Amby Burfoot says it out loud - Chepngetich is doping

Armstronglivs wrote:

"From his newsletter, no one really has any idea what he "knows" about Chepngetich."

You're the only one who has no idea.This thread isn't a f*cking 'whodunnit'. There is no enigma in what Burfoot is actually saying. He is saying he "knows" - a simple word that has the infinite capacity to confuse you - but it essentially means here he is convinced she is doping, without presuming that he can prove it. That's it. Your doping denial even extends to trying to say Burfoot isn't saying Chepngetich is doping, when he is saying nothing else. The thread is utterly meaningless if he isn't. But that's what you reduce all argument to. Always. Meaningless garbage.

HRE wrote:

mattpenn2015 wrote:

Ha! It was my attempt to be generous!

Burfoot improved 4.6% over a 2 year period from 1970 to 1972 in Manchester. He's being a hypocritical jackass by claiming, without proof, that the 1.3 sigma (3.3%) improvement from Chepngetich warrants skepticism.

There, I'm no longer being generous.

Honestly, do you really not think Chepngech's performance warrants skepticism? I'm not saying it warrants outright accusation. But if you had to bet your house, if you have one, on her performance being clean would you do it?

mattpenn2015 wrote:

HRE wrote:

Honestly, do you really not think Chepngech's performance warrants skepticism? I'm not saying it warrants outright accusation. But if you had to bet your house, if you have one, on her performance being clean would you do it?

Why would I be anything but honest here?

A 1.3 sigma change occurs 20% of the time. The scientists doing the PED testing are professionals. These are the actual facts, and that's where the focus should be.

Speculate all you want... it's the First Amendment. Sometimes your speculation will be correct and the system will fail to identify a cheater... most of the time it will be wrong and you'll miss the opportunity to celebrate a great achievement from an honest hard worker.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

By cherry-picking and isolating one sentence you misrepresent what he is saying in his article, you fail to understand the piece in its entirety and you of course ignore the example I quoted where he makes his views plain where he says he knows she is doping. But you simply show that combination of mental incompetence and denial of what is actually stated that is your unvarying method here.

That wasn't cherry-picking, but that was Amby himself fact-checking the title of the thread.

The newsletter did not say "he knows she is doping", as you suggest.

I see that "marathonhandbook" put a link to a companion piece:

"Here’s Why Ruth Chepngetich’s World Record Is Completely Plausible: A Data-Driven Analysis"

Link:marathonhandbook.com/ruth-chepngetich-...

Armstronglivs wrote:

tyty wrote:

That's a very informative article. Thank you for posting it.
Shame our antipodean friend will refuse to read it and educate himself.

I read it. Only you and rekrunner have no idea what he is saying.

Armstronglivs wrote:

He isn't basing what he says on "no evidence" - it is based on everything he knows about the sport based on his years of experience - you know, the knowledge you don't have. He only says he doesn't have the confirmed evidence she is a doper because she hasn't (yet) failed a drug test. (Like Flojo, Kratochvilova and Koch). Everything everyone else says is so hard for you. Life must be very difficult once you venture outdoors.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Burfoot:

"I’m going to try to explain as briefly as possible why I am so troubled by this performance. And I admit that I could be wrong. After all, I have no evidence that Chepngetich cheated, as she has never failed a doping test.

"But I don’t think I’m wrong. And I don’t think this is a time to be quiet."

You didn't seem to read as far as the last sentence - or what followed. His "fact-checking" didn't change that.

tyty wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I read it. Only you and rekrunner have no idea what he is saying.

Different article, dumb man.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

He isn't basing what he says on "no evidence" - it is based on everything he knows about the sport based on his years of experience - you know, the knowledge you don't have. He only says he doesn't have the confirmed evidence she is a doper because she hasn't (yet) failed a drug test. (Like Flojo, Kratochvilova and Koch). Everything everyone else says is so hard for you. Life must be very difficult once you venture outdoors.

Those were his exact words. Do you think his knowledge and experience in the sport includes doping elite marathon runners? That sounds like hearsay, rather than knowledge and experience. Does he think so? He said that he doesn't have a clue.

Armstronglivs wrote:

tyty wrote:

Different article, dumb man.

The shrew pipes up again. I read Burfoot's article. Rekrunner clearly hasn't. I'm not interested in doping apologia - although it matters a lot to you and rekrunner.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Those were his exact words. Do you think his knowledge and experience in the sport includes doping elite marathon runners? That sounds like hearsay, rather than knowledge and experience. Does he think so? He said that he doesn't have a clue.

You think one sentence constitutes an article. Did the rest of it mean nothing or was he simply repeating that sentence in another form? Why did he write the article if all he had to say was that single sentence you quote obsessively?

Armstronglivs wrote:

tyty wrote:

Different article, dumb man.

The shrew pipes up again. I read Burfoot's article. Rekrunner clearly hasn't. I'm not interested in doping apologia - although it matters a lot to you and rekrunner.

tyty wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The shrew pipes up again. I read Burfoot's article. Rekrunner clearly hasn't. I'm not interested in doping apologia - although it matters a lot to you and rekrunner.

Read again: different article. Try to keep up.