You're an even bigger fool if you assume that they were clean since they are your hero.
You're an even bigger fool if you assume that they were clean since they are your hero.
llort_vbo wrote:
Right - so I'm the problem. Be mad at me because I'm pointing out the obvious. Keep fighting for your man, fanboy! He's gotta be clean because he's such a nice guy! If you ever took the time to plot up WR performances versus time and note when EPO became widely available, you'd see that virtually every WR performance since the late eighties is suspect.
Let's see:
1) unprecedented longevity
2) ridiculous PR - 3:26
3) failed 'A' in a time when many positives were known to be covered up
4) braces late in life
How f'ing stupid do you have to be to not see this.
Not as stupid as you.
EPO wasn't the only thing that occurred during the 90s that matches up well with times run genius. Your stupidity is easily seen here because you don't know the difference between correlation and causation.
Each of your 4 points is easily explained and countered. Show us some actual proof or at least make a decent point. You have failed to do both.
llort_vbo wrote:
Right - so I'm the problem. Be mad at me because I'm pointing out the obvious. Keep fighting for your man, fanboy! He's gotta be clean because he's such a nice guy! If you ever took the time to plot up WR performances versus time and note when EPO became widely available, you'd see that virtually every WR performance since the late eighties is suspect.
Let's see:
1) unprecedented longevity
2) ridiculous PR - 3:26
3) failed 'A' in a time when many positives were known to be covered up
4) braces late in life
How f'ing stupid do you have to be to not see this.
How stupid are you as shown earlier in this thread when you got schooled?
Where did I say he is clean because he's a nice guy?
What don't you understand about wanting to fix a gap in his teeth?
What don't you understand about him not failing an A test?
Do you think his low mileage, time off, and success avoiding injuries would aid his longevity?
You can say you think he has been dirty all along because of the times he's run throughout his career, but this race is no outlier, and you clearly don't understand many of the facts surrounding his career. You are very fact-resistant, like Sally V or DiscoGary. Why don't you like facts?
rojo wrote:
I think this is a lie. I'm going to delete this post in 9:40 pm ET if you dont' email me proof that this occurred.
robertjohnson@letsrun.comSomeone please let me know if this is a troll.
!!!
1) You're maybe the biggest idiot in this thread if you make the statement that Lance was "mediocre" outside of winning the grandest grand tour 7 times in a row. Lasse Viren was pretty mediocre in non-olympic years, right?
2) "I'll admit, I want to believe Lagat is clean..." Speaks volumes.
llort_vbo wrote:
Right - so I'm the problem. Be mad at me because I'm pointing out the obvious. Keep fighting for your man, fanboy! He's gotta be clean because he's such a nice guy! If you ever took the time to plot up WR performances versus time and note when EPO became widely available, you'd see that virtually every WR performance since the late eighties is suspect.
Let's see:
1) unprecedented longevity
2) ridiculous PR - 3:26
3) failed 'A' in a time when many positives were known to be covered up
4) braces late in life
How f'ing stupid do you have to be to not see this.
"Braces late in life" lolol true moron poster here
Of course they're outliers. ANYONE turning in world class performances at advanced ages is an outlier. But they're all outliers in an event where you don't need 52 second final 400 speed to be outliers. Find someone who is a comparable outlier to Jack at the middle distances, Lagat aside.
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
llort_vbo wrote:No.
Actually, YES, dummy. You referenced one race, the other poster is referencing a different one against bekele.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2rHmSKqs2w51.9 last lap, sub 13:00, eased off last 10 m.
"your" welcome, dummy.
Bump on the schooling.
llort_vbo wrote:
Right - so I'm the problem. Be mad at me because I'm pointing out the obvious. Keep fighting for your man, fanboy! He's gotta be clean because he's such a nice guy! If you ever took the time to plot up WR performances versus time and note when EPO became widely available, you'd see that virtually every WR performance since the late eighties is suspect.
Let's see:
1) unprecedented longevity
2) ridiculous PR - 3:26
3) failed 'A' in a time when many positives were known to be covered up
4) braces late in life
How f'ing stupid do you have to be to not see this.
Rupp needs braces to straighten his lower teeth.
http://media.oregonlive.com/olympics_impact/photo/galen-rupp-062812jpg-e356b3166e246623.jpgMo Farah got his teeth fixed, likely upper and lower bridges.
Before Mo:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/umK5jMQTSlk/hqdefault.jpgMo's Bro:
http://i4.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article1269712.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Hassan%20Farah.pngAfter Mo:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1637037.main_image.jpgllort_vbo wrote:
You're an even bigger fool if you assume that they were clean since they are your hero.
0/10
Well, little one, how many outliers have held M40 WRs for more than 12 years?5k is long distance, not middle distance. 800 and 1500 are middle distance.
HRE wrote:
Of course they're outliers. ANYONE turning in world class performances at advanced ages is an outlier. But they're all outliers in an event where you don't need 52 second final 400 speed to be outliers. Find someone who is a comparable outlier to Jack at the middle distances, Lagat aside.
Can we stop taking about Lagat here and get back to the thread topic, aka David Torrence being a jealous, butthurt, competition-ducking, potshot-taking embarrassment?
We now have the Andy Vernon of US track.
Seems to me a 1500 guy moving up at 40 and having success in the 5000 isn't different than a 5000/10000 guy moving up at 40 and being successful in the marathon.
Right like Lance's high cadence "more aerobic" TdF wins. I'm sorry the truth hurts, but you'll feel better in the end if you face facts now. Are you a Nike employee by any chance?
You"be been schooled over and over so you keep changing subjects - the sign of a defeated man.
I'm sorry you want to change topics and attack me because Lagat is dirty. You'll feel better when you grow up and stop working for Nike.
llort_vbo is a long time troll on LRC. He has been called out as an a-whole many times.
Policy guy wrote:
You"be been schooled over and over so you keep changing subjects - the sign of a defeated man.
rekrunner wrote:
Maybe I missed it -- where do you find that the A-Sample was frozen before testing?
My reading of the "lagatfull.doc" report, published at "letsrun" in 2003:
- Both A and B samples were mis-handled
- Neither A nor B sample was frozen, until the refrigerated B-Sample six days later
- Both A and B samples showed EPO modifying enzymatic activity
- The enzymatic activity had also altered the controls "rhEpo and Nesp"
- The B sample failed to corroborate the A sample findings (this doesn't mean the B-sample test result was a "negative", but that it was different than the A-sample result) because of the six days of progress of the enzymatic activity (reportedly present in both samples)
- After the failed corroboration, and upon closer re-inspection, the A-sample did not match synthetic EPO references either
- Had the B-Sample been frozen right away, this would have corroborated the A-sample finding, resulting in a tragic outcome for Lagat, as the disturbing enzymatic activity would have gone unnoticed
- All five "experts" involved in the B-sample analysis unanimously agreed that there was no synthetic EPO in either urine sample
Clerk wrote:There is a lot of mistruths in here.
From another thread:
...
I'm going to copy a summary I wrote a while ago:
A and B sample collected and handled as best as circumstances can dictate. A sample frozen, B sample not. A sample tested after three days, and the B sample tested after 6 days (not frozen).
...
This is what most message board posters miss. The explanation says that the frozen, well handled tested positive for EPO, and the unfrozen sample did not. They refer specifically to enzyme activity that occurred, due to not being frozen. The enzyme activity was allowed to take place because the sample was mis-stored; the b-sample was able to change its composition from the a-sample because it was mis-stored.
What I don't understand is how the argument was able to stand. The argument should follow that there was no opportunity for the b-sample to confirm or deny the a-sample, because it was obviously affected by not being frozen. Instead, the testifying doctors say that the affected sample somehow shows that the a-sample was a false positive.
And then I remember who the testifying doctor is, Marital Saugy..
That's what I remember also from back then too. The A sample was misread and never contained EPO. Rojo, if you are still wanting to reinvestigate that 2003 test, start with the document stored on your site:
http://www.letsrun.com/2003/lagatfull.docMaybe some of the 5 "experts" were trying to cover up a positive, so that would be a possible angle for re-examination - people are mentioning Dr. Saugy. If the raw data from the tests are still available, maybe it can be reinterpreted if necessary by other, trusted experts. For now, I am assuming that that document has the correct final story on that test.
Like the other Lagat defenders, I don't see his 5000 performance as out of his range, even at his age. I picked him in my top 3 for the 10000, so the wrong race, but his placing ability obvious depends on how the race goes, with slow paces leading to fast finishes being key. In the 10000, we saw him blow a gasket with several really fast laps, which is consistent with his decline in ability to run sustained paces anywhere near his peak abilities.
I like Torrence a lot, and he could very well be right about Lagat. I don't feel that has to be inconsistent to like both runners. Torrence is in a different position than me, racing against the guy. Like others say, what he has on Lagat is rumors, probably a lot of if from letsrun. Some of what he is saying seems to be demonstrably wrong if the lagatfull.doc paper is correct. I don't think I've heard the rumor about a 2008 cover up, so that could be something that rojo investigates.
dir4 wrote:
you don't know the difference between correlation and causation.
Each of your 4 points is easily explained and countered. Show us some actual proof or at least make a decent point. You have failed to do both.
We've got a live one here.
You know, both Lance and Marion Jones both never tested positive, right?
There's this thing called Occam's Razor you should look up.
It's doping, broski.
I don't know about Espinoza but none of the people I mentioned were 5,000/10,000 guys who moved up to the marathon. But if you don't see a difference between moving to a distance three times your original one from moving to one four to eight times your distance is not my fault.
