And you are too soft on doping. There are obvious signs with 2E that you fail to see. Doping is more prevalent than you think, Armstronglivs.
I know that it is prevalent. But some appear suspicious and some don't. Your argument would convict every runner who finishes last - as well as the winner. I simply don't find your case against Tuohy convincing. I don't accept your "evidence" because I don't think it is factually correct as you have presented it.
Your criteria is inconsistent. Add in the fact that 2E easily BEAT an obvious doper and your refusal to see the facts is even more egregious. It is more prevalent than you think. You just want to believe that most top level athletes are clean. It's not true.
I know that it is prevalent. But some appear suspicious and some don't. Your argument would convict every runner who finishes last - as well as the winner. I simply don't find your case against Tuohy convincing. I don't accept your "evidence" because I don't think it is factually correct as you have presented it.
Your criteria is inconsistent. Add in the fact that 2E easily BEAT an obvious doper and your refusal to see the facts is even more egregious. It is more prevalent than you think. You just want to believe that most top level athletes are clean. It's not true.
Your criteria is inconsistent. Add in the fact that 2E easily BEAT an obvious doper and your refusal to see the facts is even more egregious. It is more prevalent than you think. You just want to believe that most top level athletes are clean. It's not true.
I've read through the last few pages of this thread. Let me make sure that I am correctly understanding your views.
Based on your statement above, you believe that most top level athletes use PEDs. If you don't believe that most of them are clean, that means that you believe most are dopers. I find that difficulty to comprehend - particularly in the NCAA. I know that doping occurs but "most," Really?
Your criteria is inconsistent. Add in the fact that 2E easily BEAT an obvious doper and your refusal to see the facts is even more egregious. It is more prevalent than you think. You just want to believe that most top level athletes are clean. It's not true.
lol@ this troll. you are too easy, armstrong.
Easy? I don't accept what this poster says and nor do I find anything they say to be credible. I don't think I need to do anything else.
Your criteria is inconsistent. Add in the fact that 2E easily BEAT an obvious doper and your refusal to see the facts is even more egregious. It is more prevalent than you think. You just want to believe that most top level athletes are clean. It's not true.
It is pointless discussing this with you. You don't know what I think. You also falsely maintain that the argument in respect of Valby is the same that could apply to Tuohy. You are wrong, but I have no interest in persuading you of what you cannot understand.
Exactly. You refuse to actually state your point of view and instead dismiss all my points by just saying "you're wrong". It's intellectual laziness. It's not like we're discussing nuclear physics here, buddy. Explain your point of view and the differences between Valby and Tuohy that would lead you to conclude that Valby is suspicious but Tuohy is 100% free of suspicion. I'm waiting.
He says that Valby is doping becuase she ran fast and does low mileage. He dismisses cross training. But he says Tuohy shouldn't do more training and eliminate her cross training. HE claims that dopers make huge gains yet every example that I can find of someone doping, it was at a point in their career when they werent really making gains. Houlihan never missed a test and she tesed negative hundreds of times while making nice improvements. She leveled off and then turned to assistance.
A 5 year old could see it. An 80 year old could see it. She looks nothing like an elite 5k runner. Cook and Valby look fast. Line the 3 up at local turkey trot and people would pick Cook and Valby to go 1-2 while picking Tuohy to be an average student/jogger home from college.
Another thing not mentioned, but this guy has finally drawn it out, is an interesting thing in the subject’s progression. It looks like she very well was plateauing, and actually, some cases, going backwards, before the knee thing popped up.
It’s apparent to me this guy’s M.O. is to use this forum to perform ‘hatchet jobs’ on certain athletes, for viewer consumption, while sparing other select athletes.
Why? What is the motivation to invest so much time doing that? Who knows?
He might be taking money to do it. He might even be another alias of Robert Johnson, to keep stirring the pot of controversy for the mouse-clicks.
RoJo is certainly complicit in letting this guy slander away. Maybe deep down, ex-NCAA coach RoJo is jealous that Solinsky was able to recruit athletes of Valby’s caliber as soon as he started coaching.
Exactly. You refuse to actually state your point of view and instead dismiss all my points by just saying "you're wrong". It's intellectual laziness. It's not like we're discussing nuclear physics here, buddy. Explain your point of view and the differences between Valby and Tuohy that would lead you to conclude that Valby is suspicious but Tuohy is 100% free of suspicion. I'm waiting.
Why don’t you answer the question that was posed to you above? Why do you think that most top runners, including Valby & Tuohy, are dopers?
It’s apparent to me this guy’s M.O. is to use this forum to perform ‘hatchet jobs’ on certain athletes, for viewer consumption, while sparing other select athletes.
Why? What is the motivation to invest so much time doing that? Who knows?
He might be taking money to do it. He might even be another alias of Robert Johnson, to keep stirring the pot of controversy for the mouse-clicks.
RoJo is certainly complicit in letting this guy slander away. Maybe deep down, ex-NCAA coach RoJo is jealous that Solinsky was able to recruit athletes of Valby’s caliber as soon as he started coaching.
Yet here you are slandering another athlete. Pot, meet kettle…
Wrong. Instead, I adeptly pointed out to the jury just how biased AL is when he quite subjectively presents or ignores counter evidence in the selection of, or passing over, his targets.
Another thing not mentioned, but this guy has finally drawn it out, is an interesting thing in the subject’s progression. It looks like she very well was plateauing, and actually, some cases, going backwards, before the knee thing popped up.
once again, factually incorrect. before the knee thing appeared in 2018 she had broken several course records (Holmdel/Sunken Meadow) and achieved higher speed ratings than she did in 2017.
Exactly. You refuse to actually state your point of view and instead dismiss all my points by just saying "you're wrong". It's intellectual laziness. It's not like we're discussing nuclear physics here, buddy. Explain your point of view and the differences between Valby and Tuohy that would lead you to conclude that Valby is suspicious but Tuohy is 100% free of suspicion. I'm waiting.
Why don’t you answer the question that was posed to you above? Why do you think that most top runners, including Valby & Tuohy, are dopers?
How is this flying so far over your head? Do you actually think that's my position? Read carefully.
She had knee surgery in 2020. I just performed a cursory look at her IAAF progression. It indicates she was topping out, or even going backward in multiple events by then.
But I’m not here to argue one way or another whether tuohy has ever doped. Instead, I find it deplorable that the Valby attacks are grossly not objective, greatly biased and not fair, thus being done for the purposes of sullying her reputation as an athlete.