Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

55554 wrote:

What is a doping apologist? In many threads you have shown to be completely incapable to admit when proved to be wrong. Terrible attitude.

I tend to think denying doping or seeking to minimise it is a worse attitude. Despite what you think, a

rejection of my views by others hasn't "proven" anything.

Nadya wrote:

55554 wrote:

There is absolutely no chance to "win" a discussion with someone like Armstronglivs, rekrunner. He has shown this terrible attitude too often in this forum.

This is true.

There is no point arguing with a stubborn child.

I'm sorry to hear that's how others have treated you.

55554 wrote:

And, nobody denies doping in top class sports, Armstrong. But to pretend to know who does and who don't also is some terribel - or in this case more some stupid - attitude.

So it is all around but you can't see it. Figures.

BOHlCA wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

On the other hand, if you want to substitute "doping cycle" (aimed to peak at the Olympics) for "training objectives", there I might agree with you.

Were Snell, Elliott, Walker, etc. also doping instead of training for the Olympics, you hypocritical turd?

Tell me about the doping in middle distance running in the 50's and 60's.

What's a doping apologist? wrote:

I must be a doping apologist because I like to point out that nobody here knows anything about endocrinology or thermodynamics.

So all of the PED talk is based on hearsay and bad science.

Hi, Jon.

BOHlCA wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I love feeble ripostes like that. It shows your wits are unable to muster anything better than a belch.

Your daily insults show that your wits are unable to muster anything better than a fart.

And it's fun to watch you displaying your ignorance day in and day out.

Keep up the good work.

You seem to be quite keen on your own daily insults. But still no wit.

If this is rekrunner's little regiment of supporters it says much about the qualities of his "arguments". The goal-posts need shifting again, so that stupidity is said to be a form of intelligence. A very limited form.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If this is rekrunner's little regiment of supporters it says much about the qualities of his "arguments". The goal-posts need shifting again, so that stupidity is said to be a form of intelligence. A very limited form.

Rather than needing to keep shifting the goalposts, why don't you try to score on the original goalpost:

- Is there any solid verifiable factual basis for any of your fantastic ideas? While modern training values specific training, your generally sweeping vague posts lack specificity.

No amount of mockery, or unearned arrogance, or false analogies, or other fallacies and sideshow distractions can fill this fact gap.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If this is rekrunner's little regiment of supporters it says much about the qualities of his "arguments". The goal-posts need shifting again, so that stupidity is said to be a form of intelligence. A very limited form.

Rather than needing to keep shifting the goalposts, why don't you try to score on the original goalpost:

- Is there any solid verifiable factual basis for any of your fantastic ideas? While modern training values specific training, your generally sweeping vague posts lack specificity.

No amount of mockery, or unearned arrogance, or false analogies, or other fallacies and sideshow distractions can fill this fact gap.

I could suggest an education in the practices of doping might help you, but perhaps you might explain how "modern training" can be impervious to the influence of doping, when you have admitted its prevalence. And then how Cheptegei could not but be part of that discussion.

Galen Rupp is suspicious - highly!!

World 3000m record not untouchable, says Cheptegei

https://www.worldathletics.org/competitions/world-athletics-continental-tour/news/cheptegei-duplantis-richardson-ostrava-golden

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Rather than needing to keep shifting the goalposts, why don't you try to score on the original goalpost:

- Is there any solid verifiable factual basis for any of your fantastic ideas? While modern training values specific training, your generally sweeping vague posts lack specificity.

No amount of mockery, or unearned arrogance, or false analogies, or other fallacies and sideshow distractions can fill this fact gap.

I could suggest an education in the practices of doping might help you, but perhaps you might explain how "modern training" can be impervious to the influence of doping, when you have admitted its prevalence. And then how Cheptegei could not but be part of that discussion.

That looks like a brilliant suggestion that might help me. I'll get right on it.

But giving me a new goal doesn't help you score a goal in the original goalpost.

Surely, you formed your ideas with some real-world basis, independent of my education.

In the meantime, you would like me to explain what exactly? What does "influence of doping" mean in the specific context of elite male long distance running performance? Besides "modern training", is any training susceptible to this influence? No need to explain it, but just point me to any established or verifiable facts confirming such influence, and I will do my best.

You say you know what "modern training" is and I assume you know a little about the effects of doping on human physiology. You might safely assume that given the known existence of the latter it has implications for the former. If drugs have an effect on human physiology it follows they will affect an athlete's training, and not just race-day performance. Hence, we have the raison d'etre for antidoping, which is to counter the enabling of unfair advantage (yes, I know it's not the only objection to doping). That is, of course, unless you deny that drugs have any effect, including on an athlete's ability to train harder and longer. That sounds more like you. What you can't see doesn't happen.

Your set of established and verifiable facts are rather non-specific, but let's go with it.

If we "might safely assume" "the known existence of the latter ... has implications for the former" and "it follows they will affect an athlete's training", there is really no need for further explanation, is there. We can just safely assume it is not impervious.

Armstronglivs wrote:

55554 wrote:

What is a doping apologist? In many threads you have shown to be completely incapable to admit when proved to be wrong. Terrible attitude.

I tend to think denying doping or seeking to minimise it is a worse attitude. Despite what you think, a

rejection of my views by others hasn't "proven" anything.

What is a doping apologist?

5557 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I tend to think denying doping or seeking to minimise it is a worse attitude. Despite what you think, a

rejection of my views by others hasn't "proven" anything.

What is a doping apologist?

And who is? And why?

I havn't seen a single poster on this board for who I find this discription appropriate.

5557 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I tend to think denying doping or seeking to minimise it is a worse attitude. Despite what you think, a

rejection of my views by others hasn't "proven" anything.

What is a doping apologist?

You can go back to sleep now.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You say you know what "modern training" is and I assume you know a little about the effects of doping on human physiology. You might safely assume that given the known existence of the latter it has implications for the former. If drugs have an effect on human physiology it follows they will affect an athlete's training, and not just race-day performance. ...

Your set of established and verifiable facts are rather non-specific, but let's go with it.

If we "might safely assume" "the known existence of the latter ... has implications for the former" and "it follows they will affect an athlete's training", there is really no need for further explanation, is there. We can just safely assume it is not impervious.

That's a step. You might explore where that takes you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

That's a step. You might explore where that takes you.

Been there, done that. Without any solid verifiable factual basis, all of the paths lead to nowhere.

I thought I could take a short-cut and build on the many facts that helped form your firm convictions, but this is also another dead-end, as it appears to just a cartoon artist's rendering of a mythical place where no known path leads us.

But this isn't about me -- did you forget the original goal?

Surely you formed your ideas before, independently of my education, based on a comprehensive list of facts and real world observations.

What real world facts and observations lead you to suspect Cheptegei's performances?