Honest to God wrote:
God knows there is no explanation to the trolling that goes on here.
Actually there is a perfectly sound explanation for the trolling that goes on here
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.htmlLet me clear this up for you. Think about this.The USADA is trying to use a new way to catch people they think are cheating. They want to catch people who pass their testing but the USADA thinks are somehow cheating. The USADA starts looking at multiple test results and starts comparing the combined results. This comparison is like an enhanced version of biological transport, but it relies much more on making assumptions about test results that alone passed, but combined might lead to a ban. Centro can tweet what he has because he knows that the USADA's claim is based on a new way of looking at results. He may know he has no actual failed single test. The USADA's new way is opened to legal challenge. Therefore, continue as usual until the USADA retracts their claim against him. Centro believes he has an excellent chance of drop kicking the USADA.
HardLoper wrote: That clear enough for people?
As for the thread being removed a few times and restored.
1) A moderator originally removed it. One thing I didn't mention is generally the more specific something is I think the more likely it is to get scrutinized and thus removed. Moderator saw it, and in his judgment removed it.
2) I restored it but didn't tell moderator. I agreed with some other posters who said, "hey i thought you all allowed an open discussion about drugs." My thinking was the thread should stay up. Also, one thing I didn't mention was the boards are often an echo chamber what people are talking about offline. This was a topic of conversation offline a few days before I saw it online. Thus how could we say we have an honest discussion if they were just discussing something they first heard offline. Thus it wasn't someone just trolling online.
3) Moderator who originally deleted it saw it still up, and deleted it again before I sent out an email saying to keep it up.
4) Then one other time it got deleted automatically by our software. We have a feature in place to automatically delete a thread if it gets reported by so many people. That happened to this thread, and then we restored it.
5) As for grammar and typos, it's just a matter of resources and tradeoffs. We could have a lot less, but it would cost us more in terms of money and how quickly we posted things.
Thanks for the clarification.
Wejo,
I though one reason you might take a thread down for a short time was to do some "course clean up." A very active thread like this might be to hard clean up if new posts new posts keep showing, especially ones that fully quote a post that needs to be deleted.
This whole thread and "controversy" follows a pattern that has a long history as one of the gutter tactics in negative political campaigns:
1. Start a whispering campaign about the other candidate accusing him of something disreputable.
2. The press ignores the rumors because they can't be confirmed.
3. The rumors keep going and going until the other candidate is forced to issue a denial of something that never had a basis in reality to begin with.
4. Once the candidate issues a denial, then the rumors finally hit the mainstream because the press covers the denial and the "controversy," even if none of it has a basis in reality to begin with.
5. A certain number of people learn about the rumors from coverage of the denial and disbelieve the denial. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Well, now that wejo has responded to the centro doping allegations, would he care to address his own doping allegations?
Observation from poli sci wrote:
This whole thread and "controversy" follows a pattern that has a long history as one of the gutter tactics in negative political campaigns:
1. Start a whispering campaign about the other candidate accusing him of something disreputable.
2. The press ignores the rumors because they can't be confirmed.
3. The rumors keep going and going until the other candidate is forced to issue a denial of something that never had a basis in reality to begin with.
4. Once the candidate issues a denial, then the rumors finally hit the mainstream because the press covers the denial and the "controversy," even if none of it has a basis in reality to begin with.
5. A certain number of people learn about the rumors from coverage of the denial and disbelieve the denial. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
/thread
Honestly, that is about the lamest excuse for keeping this thread up that I can imagine.
wejo wrote:
As for the thread being removed a few times and restored.
1) A moderator originally removed it. One thing I didn't mention is generally the more specific something is I think the more likely it is to get scrutinized and thus removed. Moderator saw it, and in his judgment removed it.
2) I restored it but didn't tell moderator. I agreed with some other posters who said, "hey i thought you all allowed an open discussion about drugs." My thinking was the thread should stay up. Also, one thing I didn't mention was the boards are often an echo chamber what people are talking about offline. This was a topic of conversation offline a few days before I saw it online. Thus how could we say we have an honest discussion if they were just discussing something they first heard offline. Thus it wasn't someone just trolling online.
3) Moderator who originally deleted it saw it still up, and deleted it again before I sent out an email saying to keep it up.
4) Then one other time it got deleted automatically by our software. We have a feature in place to automatically delete a thread if it gets reported by so many people. That happened to this thread, and then we restored it.
5) As for grammar and typos, it's just a matter of resources and tradeoffs. We could have a lot less, but it would cost us more in terms of money and how quickly we posted things.
Wejo,
I do agree active and lively discussion about doping, testing positive and such isn't a bad thing.
Assuming this all pans out to be epic trolling what we have here is simply someone flat out lying about an athlete testing positive. Pondering if athlete X is doping because of A, B or C. That at least keeps in the realm of speculation (though even those are getting tiresome).
Stating that athlete X tested positive if knowingly false, isn't speculation, doesn't help our sport. It also reinforces the reputation of letsrun.
Testing positive I think we can all agree is about the worst thing we can hear about an athlete. How nice that a guy that runs for Nike (I know right, how could he , we must hate him) and has actually made championship racing exciting gets to go on twitter to try and dispel the rumors that pretty much seem to be made up.
Don't we all feel better about US running now?
Don't we all think more of Letsrun now than we did?
Sees thelight wrote:
Stating that athlete X tested positive if knowingly false, isn't speculation, doesn't help our sport.
Okay Einstein, what exactly does help the sport? Since you're such an expert on these things. You know what's worse than an letsrun troll? Someone who's always b!tching about what is and isn't good for the sport
Nah, LRC troll is worse
Fixed.
Socrates wrote:
Okay Einstein, You know what's worse than an letsrun troll? Someone who gives a platform to the trolls.
Precisely. Well said. LR makes The Daily Mirror look good now.
Sees thelight wrote:
Wejo,
I do agree active and lively discussion about doping, testing positive and such isn't a bad thing.
Assuming this all pans out to be epic trolling what we have here is simply someone flat out lying about an athlete testing positive. Pondering if athlete X is doping because of A, B or C. That at least keeps in the realm of speculation (though even those are getting tiresome).
Stating that athlete X tested positive if knowingly false, isn't speculation, doesn't help our sport. It also reinforces the reputation of letsrun.
Testing positive I think we can all agree is about the worst thing we can hear about an athlete. How nice that a guy that runs for Nike (I know right, how could he , we must hate him) and has actually made championship racing exciting gets to go on twitter to try and dispel the rumors that pretty much seem to be made up.
Don't we all feel better about US running now?
Don't we all think more of Letsrun now than we did?
wejo wrote:
As for the thread being removed a few times and restored.
1) A moderator originally removed it. One thing I didn't mention is generally the more specific something is I think the more likely it is to get scrutinized and thus removed. Moderator saw it, and in his judgment removed it.
2) I restored it but didn't tell moderator. I agreed with some other posters who said, "hey i thought you all allowed an open discussion about drugs." My thinking was the thread should stay up. Also, one thing I didn't mention was the boards are often an echo chamber what people are talking about offline. This was a topic of conversation offline a few days before I saw it online. Thus how could we say we have an honest discussion if they were just discussing something they first heard offline. Thus it wasn't someone just trolling online.
3) Moderator who originally deleted it saw it still up, and deleted it again before I sent out an email saying to keep it up.
4) Then one other time it got deleted automatically by our software. We have a feature in place to automatically delete a thread if it gets reported by so many people. That happened to this thread, and then we restored it.
5) As for grammar and typos, it's just a matter of resources and tradeoffs. We could have a lot less, but it would cost us more in terms of money and how quickly we posted things.
WeJo - what exactly have you heard offline regarding this topic?
Socrates wrote:
Sees thelight wrote:Stating that athlete X tested positive if knowingly false, isn't speculation, doesn't help our sport.
Okay Einstein, what exactly does help the sport? Since you're such an expert on these things. You know what's worse than an letsrun troll? Someone who's always b!tching about what is and isn't good for the sport
Really? you want me to explain why falsely accusing someone of doping doesn't help our sport? Really?
Perhaps Einstein you can tell me how it helps our sport and I can learn and be made greater by your wisdom.
Hi Former Duck,
I think at this point a lot of us suspect who you might be. I am not going to comment on this situation that is going on right now, but I would appreciate if you kept my name out of it and do not associate me with what is going on. Thanks.
This only proves one thing the 'auto generated' top On the Boards front page top posts is BS
..and one more thing. There is a number of pages beyond which a post is a waste of time. Who is going to quite literally troll through that lot!
So centro medalled at worlds, almost medalled at oly, medalled at another world championship but is skipping indoors to avoid a positive....Makes no sense. Either you have confidence in the testing system (which means he was clean) or you don't (which means he won't skip races because he won't get caught). Cant have it both ways.
Chris Kwiatkowski wrote:
Hi Former Duck,
I think at this point a lot of us suspect who you might be. I am not going to comment on this situation that is going on right now, but I would appreciate if you kept my name out of it and do not associate me with what is going on. Thanks.
so we have a little bit of a situation here