked you to provide any such evidence based facts or reasons, you change the subject, falling back to your brand of witless, esoteric, personal attacks, ungrounded in reality, or you build strawmen ideas even I don't believe.
What you can't get your head around is that while doping is widespread some nations dope more than others - and some sports dope more than others. Kenyan doping is off the charts. It is effectively the norm in their chosen sport. That is enough to give them a huge advantage over any other nation. It is like the way the former E Bloc dominated in so many sports. Indeed, whenever we see a sudden rise to dominance by any national group - China, Jamaica, N and E Africa come to mind - you can be fairly sure doping is behind it. No country will be doping free but after Russia Kenya has certainly been leading the pack for doping violations.
I have asked you to this, several times. But you don't answer, because you can't.
The GDR has searched for talents all over the country since kindergarten. There was systematically, state organized doping. In one of the most advanced countries on earth at the time. And they had just a few top athletes in any event. Kenya has hus hundreds of sub 2:09 marathon runners.
Please explain. "They dope more" is not a sufficient explanation.
Germany's top athletes were spread out over a huge number of sports. Kenya's are much more concentrated.
"I would gladly change my position in an instant if someone provided any compelling reason to do so."(quote)
I enjoyed that. Humour is not generally your forte.
What is your forte exactly? Cynical unwit?
Remind us - when did you "gladly change your position in an instant" when someone, as you say, provided compelling reason to do so? Was it this century? Has it ever happened?
Remind us - when did you "gladly change your position in an instant" when someone, as you say, provided compelling reason to do so? Was it this century? Has it ever happened?
Same question for you -- you seemed to have formed all your beliefs in the '70s when you were young and impressionable.
But that is a tough question. It is difficult to recall, because it is rare that someone attempts to provide compelling data or produce counter-examples, rather than resorting to calling me names, or launching personal attacks, or building a strawman, or changing the subject, or changing the goalposts, or re-reading from their gospel.
But here are two examples from this century:
- In 2018, I said we were still waiting for the first non-African to go sub-2:06, and I was reminded that Moen had recently done it.
- Around 2014, I recall claiming that the CAS hadn't made certain statements about Jeptoo, as they weren't included in a brief press release, only to be pointed to the full report, where such statements were made.
But most generally, I don't often find the need to reconsider my position, as my words are carefully crafted, and my positions are arrived at after long consideration of all the publicly available facts, and data and after spending some effort to become informed on topics. When there could be some doubt, I phrase the result in the form of questions, rather than conclusions.
Remind us - when did you "gladly change your position in an instant" when someone, as you say, provided compelling reason to do so? Was it this century? Has it ever happened?
Askes the guy who never ever has changed his position just by the smallest margin.
And in the other thread you have run away from an easy question - as so often. A question which just would challenge your position to doping in Kenya.
Remind us - when did you "gladly change your position in an instant" when someone, as you say, provided compelling reason to do so? Was it this century? Has it ever happened?
Askes the guy who never ever has changed his position just by the smallest margin.
And in the other thread you have run away from an easy question - as so often. A question which just would challenge your position to doping in Kenya.
No, it doesn't. Your questions are irrelevant. They are too boring to engage with.
No, it doesn't. Your questions are irrelevant. They are too boring to engage with.
"No, it doesn't"?? It's not even clear to what that's a reply.
You don't want to answer some questions, because the answer would show how one-sided your doping position actually is.
You really are slow, aren't you - like your user name suggests. You said: "A question which .. would challenge your position to doping in Kenya."
I replied - "no, it doesn't", in obvious reference to your "question".
Nothing you have said suggests I should be persuaded to your views on doping in Kenya. As I have said previously, Kenyan doping is a dumpster fire, as the increasing number of violations shows. But that is not to say that it was so in the 1960's, when doping in distance running was still a rarity and in its infancy. Doping is undoubtedly a serious problem in Kenya today but I don't see its beginning with a runner like Wilson Kiprugut in '64.