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.
If he was retracting the claim that he believes she is doping he would have had to withdraw the entire article because that is its point. It isn't a defence of her and a claim that she is clean. He is saying he is "outraged" by her performance, it can't be trusted, the sport deserves better, and just as with the doper Ruiz he "knows" what it is. The only caveat is that he says he can't prove it - the one point you recognise in the entire article that presents a case for her doping. So what. No one proved Armstrong was doping either. So Burfoot's article is meaningless if he doesn't stand by what he says. He apparently has, because he hasn't withdrawn it.
This post was edited 58 seconds after it was posted.
Reading this thread my main takeaway is that it’s amazing that so many people born last night have managed to learn to write and access the internet so quickly. It’s the only explanation for people not seeing what’s right in front of them.
If he was retracting the claim that he believes she is doping he would have had to withdraw the entire article because that is its point. It isn't a defence of her and a claim that she is clean. He is saying he is "outraged" by her performance, it can't be trusted, the sport deserves better, and just as with the doper Ruiz he "knows" what it is. The only caveat is that he says he can't prove it - the one point you recognise in the entire article that presents a case for her doping. So what. No one proved Armstrong was doping either. So Burfoot's article is meaningless if he doesn't stand by what he says. He apparently has, because he hasn't withdrawn it.
Who said he was retracting any claim he made? The thread title doesn't say "he believes she is doping".
Once again, his article just expressed his thoughts and feelings -- as you say, a belief -- based on, in his own words, no evidence and without a clue. Outrage is an emotion.
It’s not funny but Amby Burfoot may be suffering from either Dementia or early onset of Alzheimer’s disease
As incredible as Ruth’s word record is, the fact is she was eventually going to break 210 because in some of her other marathons she was known to run the first half blazing fast and then fade in the end
But this time Ruth Chepgetnyuga didn’t fade, she was paced,was wearing the Vapodly, a fast Chicago course, and perfect weather. A perfect confluence of events
Amby is dead wrong about doping It was just inevitable that Ruth would break 210 It was in the works for years Ruth was already winning races since she was 17 at aged 30 she has fully matured from all that wisdom gained
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.
The problem with this statement for me is the use of the PED term. Can you explain what is meant by the term "Performance Enhancing Drug" in real Bioenergetics terms?
You can't, because you don't have the basic knowledge, but neither are you required to explain it by general consensus, because it's an accepted dogma.
So the term gets bandied about endlessly, with no formal education required to legitimise it.
It’s not funny but Amby Burfoot may be suffering from either Dementia or early onset of Alzheimer’s disease
As incredible as Ruth’s word record is, the fact is she was eventually going to break 210 because in some of her other marathons she was known to run the first half blazing fast and then fade in the end
But this time Ruth Chepgetnyuga didn’t fade, she was paced,was wearing the Vapodly, a fast Chicago course, and perfect weather. A perfect confluence of events
Amby is dead wrong about doping It was just inevitable that Ruth would break 210 It was in the works for years Ruth was already winning races since she was 17 at aged 30 she has fully matured from all that wisdom gained
Does this mean you think that everyone who suspects Cheptengeti is doped is suffering fromm either dementia or early Alzheimer's Disease? If not what makes you thin that's going on for Amby?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
addition
Does this mean you think that everyone who suspects Cheptengeti is doped is suffering fromm either dementia or early Alzheimer's Disease?
I miss the days when runners could talk about running, there weren't so many sick people constantly blabbing about drugs, and most people could spell simple words.
As incredible as Ruth’s word record is, the fact is she was eventually going to break 210 because in some of her other marathons she was known to run the first half blazing fast and then fade in the end
But this time Ruth Chepgetnyuga didn’t fade, she was paced,was wearing the Vapodly, a fast Chicago course, and perfect weather. A perfect confluence of events
You need to watch your spelling.
But I agree with wat you're saying.
I remember Sifan Hassan's coach saying Sifan could eventually run 2:10. Assefa ran 2:11. These women are close. I'm sure Sifan could run 2:11 in perfect conditions, maybe faster.
Reading this thread my main takeaway is that it’s amazing that so many people born last night have managed to learn to write and access the internet so quickly. It’s the only explanation for people not seeing what’s right in front of them.
You're describing the adherents to a religion, that doping isn't the problem it is in sports.
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.
If he was retracting the claim that he believes she is doping he would have had to withdraw the entire article because that is its point. It isn't a defence of her and a claim that she is clean. He is saying he is "outraged" by her performance, it can't be trusted, the sport deserves better, and just as with the doper Ruiz he "knows" what it is. The only caveat is that he says he can't prove it - the one point you recognise in the entire article that presents a case for her doping. So what. No one proved Armstrong was doping either. So Burfoot's article is meaningless if he doesn't stand by what he says. He apparently has, because he hasn't withdrawn it.
Dozens of posts discussing what someone else really thinks about Chepngetich's WR. So irrelevant. Burfoot can't know if she is doping or not. Same like Dumbstrong and rek. What a stupidity to give Burfoot's comment such importance.
It’s not funny but Amby Burfoot may be suffering from either Dementia or early onset of Alzheimer’s disease
As incredible as Ruth’s word record is, the fact is she was eventually going to break 210 because in some of her other marathons she was known to run the first half blazing fast and then fade in the end
But this time Ruth Chepgetnyuga didn’t fade, she was paced,was wearing the Vapodly, a fast Chicago course, and perfect weather. A perfect confluence of events
Amby is dead wrong about doping It was just inevitable that Ruth would break 210 It was in the works for years Ruth was already winning races since she was 17 at aged 30 she has fully matured from all that wisdom gained
Here's what's going to happen if she passes the drug test: On the YouTube channel Marathon Handbook and other places he met the 4 legal requirements for defamation of character: 1) false statement, 2) publication or communication to a third party, 3) fault amounting to at least negligence, and 4) Damages, or harm caused to the reputation of the person. The only question remaining is to decide is how much that damage will cost. His presentation was quite the arrogant know-it-all as well. Maybe Burfoot’s lawyer SHOULD suggest he is suffering from dementia or early onset Alzheimer's.
Here's what's going to happen if she passes the drug test: On the YouTube channel Marathon Handbook and other places he met the 4 legal requirements for defamation of character: 1) false statement, 2) publication or communication to a third party, 3) fault amounting to at least negligence, and 4) Damages, or harm caused to the reputation of the person. The only question remaining is to decide is how much that damage will cost. His presentation was quite the arrogant know-it-all as well. Maybe Burfoot’s lawyer SHOULD suggest he is suffering from dementia or early onset Alzheimer's.
If that's correct, then it would explain why Burfoot is backpedaling so hard now, pretending he didn't say she doped - that would take care of "1) false statement" - problem solved.
If he was retracting the claim that he believes she is doping he would have had to withdraw the entire article because that is its point. It isn't a defence of her and a claim that she is clean. He is saying he is "outraged" by her performance, it can't be trusted, the sport deserves better, and just as with the doper Ruiz he "knows" what it is. The only caveat is that he says he can't prove it - the one point you recognise in the entire article that presents a case for her doping. So what. No one proved Armstrong was doping either. So Burfoot's article is meaningless if he doesn't stand by what he says. He apparently has, because he hasn't withdrawn it.
Dozens of posts discussing what someone else really thinks about Chepngetich's WR. So irrelevant. Burfoot can't know if she is doping or not. Same like Dumbstrong and rek. What a stupidity to give Burfoot's comment such importance.
The only opinions worth a pinch of sh*t about anything are expert opinions. It applies to everything. It is why court cases have expert witnesses. It is only in a place like this that the average poster thinks they know better than any expert on the sport, which Burfoot is.
It’s not funny but Amby Burfoot may be suffering from either Dementia or early onset of Alzheimer’s disease
As incredible as Ruth’s word record is, the fact is she was eventually going to break 210 because in some of her other marathons she was known to run the first half blazing fast and then fade in the end
But this time Ruth Chepgetnyuga didn’t fade, she was paced,was wearing the Vapodly, a fast Chicago course, and perfect weather. A perfect confluence of events
Amby is dead wrong about doping It was just inevitable that Ruth would break 210 It was in the works for years Ruth was already winning races since she was 17 at aged 30 she has fully matured from all that wisdom gained
Here's what's going to happen if she passes the drug test: On the YouTube channel Marathon Handbook and other places he met the 4 legal requirements for defamation of character: 1) false statement, 2) publication or communication to a third party, 3) fault amounting to at least negligence, and 4) Damages, or harm caused to the reputation of the person. The only question remaining is to decide is how much that damage will cost. His presentation was quite the arrogant know-it-all as well. Maybe Burfoot’s lawyer SHOULD suggest he is suffering from dementia or early onset Alzheimer's.
So when was the last time a Kenyan successfully sued anyone about doping allegations? Those allegations are made all the time. No one is sued - or sued successfully - or you would know about it. His article passes the fair comment test on a matter of general public interest. Your legal argument is garbage.
Here's what's going to happen if she passes the drug test: On the YouTube channel Marathon Handbook and other places he met the 4 legal requirements for defamation of character: 1) false statement, 2) publication or communication to a third party, 3) fault amounting to at least negligence, and 4) Damages, or harm caused to the reputation of the person. The only question remaining is to decide is how much that damage will cost. His presentation was quite the arrogant know-it-all as well. Maybe Burfoot’s lawyer SHOULD suggest he is suffering from dementia or early onset Alzheimer's.
If that's correct, then it would explain why Burfoot is backpedaling so hard now, pretending he didn't say she doped - that would take care of "1) false statement" - problem solved.
He isn't backpedaling. He hasn't withdrawn the article and apologized - which is what he would do if he felt it was legally necessary. He has made a comment on a matter of public interest - which is what pro sports is - and expressed a belief in good faith while not claiming he can prove for a fact she is doping. He is legally covered.
The only opinions worth a pinch of sh*t about anything are expert opinions. It applies to everything. It is why court cases have expert witnesses. It is only in a place like this that the average poster thinks they know better than any expert on the sport, which Burfoot is.
Is Burfoot an expert on doped marathons?
Why have any discussion at all in a forum of non-experts?
But at least you've hit one nail on the head, explaining exactly why your opinion is unnecessary.
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.