Jox Cox trying to petition his way into O'Trials

Avocados Number wrote:

Who the hell are you, and why is your view any more worthy of consideration than anyone else's?

Um, I'm going to be racing in the Trials. Therefore I'm directly involved in this matter. Got it? And I don't care whether he races. Neither do the half dozen other Trials qualifiers I've talked with about it. So, much as the NFL ignores all the internet bloggers who might think their views on league decisions are important, USATF should go ahead and do the same with you armchair quarterbacks. But please feel free to keep lamenting the unfairness and outrageousness of Josh Cox petitioning to get into the marathon trials. ohhhhh ohhhh ohhhhh!

Ol Skool wrote:

Only after you please excuse yourself.

the silent majority wrote:

Uh, good one. As I said, save your self righteous blatherings and let the guy run if he demonstrates fitness. How about not commenting unless you're actually involved in the race or the selection process, mm kay?

Er, if you say so. I suppose you keep your feelings about our government to yourself since you're not actually involved in congress or the cabinet? Ditto your favorite team's performances since you neither play nor coach nor officiate? Talk about unwarranted (and idiotic) self-righteousness. Sorry to spoil what must be a blissful existence, as the saying implies.

oldschool88 wrote:

he needs to run the time to get in O'trials. he's not that special.

been there done that wrote:

Wrong... qualifying is not that special. Pending fitness, he should be given a free pass and a slap on the ass.

Also wrong. Qualifying is more special than Josh Cox or his presence at the OT.

the silent majority wrote:

Um, I'm going to be racing in the Trials. Therefore I'm directly involved in this matter. Got it? And I don't care whether he races. Neither do the half dozen other Trials qualifiers I've talked with about it.

Yeah, I believe ya. There's such a great track record of accuracy in what is posted on this site, especially by anonymous trolls who like to spend their time making up arguments. On that note, I've talked to more than twice as many OT qualifiers as you and to a man they are all against it.

Ol Skool wrote:

Er, if you say so. I suppose you keep your feelings about our government to yourself since you're not actually involved in congress or the cabinet? Ditto your favorite team's performances since you neither play nor coach nor officiate? Talk about unwarranted (and idiotic) self-righteousness. Sorry to spoil what must be a blissful existence, as the saying implies.[/quote]

Too funny. Yeah, that's right- compare government in a democracy to letsrun armchair babble about the completely irrelevant Josh Cox. That's gotta be the worst comparison I've ever seen.

And no, I have never and will never go on a website and lament about the happenings of a pro team that i have zero involvement in, even if it happens to be my 'favorite' pro team. The only self-righteousness I see around here is coming from a bunch of jokers who are actually taking time out of their day to hate on Josh Cox in order to defend 'the honor and respectability' of track and field, or however it is you worded it. Good job- thanks for protecting our sport. I'm not sure where the rest of us would be without you.

I'm done here. You boys go right ahead and continue to harp about the unfairness of Josh Cox running... you might change the world!

I was comparing discussions of topics in which the participant(s) are not directly involved. Did you really miss that? I don't hate Josh Cox, why would you say that? Stupid thing to believe. Where you and your boy might be with or without me is unimportant to me. Who're you trying to kid, anyway? You were done before you even started.

Ol Skool wrote:

Yeah, I believe ya. There's such a great track record of accuracy in what is posted on this site, especially by anonymous trolls who like to spend their time making up arguments. On that note, I've talked to more than twice as many OT qualifiers as you and to a man they are all against it.[/quote]

Lol. Believe what you want, slick. You must be quite popular to have already talked to a dozen Trials qualifiers. The guys I've talked with are training partners, so I'm not sure who you're hanging with. But I'm willing to guess that those guys are far more interested in simply qualifying than actually mixing it up, otherwise (as it has been said many times before) why the hell would they care if Cox is allowed to run?

But keep fighting the good fight, it is a moral imperative that we keep out those who have not jogged a 2:22.

That is all. Good night and good luck.

Ol Skool wrote:

I was comparing discussions of topics in which the participant(s) are not directly involved. Did you really miss that?

Uh, are you saying that the citizens of the US are not directly involved in the election process? That we don't somehow have a direct influence on the government? Like I said, that's the worst comparison I've ever seen. Are you somehow involved in the selection process of the Trials? Not even remotely. Nicely done. Try again. Oh wait, don't... I'm going to bed. Gotta get up early and train. I might have another runner to beat come November.

Have a pleasant night.

the silent majority wrote:

Um, I'm going to be racing in the Trials. Therefore I'm directly involved in this matter. Got it? And I don't care whether he races. Neither do the half dozen other Trials qualifiers I've talked with about it. So, much as the NFL ignores all the internet bloggers who might think their views on league decisions are important, USATF should go ahead and do the same with you armchair quarterbacks. But please feel free to keep lamenting the unfairness and outrageousness of Josh Cox petitioning to get into the marathon trials. ohhhhh ohhhh ohhhhh!

I understood that you were going to be in the trials, but you didn't say why your view is any more worthy of consideration than anyone else's.

I've run in the Olympic trials, but I don't pretend that my views about enforcing standards are more important than anyone else's because of that.

Neither you nor Josh will be a serious contender in the trials, so it's a bit of a stretch to say that you are any more "directly involved in this matter" than anyone else. The "matter" that we are addressing has nothing to do with whether you or Josh finishes in fixty-second place at the trials. The matter that we are addressing has to do with enforcing standards and treating people equally.

I thought you were "done here"? Way to be true to your word, very impressive. Anyway, are you really saying that elections have much influence on day-to-day business in the government? I suppose that's just one more thing you could be ignorant about.

Right, Eagle Scout.

Get out more.

As much as you are.

Don't count on it. Then again, I don't count that you're actually a qualifier, either. Nice bedtime story to tell yourself, though. How are you able to convince yourself of such delusions without using 'ludes?

Ditto, keep on trippin'.

Avocados Number wrote:

I understood that you were going to be in the trials, but you didn't say why your view is any more worthy of consideration than anyone else's.

I've run in the Olympic trials, but I don't pretend that my views about enforcing standards are more important than anyone else's because of that.

Neither you nor Josh will be a serious contender in the trials, so it's a bit of a stretch to say that you are any more "directly involved in this matter" than anyone else. The "matter" that we are addressing has nothing to do with whether you or Josh finishes in fixty-second place at the trials. The matter that we are addressing has to do with enforcing standards and treating people equally.[/quote]

What don't you people get? I am a troll. Do you really think an OT qualifier would waste his time arguing with you silly wankers? I'm not even an American. At least "Ol Skool" was able to pick up on that... but his dumb ass just kept on arguing. Well played, gentlemen. But, truth be told, I really don't care whether Cox runs or not... it is kind of funny that you people apparently feel so strongly about it.

It's funny that you think I think "so strongly about it" and am not in fact a fellow troll. Zing!

Is JC a clone of Donny Osmond?

San Diego article pulled from

www.joshcox.com

:

"A myriad of factors – a reality TV pursuit, injury, his brother's wedding and his late father's battle with cancer – have kept Cox from racing. He plans to enter the Los Angeles Marathon on Sunday, primarily as a 13-to 18-mile training run.

But after recovering from a recent stomach illness, if his body feels right he may go the distance, hoping to meet the 2-hour, 22-minute Olympic Trials qualifying standard. Otherwise, he plans to pull out, saving his legs for another marathon in the coming weeks."

It goes on to say something about his training under Dr. Rosa, putting in 4 or 5 weeks in the 170-180 mile range at altitude. He rarely spoke with Dr. Rosa during his time training under him.

Josh, line up at Chicago. If you can't pull 2:22 there you don't deserve to be in NYC.

There are a lot of examples of guys running good marathons a month a part: Ron Hill, Dick Beardsley, etc

Alan

I remember seeing Josh's old training logs leading up to his 2:13. It contained some of the sickest training sessions I've ever seen. If he's anywhere as fit now as he was then, I'd bet every penny I have that he could break 28:45.

Theorist wrote:

Is JC a clone of Donny Osmond?

Image:

http://i.realitytvworld.com/images/bachelorette3/thumbs/josh.jpg

No, but his girlfriend looks like Katie Holmes. Anyway, I'd like to see him get to run in the trials, but he should qualify. From the looks of it, that shouldn't be a problem. If he's running 140+ mpw, I would think a month between Chicago and the Olympic trials will be enough. Then again, I wouldn't know from experience.

silent majority..you sound like a real arrogant prick...and this is coming from another trials qualifier

I'd rather see him sharpen as he should anyway, hit the 28:45 standard, and save his legs. I give a 28:45 a ton more respect than a 2:22.

75848 wrote:

silent majority..you sound like a real arrogant prick...and this is coming from another trials qualifier

Uh, "silent majority" is a self-admittedly trolling. And he most certainly is NOT a trials qualifier.