And regarding Gidey: in the whole thread you have provided absolutely nothing. Even without you, anybody knows she has run some super fast times.
And regarding Gidey: in the whole thread you have provided absolutely nothing. Even without you, anybody knows she has run some super fast times.
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
Wrong.
57:31 - 1:02:52
2:01:39 - 2:12:58
Any woman who can run 2.12 is doped to the gills. None of those times will be clean in a dirty sport.
What in your view is the best non drugged time possible.
And what is the best non drugged time so far.
Now don’t throw your toys away again cos you have been asked questions.
letsdrum wrote:
And regarding Gidey: in the whole thread you have provided absolutely nothing. Even without you, anybody knows she has run some super fast times.
Yes, she has run super fast times. As dopers do. But not to you.
letsdrum wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I am sure she is faster than you.
As someone else has said here: Enough is enough. In practically any thread I have seen you posting, it's the same pattern. The thread get's almost destroyed because of your incapability to have some discussion. And so it's good that you get some resistance from a lot of posters.
You were proved wrong on many occasions just in this thread.
I haven't been proved wrong. You don't know what proof is - or cogent argument. The only thing proven here is your witlessness and that of the doping apologists. Discussion with you on the subject of the thread would be a complete waste of time. So I don't bother.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Any woman who can run 2.12 is doped to the gills. None of those times will be clean in a dirty sport.
What in your view is the best non drugged time possible.
And what is the best non drugged time so far.
Now don’t throw your toys away again cos you have been asked questions.
I am not interested in your questions. You can answer them yourself.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
What in your view is the best non drugged time possible.
And what is the best non drugged time so far.
Now don’t throw your toys away again cos you have been asked questions.
I am not interested in your questions. You can answer them yourself.
You are not interested in evidence that runs counter to your too simplistic understanding of a very complex subject. You give all the indication of being utterly out of you intellectual depth. Each refusal to answer adds to that belief.
Note no excrement insults this time; well done!
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
As someone else has said here: Enough is enough. In practically any thread I have seen you posting, it's the same pattern. The thread get's almost destroyed because of your incapability to have some discussion. And so it's good that you get some resistance from a lot of posters.
You were proved wrong on many occasions just in this thread.
I haven't been proved wrong. You don't know what proof is - or cogent argument. The only thing proven here is your witlessness and that of the doping apologists. Discussion with you on the subject of the thread would be a complete waste of time. So I don't bother.
All you have said is that she runs fast and as fast as some men and thus must take drugs.
And once again, what is a “ doping apologist”?
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Any woman who can run 2.12 is doped to the gills. None of those times will be clean in a dirty sport.
What in your view is the best non drugged time possible.
And what is the best non drugged time so far.
Now don’t throw your toys away again cos you have been asked questions.
Any response?
Too difficult for you…. again.
You have 50+ identical posts like this throughout this 30 page thread dude. It’s embarrassing. Give it up, if she’s doped to the gills she probably gets officially busted at some point in the coming years, then you can bump this and gloat about it. Give it a rest.
(Run is still absolutely amazing btw, love the salt from subelite men, maybe you should dope up to truly maximize your ability)
wowthisguy wrote:
You have 50+ identical posts like this throughout this 30 page thread dude. It’s embarrassing. Give it up, if she’s doped to the gills she probably gets officially busted at some point in the coming years, then you can bump this and gloat about it. Give it a rest.
(Run is still absolutely amazing btw, love the salt from subelite men, maybe you should dope up to truly maximize your ability)
But it's not embarrassing for the posters who have spent the entire thread attacking me personally for simply offering an opinion on the subject and daring to disagree with their views?
You are also wrong. If she is doping, she is unlikely to be busted. Ever. 1% of tests produce a positive yet up to 1 in 2 championship level athletes may be doping, according to confidential athlete surveys. So most are never caught.
Armstronglivs wrote:
wowthisguy wrote:
You have 50+ identical posts like this throughout this 30 page thread dude. It’s embarrassing. Give it up, if she’s doped to the gills she probably gets officially busted at some point in the coming years, then you can bump this and gloat about it. Give it a rest.
(Run is still absolutely amazing btw, love the salt from subelite men, maybe you should dope up to truly maximize your ability)
But it's not embarrassing for the posters who have spent the entire thread attacking me personally for simply offering an opinion on the subject and daring to disagree with their views?
You are also wrong. If she is doping, she is unlikely to be busted. Ever. 1% of tests produce a positive yet up to 1 in 2 championship level athletes may be doping, according to confidential athlete surveys. So most are never caught.
You have failed to grasp that by posting your opinions you would expect to run the risk of being challenged.
You then fail to respond and then get facts and opinions mixed up.When such are pointed out or clarity requested you issue forth the most vile insults ever ever seen on these threads.
Now please explain what confidential surveys you depend upon to say athletes may be doping. This is not an opinion from you but state this as a fact that such a survey exists.
Answer please!
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But it's not embarrassing for the posters who have spent the entire thread attacking me personally for simply offering an opinion on the subject and daring to disagree with their views?
You are also wrong. If she is doping, she is unlikely to be busted. Ever. 1% of tests produce a positive yet up to 1 in 2 championship level athletes may be doping, according to confidential athlete surveys. So most are never caught.
You have failed to grasp that by posting your opinions you would expect to run the risk of being challenged.
You then fail to respond and then get facts and opinions mixed up.When such are pointed out or clarity requested you issue forth the most vile insults ever ever seen on these threads.
Now please explain what confidential surveys you depend upon to say athletes may be doping. This is not an opinion from you but state this as a fact that such a survey exists.
Answer please!
It seems to be beyond you that I am uninterested in answering your questions or debating with you. It would be as pointless as trying to meaningfully converse with a wino on the street. If you think these are "the most vile insults ever seen on these threads" you are not very widely read. Indeed, I would have thought by now that you would have been used to incurring the derision of others.
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
As someone else has said here: Enough is enough. In practically any thread I have seen you posting, it's the same pattern. The thread get's almost destroyed because of your incapability to have some discussion. And so it's good that you get some resistance from a lot of posters.
You were proved wrong on many occasions just in this thread.
I haven't been proved wrong. You don't know what proof is - or cogent argument. The only thing proven here is your witlessness and that of the doping apologists. Discussion with you on the subject of the thread would be a complete waste of time. So I don't bother.
You have been wrong on several accounts (for example the only number you gave was just plain wrong) in just this thread also you never will admit to it.
I know very well what a proof is or a cogent argument. Why do you claim the opposite? And not just that I know what cogent arguments are, I also use them.
What is a doping apoligist?
It seems you think I try to argue that Gidey is clean. But I have not said anything to this.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
What in your view is the best non drugged time possible.
And what is the best non drugged time so far.
Now don’t throw your toys away again cos you have been asked questions.
I am not interested in your questions. You can answer them yourself.
For sure. It would demonstrate even more clearly how nonsensical your argumentation really is.
Armstronglivs wrote:
wowthisguy wrote:
You have 50+ identical posts like this throughout this 30 page thread dude. It’s embarrassing. Give it up, if she’s doped to the gills she probably gets officially busted at some point in the coming years, then you can bump this and gloat about it. Give it a rest.
(Run is still absolutely amazing btw, love the salt from subelite men, maybe you should dope up to truly maximize your ability)
But it's not embarrassing for the posters who have spent the entire thread attacking me personally for simply offering an opinion on the subject and daring to disagree with their views?
You are not attacked for "simply offering an opinion" but for your complete inability to go into some arguments and your behaviour at all. You are attacked in dozens of threads - have you ever thought about this? All those people are stupid "doping apologists"?
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But it's not embarrassing for the posters who have spent the entire thread attacking me personally for simply offering an opinion on the subject and daring to disagree with their views?
You are also wrong. If she is doping, she is unlikely to be busted. Ever. 1% of tests produce a positive yet up to 1 in 2 championship level athletes may be doping, according to confidential athlete surveys. So most are never caught.
You have failed to grasp that by posting your opinions you would expect to run the risk of being challenged.
You then fail to respond and then get facts and opinions mixed up.When such are pointed out or clarity requested you issue forth the most vile insults ever ever seen on these threads.
Now please explain what confidential surveys you depend upon to say athletes may be doping. This is not an opinion from you but state this as a fact that such a survey exists.
Answer please!
What confidential surveys?
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
You have failed to grasp that by posting your opinions you would expect to run the risk of being challenged.
You then fail to respond and then get facts and opinions mixed up.When such are pointed out or clarity requested you issue forth the most vile insults ever ever seen on these threads.
Now please explain what confidential surveys you depend upon to say athletes may be doping. This is not an opinion from you but state this as a fact that such a survey exists.
Answer please!
It seems to be beyond you that I am uninterested in answering your questions or debating with you. It would be as pointless as trying to meaningfully converse with a wino on the street. If you think these are "the most vile insults ever seen on these threads" you are not very widely read. Indeed, I would have thought by now that you would have been used to incurring the derision of others.
Yes, they are the greatest set of potty mouthed excrement based insults issued to each one that sort to challenge your alleged fact based opinions.
Thread after thread.
letsdrum wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I haven't been proved wrong. You don't know what proof is - or cogent argument. The only thing proven here is your witlessness and that of the doping apologists. Discussion with you on the subject of the thread would be a complete waste of time. So I don't bother.
You have been wrong on several accounts (for example the only number you gave was just plain wrong) in just this thread also you never will admit to it.
I know very well what a proof is or a cogent argument. Why do you claim the opposite? And not just that I know what cogent arguments are, I also use them.
What is a doping apoligist?
It seems you think I try to argue that Gidey is clean. But I have not said anything to this.
Your figure for what would be an estimated full marathon time equivalent to Gidey's hm time is only an estimate. So it doesn't prove my estimate wrong. There are some who have suggested her hm time is closer to 2.10 for the full distance.
I have described what a doping apologist is on other threads. If you don't know what a doping apologist is you aren't intellectually equipped to debate issues concerning doping.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But it's not embarrassing for the posters who have spent the entire thread attacking me personally for simply offering an opinion on the subject and daring to disagree with their views?
You are also wrong. If she is doping, she is unlikely to be busted. Ever. 1% of tests produce a positive yet up to 1 in 2 championship level athletes may be doping, according to confidential athlete surveys. So most are never caught.
You have failed to grasp that by posting your opinions you would expect to run the risk of being challenged.
You then fail to respond and then get facts and opinions mixed up.When such are pointed out or clarity requested you issue forth the most vile insults ever ever seen on these threads.
Now please explain what confidential surveys you depend upon to say athletes may be doping. This is not an opinion from you but state this as a fact that such a survey exists.
Answer please!
You debate issues you are completely ignorant about.
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/29/sport-doping-study-revealing-wider-usage-published-after-scandalous-delay?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16381994083035&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fsport%2F2017%2Faug%2F29%2Fsport-doping-study-revealing-wider-usage-published-after-scandalous-delayThe research, based on anonymous surveys carried out at two elite athletics competitions in 2011, found that up to 57% of competitors admitted doping in the previous 12 months, a figure far surpassing the 1-2% identified by blood and urine tests carried out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), and higher even than the 14% prevalence estimated from the athlete biological passport.
letsdrum wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But it's not embarrassing for the posters who have spent the entire thread attacking me personally for simply offering an opinion on the subject and daring to disagree with their views?
You are not attacked for "simply offering an opinion" but for your complete inability to go into some arguments and your behaviour at all. You are attacked in dozens of threads - have you ever thought about this? All those people are stupid "doping apologists"?
No - but since I dispute posts from those exhibiting a whole range of ignorant prejudices - like yourself - I am not surprised their feelings are hurt. And yours are so ruffled. You are obsessed with me. You post nothing else. I suggest therapy.