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.
The conversation moved on to another article. Please do try to keep up.
No, it hasn't. You keep responding to comments about Burfoot's article. The other article doesn't matter a sh*t except to a doping apologist, which is why you refer to it.
Extensive knowledge and experience of doped marathons?
I'm not so sure. And neither is he. In his own words, he said he didn't have a clue -- something you don't have either.
You asked about the rest of the sentences.
He says we shouldn't "blindly trust" her performance. Do you think this is permission to "blindly trust" doping. I think it is better to open your eyes.
He tries to use statistics to argue why he's so troubled and outraged, but then tells us not to believe statistics. I believe that means he has no statistical arguments.
So what's left then? Rosie Ruiz took the subway?
I lost count now -- is this you vigintupling down on ignorance and blind faith?
The conversation moved on to another article. Please do try to keep up.
No, it hasn't. You keep responding to comments about Burfoot's article. The other article doesn't matter a sh*t except to a doping apologist, which is why you refer to it.
Yes it has. You were oblivious but "tyty" and I were having another conversation without you. Here's what "tyty" responding too:
Extensive knowledge and experience of doped marathons?
I'm not so sure. And neither is he. In his own words, he said he didn't have a clue -- something you don't have either.
You asked about the rest of the sentences.
He says we shouldn't "blindly trust" her performance. Do you think this is permission to "blindly trust" doping. I think it is better to open your eyes.
He tries to use statistics to argue why he's so troubled and outraged, but then tells us not to believe statistics. I believe that means he has no statistical arguments.
So what's left then? Rosie Ruiz took the subway?
I lost count now -- is this you vigintupling down on ignorance and blind faith?
The difference between Burfoot and you is that when he says something people sit up and take notice. It becomes worthy of discussion in the distance running community. He is taken seriously. When you say something it means nothing except to you and your little group of lap-dancers here.
No, it hasn't. You keep responding to comments about Burfoot's article. The other article doesn't matter a sh*t except to a doping apologist, which is why you refer to it.
Yes it has. You were oblivious but "tyty" and I were having another conversation without you. Here's what "tyty" responding too:
The difference between Burfoot and you is that when he says something people sit up and take notice. It becomes worthy of discussion in the distance running community. He is taken seriously. When you say something it means nothing except to you and your little group of lap-dancers here.
Oh the irony and projection.
I sure sat up and took notice, and took him seriously, when he clarified, as a response to the misleading thread title (written by an unregistered anonymous poster): "For the record, I didn't write that Chepngetich is/was doping. I don't have a clue."
You tried to say something contradicting Amby Burfoot, but it means nothing except to you and maybe your darling.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.