Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:
You're in left field Gary - you have no idea what you're talking about on this.
Repeatedly calling him Gary, when it's not his name is just trolling. Grow up.
Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:
You're in left field Gary - you have no idea what you're talking about on this.
Repeatedly calling him Gary, when it's not his name is just trolling. Grow up.
how would you know his name isnt gary? he has said his name is gary.
you seem like the troll to me. or you are gary and using this name "pariah" as your alter ego version of rekrunner.
and really 22 pages long? beating the DEAD horse over and over. like why do you and rekrunner (as im guessing you are the same person) have to quote a quote within 7 quotes within quotes just like mr f*cking annoying himself vent/calculo?
like wow man, i dont know how you can say EPO and PEDs dont work 75 different ways and argue with yourself and not think you are being a pain in the a$$ troll.
evidence is presented and you two just quote and argue and say dumb sh*t like "well i dont think"
nice glad your OPINIONS are of greater authority than SCIENCE. unbelievable, im sure you guys are STAUNCH global warming advocates, pro abortion, anti gun, white guilt, white privilege, super LEFT leaning, arrogant know it alls arnt you?
DUDE WE GET IT, EPO and PEDS DONT WORK!!!! take them off the banned list cause all its doing is ruining poor east african runners lives!!!! EPO AND PEDS DONT WORK!!!!!
#beatingthedeadhorse
As a matter of fact, I've never said that and often said I'm not. It's like a children's game.
m!ndweak wrote:
how would you know his name isnt gary? he has said his name is gary.
Well , Doping is it a level playing field ......
another example of why it is not , same usual suspects ..................
is some of the athletes they will stop at nothing to prove dirty .
russians and some eastern european 's , various agenda's i am sure
gives cover for real dopers ,. and reason to exist . usual cold war pys-op rubbish .
or
that greek 200 sprinter in athens 2004 , he had to be taken down
guess had no backing or federation not big enough and people at top wanted his scalp for whatever reason
yes dirty but at every olympics
they have to push a local star and given carte blanche to dope or aided , so why not kenteris
instead got some women's triple jumper if remember correct or was it the high hurdler .
guess someone else was wanted to win in 200m and kenteris was possibly in way ,
and no surprises like at sydney .
could not have a greek run 19.60 and this is just before doping changed with speed peptide and other tactics.
some of the roids that other greeks found at time with were pretty nasty , highly liver toxic
so doping old school style and at a price to longevity i am sure .
rekrunner wrote:
As a matter of fact, I've never said that and often said I'm not.
It's like a children's game.
m!ndweak wrote:
how would you know his name isnt gary? he has said his name is gary.
dude there you go again with using "children" in your comments, i told you gary you leave me for some children i will be super pissed!
just wait, i will have an affair with pariah or vent if you dont cool your sh*t!
EPO AND PEDS DONT WORK!!! LONG LIVE GARY REKRUNNER!
Actually it looks like *you* have no idea what I'm talking about on this. Did you understand what I called "the failed hypothesis" here? What are these notable 800m guys busted for steroids evidence of: 1) an improved post 1990s performance due to steroids, or 2) a hindered performance, compared to pre-1990 unlimited steroids, due to post 1990s steroid testing? One of these is not the hypothesis. Based on the performance data, I agree with Ross Tucker's statement, that "It doesn’t do this for men." If that puts me in left field, I'm standing there with Ross.
Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Just the same, the "suggestion" I wrote about came from you, as well as repeated criticisms, like I ignored steroids for men, or that I forgot about how unlimited steroid use in the 80s, and restricted steroid use post-1990 explains the observed lack of performance.
If you claim your hypothesis is not yours, we can close this now without any further discussion.
The hypothesis about steroids driving performance for distance events in the '80s, and improved steroid testing post-1990 hindering performance, is a failed hypothesis without evidence, with the exceptions of the women's 1500m and 800m.
you have no idea what you're talking about on this. There are a few men's 800m specialists who have tested positive for roids over the decades, and even more men in long distance & the marathon. For example, here's a couple of notable 800m guys:
Hezekiél Sepeng (Nandrolone)
Khalid Tighazouine (Nandrolone)
rekrunner wrote:
Actually it looks like *you* have no idea what I'm talking about on this.
Did you understand what I called "the failed hypothesis" here?
What are these notable 800m guys busted for steroids evidence of:
1) an improved post 1990s performance due to steroids, or
2) a hindered performance, compared to pre-1990 unlimited steroids, due to post 1990s steroid testing?
One of these is not the hypothesis.
Based on the performance data, I agree with Ross Tucker's statement, that "It doesn’t do this for men." If that puts me in left field, I'm standing there with Ross.
Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:
you have no idea what you're talking about on this. There are a few men's 800m specialists who have tested positive for roids over the decades, and even more men in long distance & the marathon. For example, here's a couple of notable 800m guys:
Hezekiél Sepeng (Nandrolone)
Khalid Tighazouine (Nandrolone)
EPO AND PEDS DONT WORK!!!!!! LONG LIVE GARY REKRUNNER!
pariah wrote:
Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:
You're in left field Gary - you have no idea what you're talking about on this.
Repeatedly calling him Gary, when it's not his name is just trolling. Grow up.
Sure, "Jon Orange"...and you're not a troll? ?
rekrunner wrote:
As a matter of fact, I've never said that and often said I'm not.
It's like a children's game.
Not so fast rekrunner - casual observer has made a reference once or twice calling your wife "Paula." You did not deny it in your exchanges with him. So, what's up with that?
rekrunner wrote:
Based on the performance data, I agree with Ross Tucker's statement, that "It doesn’t do this for men."
Well, the full statement is:
"Anyway, back to the analysis – doping then, drives women’s performances to unreachable limits. At least, in some events, for 30 years. It doesn’t do this for men. Why? Because the effect of testosterone (and similar anabolic androgens) is significantly larger for women than for men. Theoretically, that’s because in women, you’re adding something to nothing, whereas in men, it’s less effective to add some to a lot."
So, you could see that "this" refers to "unreachable limits", because "the effect of testosterone (and similar anabolic androgens) is significantly larger for women than for men". And here you are, arguing it's zero for men - weak, very weak, rekrunner.
Prof. Tucker also wrote, to make the above more clear:
"So to wrap that up, the 1980s in particular were characterised by the advancement of performance by steroids, and in women, it pushed many WRs beyond any normal physiological capabilities."
And about the increased controls in the 90s:
""Anyway, that’s not causal in any way, it’s just observational, but it does suggest that part of the change that happens into the 1990s (remember the second table – the number of WRs drops dramatically in the 1990s) was a result of ‘squeezing down’ on doping."
Or look at Baumann and Decker about steroid testing in the 90s, and then in contrast at Beyer and Kratochvílová about steroid testing in the 80s.
Oh, and what did he say about EPO?
"Is it co-incidence that this the slowing down of performances happened soon after EPO became more easily detectable, to the point that the records of the 1990s and early 2000s stopped being broken? I don’t think so, at least not entirely. "
Oh, oh. But yeah, keep telling yourself that Tucker has the same opinion as you.
pariah wrote:
Repeatedly calling him Gary, when it's not his name is just trolling. Grow up.
0/10?
Too funny - you've been identified as the infamous "Jon Orange" (Stroke Volume thread). I knew there was something peculiar about your idiotic posts, and now I recall "Jon Orange" posting the same stupid stuff...so it all makes sense now. You know you're not fooling anyone and hardly anyone takes your posts seriously. ???
rekrunner wrote:
So do I.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Tucker has a ranking scale for who he thinks is doping.
Well please elaborate. I'm all ears ?
casual obsever wrote:
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Tucker has a ranking scale for who he thinks is doping.
Yeah, and there was a fun thread here:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7610954Look at this comment for example on page 1:
Seventhly, I am not a cheat.:
Yeah, I'd think that even half the brojos would go higher than 7 for Radcliffe (on a "suspicion scale", not a likelihood scale).
Ha, of particular note as well on page 1 is Paula's score being 700 out of 10. ?
Not so slow. Try to keep up. I actually did deny it, in this thread. Once should be enough. Denying it every time, everywhere, is ineffective, and for some immature mentalities, actually has the opposite effect. "casual obsever" should know better, but I'm cannot be sure he does, as he does have a habit of over-interpreting half the facts the way he wants, while ignoring any factual contradictions. Maybe it's intended as a distraction mechanism, as I'm forced to spend time now with you, defending myself against something I did not say, trying to explain to you the realities in the world of anonymous forums where you can write what you want. I cannot control what he writes, or what you chose to believe, lacking any real basis in fact. Imagine the burden of responding with a denial everytime someone wrote "Gary", or if I had to deny everything that "casual obsever" gets wrong.
rekrunner wrote:
... just because something is written, doesn't mean it's true. You are right to say "unbelievable".
A few people misunderstood a long defense of the IAAF's response and established anti-doping science, as an over the top defense of Paula, and some bright bulb assumed only Paula's husband would do that.
Or it was designed to be some kind of distraction or deflection mechanism.
I'm an American in Europe, with no connection to Paula or Gary.
Inquiring minds want to know wrote:
Whoa!...am I hearing this correctly? His "wife's off-scores" as in *Paula Radcliff's* off-scores??? So, "rekrunner" is Gary rekrunner who is Gary Lough who is Paula Radcliff's husband??? Unbelievable if it's true. Wow.
What's up with this? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
As a matter of fact, I've never said that and often said I'm not.
It's like a children's game.
Not so fast rekrunner - casual observer has made a reference once or twice calling your wife "Paula." You did not deny it in your exchanges with him. So, what's up with that?
I agree with Ross's full statement, about steroids for men. Steroids did not drive men's performance in the '80s to unreachable limits. I agree with that. Did I argue here that the performance effect of steroids for men was zero? I agree with Ross with "less effective". Did I say "zero" when I summarized the three studies "Rocket Fuel Rick" found showing steroids is not a factor for endurance? I found back a claim about "steroid testing effectiveness" being 0% effective on East Africans. That's a claim I doubted, so if you say it's more than 0%, OK by me, I stand corrected. When talking about steroid effectiveness on men's distance events, I found I said things like "not a huge factor" or "not a significant driver" for distance performance. When I look at the second table, as Ross instructed me, I see that for the men, in "TOTAL MID D & LONG D" -- the number of WRs actually increased. How do you interpret Ross' point of "squeezing down on doping" to explain a dramatic drop in world records for events that saw an increase in world records? Regarding EPO, I agreed with Ross when he said: "It could well be a group of exceptional athletes who drove performances down without any illegal assistance." He's smart enough to form his own opinion, and honest enough to say he could still be wrong.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Based on the performance data, I agree with Ross Tucker's statement, that "It doesn’t do this for men."
Well, the full statement is:
"Anyway, back to the analysis – doping then, drives women’s performances to unreachable limits. At least, in some events, for 30 years. It doesn’t do this for men. Why? Because the effect of testosterone (and similar anabolic androgens) is significantly larger for women than for men. Theoretically, that’s because in women, you’re adding something to nothing, whereas in men, it’s less effective to add some to a lot."
So, you could see that "this" refers to "unreachable limits", because "the effect of testosterone (and similar anabolic androgens) is significantly larger for women than for men". And here you are, arguing it's zero for men - weak, very weak, rekrunner.
Prof. Tucker also wrote, to make the above more clear:
"So to wrap that up, the 1980s in particular were characterised by the advancement of performance by steroids, and in women, it pushed many WRs beyond any normal physiological capabilities."
And about the increased controls in the 90s:
""Anyway, that’s not causal in any way, it’s just observational, but it does suggest that part of the change that happens into the 1990s (remember the second table – the number of WRs drops dramatically in the 1990s) was a result of ‘squeezing down’ on doping."
Or look at Baumann and Decker about steroid testing in the 90s, and then in contrast at Beyer and Kratochvílová about steroid testing in the 80s.
Oh, and what did he say about EPO?
"Is it co-incidence that this the slowing down of performances happened soon after EPO became more easily detectable, to the point that the records of the 1990s and early 2000s stopped being broken? I don’t think so, at least not entirely. "
Oh, oh. But yeah, keep telling yourself that Tucker has the same opinion as you.
rekrunner wrote:
"casual obsever" should know better, but I'm cannot be sure he does, as he does have a habit of over-interpreting half the facts the way he wants, while ignoring any factual contradictions.
It's such a trivial matter want your name is anyway. Who cares if you're Gary, Harry or Larry - inconsequential since we're all anonymous here for the most part anyway.
Secondly, I don't see "casual observer" in the "habit of over-interpreting half the facts the way he wants, while ignoring any factual contradictions." On the contrary he provides well researched facts and insightful information that I can even understand - more than I can say for what you post most of time. But I understand...you're agenda driven in trying to establish that PEDs are benevolent & basically ineffective/marginally effective with elites. However, the evidence just doesn't support that no matter how hard you try to frame your argument statistically or otherwise. What type of PEDs, or combination of PEDs affect different disciplines is whole different debate.
You seem to be caught up in some frame of the mind that PED use is uniformed across the board and that dopers are all using the same dosages, have the same resources, all using a doping doctor, have weak OOC testing, etc., and therefore performances should all be consistent with everyone running the faster times at the top that you want to see. It never worked that way and never will - individual variances depended on a lot of factors.
pariah wrote:
I don't see it as cheating, just stupid pseudoscience. Young athletes will believe anything drug wise. So will most people when they are constantly bombarded with misinformation about athletic performance.
So spreading misinformation is part of the problem. With regard to EPO we are supposed to believe that the homeostatic limit of oxygen uptake can be exceeded to improve performance. This is nonsense, your body would overheat and glycogen depletion be more rapid.
Reductionist. "homeostatic limit" How do you come up with this shite, Jon?
i will keep this going till we hit page 47!!!!
EPO AND PEDS DONT WORK, REKRUNNER IS THE ONLY ONE WHO TRULY CARES, and PARIAH his ALTER EGO!!
LONG LIVE GARY REKRUNNER THE HOLY PROPHET AND OUR LORD AND SAVIOR RENATO!!
EPO AND PEDS DONT WORK!!! COME ON GUYS KEEP THIS GOING TILL THE WHOLE WORLD AGREES!!!!
DID YOU GUYS ALL HEAR THE GREAT NEWS!?!?!?!?!?
EPO AND PEDS DONT WORK!!!!
SORRY WHITE PEOPLE, BUT BLACKS ARE JUST BETTER ATHLETES! ASIANS ARE SMARTER AT COMPUTERS, JEWS ARE SMARTER WITH MATH AND PHYSICS AND BANKING/FINANCE! WHITES ARE JUST PASTY PRIVILEGED CULTURE RAPISTS AND LIARS!
WHITES INVENTED EPO AND PEDS TO DESTROY BLACKS FROM USING THEIR ATHLETIC ABILITY TO GET AHEAD IN LIFE! SOON WHITES WILL INVENT SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE ASIANS AND JEWS ARE CHEATING AS WELL
LONG LIVE GARY REKRUNNER!! I LOVE YOU! CANT WHAT TILL YOU TRY TO MAKE ME PREGNANT AGAIN, SCIENCE SAYS NO, BUT LOVE WILL ALWAYS FIND A WAY!!!
what? no more discussion!!?!?!?!?
did you see that beau!?!? we WON!! EVERYONE NOW AGREES!
EPO AND PEDS DONT WORK, NO MORE NEED TO BEAT THE DEAD HORSE!!!
NOW TIME TO COME HOME AND DESTROY MY BROWN EYE!