Reeses puffs wrote:
why do you ask? wrote:
So messing up your endocrine system improves recovery?
No it doesn't. It's just more drug obsessive BS.
Fitness improves recovery. Try it some time.
Willfully ignorant, spouting pseudo science. I’m not sure you understand just how dumb your arguments are.
I understand that you know nothing about testosterone on performance. It must be because you are a failed athlete. Nothing could help you.
flyingfrog wrote:
The sport is cleaner than ever. Jamaica is proof of it.
They obviously have
a. Sprinter gene pool, and
b. better training facilities and coaches
Yep. Just like the E Germans did. And the Chinese. And the Kenyans. Totally clean.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It isn't a problem confined to any one sport. The report covered the issue globally - as WADA also does.
So to be clear, when the question was “Is the sport cleaner than ever?”, you provided two sources that didn’t actually look at “the sport”, nor say whether doping has gotten better or worse.
So you never saw the report, which covered track, and nor are you familiar with what Howman has said. Always arguing from a position of ignorance.
why do you ask? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The IAAF believes testosterone makes you faster - which is why intersex and transgender athletes have to reduce their levels, and why it is a banned drug.
Will the IAAF insist they change their DNA too?
The IAAF requires that they reduce their t-levels. Your question is irrelevant as well as being f*cking moronic.
why do you ask? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Drugs improve fitness that improves recovery.
Says the man who told us EPO makes you breathe less.
I didn't say that, but trying to explain these things passes an impaired intellect like yours. Doesn't it, Jon?
3494 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
So to be clear, when the question was “Is the sport cleaner than ever?”, you provided two sources that didn’t actually look at “the sport”, nor say whether doping has gotten better or worse.
Armstronglivs is not interested in discussing this issue. His only interest - as in any discussion he is involved - is to defend his opinion. This was to see on many many letsrun threads. Maybe he is some local politician.
You are partly right - not that I am a local politician but that I am not interested in discussing this issue with nutjobs, doping deniers and ignoramuses. That is rekrunner on all 3 counts. You, too, I guess.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
So to be clear, when the question was “Is the sport cleaner than ever?”, you provided two sources that didn’t actually look at “the sport”, nor say whether doping has gotten better or worse.
So you never saw the report, which covered track, and nor are you familiar with what Howman has said. Always arguing from a position of ignorance.
That is an odd non-response. For what it is worth, I have seen the Al Jazeera report, and I’m familiar with many of Howman’s quotes — but that is beside the point.
The Al Jazeera report, and Howman are your sources. It is up to you to show how they answer the question you responded to, without obliging your readers to independently research or fact check your claims.
Armstronglivs wrote:
why do you ask? wrote:
Says the man who told us EPO makes you breathe less.
I didn't say that, but trying to explain these things passes an impaired intellect like yours. Doesn't it, Jon?
You posted hundreds of times that EPO doping makes an athlete's oxygen uptake increase with less breathing.
Are you going to post another 50 pages trying to explain it to your legion of admirers?
Armstronglivs wrote:
why do you ask? wrote:
Will the IAAF insist they change their DNA too?
The IAAF requires that they reduce their t-levels. Your question is irrelevant as well as being f*cking moronic.
So are you saying their DNA doesn't give them a genetic advantage?
Help us f*cking morons understand how your mind works. You obviously are an expert geneticist too.
Armstronglivs wrote:
3494 wrote:
Armstronglivs is not interested in discussing this issue. His only interest - as in any discussion he is involved - is to defend his opinion. This was to see on many many letsrun threads. Maybe he is some local politician.
You are partly right - not that I am a local politician but that I am not interested in discussing this issue with nutjobs, doping deniers and ignoramuses. That is rekrunner on all 3 counts. You, too, I guess.
You are not interested in such discussions (I don't think your discription of rekrunner is correct) - yet you are doing it hours and hours every day?
But you are not discussing it at all - you are just not able to discuss those issues.
So, in conclusion, the sport is dirtier than ever. Athletes didn’t just break a s***load of world and Olympic records this year off hard-work and gumption alone.
why do you ask? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I didn't say that, but trying to explain these things passes an impaired intellect like yours. Doesn't it, Jon?
You posted hundreds of times that EPO doping makes an athlete's oxygen uptake increase with less breathing.
Are you going to post another 50 pages trying to explain it to your legion of admirers?
Jon, you lost then and you will lose again. I doubt readers will want to go through your personal obsession again.
why do you ask? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The IAAF requires that they reduce their t-levels. Your question is irrelevant as well as being f*cking moronic.
So are you saying their DNA doesn't give them a genetic advantage?
Help us f*cking morons understand how your mind works. You obviously are an expert geneticist too.
The issue is not the advantage their DNA gives them but what testosterone is able to do. The latter can be changed, the former - their DNA - can't - and there is no suggestion it should be. Does that help a f*cking moron understand his point is irrelevant?
3494 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are partly right - not that I am a local politician but that I am not interested in discussing this issue with nutjobs, doping deniers and ignoramuses. That is rekrunner on all 3 counts. You, too, I guess.
You are not interested in such discussions (I don't think your discription of rekrunner is correct) - yet you are doing it hours and hours every day?
But you are not discussing it at all - you are just not able to discuss those issues.
Like you are?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So you never saw the report, which covered track, and nor are you familiar with what Howman has said. Always arguing from a position of ignorance.
That is an odd non-response. For what it is worth, I have seen the Al Jazeera report, and I’m familiar with many of Howman’s quotes — but that is beside the point.
The Al Jazeera report, and Howman are your sources. It is up to you to show how they answer the question you responded to, without obliging your readers to independently research or fact check your claims.
It isn't up to me to show you anything. You can fact-check anything you like - if you are able to get off your a*se. However, arriving at the truth will always be beyond you.
Armstronglivs wrote:
why do you ask? wrote:
You posted hundreds of times that EPO doping makes an athlete's oxygen uptake increase with less breathing.
Are you going to post another 50 pages trying to explain it to your legion of admirers?
Jon, you lost then and you will lose again. I doubt readers will want to go through your personal obsession again.
Feel free to explain how EPO doping allows an athlete to consume more oxygen without consuming more air?
Show Jack Daniels where he went wrong back in 1968?
The World awaits your Thesis oh enlightened one.
Armstronglivs wrote:
why do you ask? wrote:
So are you saying their DNA doesn't give them a genetic advantage?
Help us f*cking morons understand how your mind works. You obviously are an expert geneticist too.
The issue is not the advantage their DNA gives them but what testosterone is able to do. The latter can be changed, the former - their DNA - can't - and there is no suggestion it should be. Does that help a f*cking moron understand his point is irrelevant?
Who are you arguing with? Me or Peter Weyand?
So you know more about Oxygen Kinetics than Jack Daniels
You know more about Endocrinology than Nicky Keay
And more about Biomechanics than Peter Weyand?
And you're going to spam the boards with thousands more posts to show us all?
Armstronglivs wrote:
WADA is coming for u run wrote:
There isn't a sprinter today who looks like ben Johnson. Look at flo jo compared to women today too the sprinters from 1988-2000 were huge. There are a few huge sprinters today but not the same quantity
They all look like Ben Johnson. Or Flojo. None of them look like Jesse Owens or Wilma Rudolph.
God, you’re thick-headed and dishonest. De Grasse does not look anything like Ben Johnson. Neither do Gardiner, Simbine, Charundy Martina, etc.
Too much emotion too obvious wrote:
WADA is coming for u run wrote:
Flo jo definitely isn't huge but she was very lean most female sprinterstoday look a little fatter. Johnson wasn't that huge either but also very lean, and bigger than most of today's sprinters a 5'9 172. Some are the same weight as the 80s sprinters but have more fat on them. I was saying the quantity of bulky sprinters have gone down.
I'll give you that Ben is bulkier. I think Ben's bulk came from different weight training than today's sprinters. For the men the lean physique appears to be better for sprinting than the extra bulk. I think today they are more conscious of carrying the extra weight. The juice today is being used to recover from sprint specific work is all.
Female sprinters today are every bit as lean as Flo Jo was. Most female sprinters now have six packs and more defined delts and traps than Flo Jo had. Today's female sprinters look a whole lot like Marion Jones looked in her prime. It's no secret how she attained her physique.
This is an embarrassingly stupid, dishonest post. SAFP looks nothing like Marion Jones. Neither does AF. Neither does Ta Lou. Thompson-Herah doesn’t even have Flo Jo or Marion’s cut physique.
why do you ask? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Jon, you lost then and you will lose again. I doubt readers will want to go through your personal obsession again.
Feel free to explain how EPO doping allows an athlete to consume more oxygen without consuming more air?
Show Jack Daniels where he went wrong back in 1968?
The World awaits your Thesis oh enlightened one.
Jon Orange, you never give up. But the men in white coats are coming.