"liar soorer" - what is this? Learnt English before posting on here you ret@rd.
"liar soorer" - what is this? Learnt English before posting on here you ret@rd.
letsdrum wrote:
So you don't want to answer the question (and many others)? Because you don't have to do so? You are free to answer what ever question you want, for sure. But why are you posting at all always such strong claims, if you don't want to explain your position?
I've explained my position as much as I care to in this thread. But I am not interested in explaining it to you. You have made your attitude very clear. I have read other comments earlier in the thread with interest. But not yours. You have offered nothing.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is, because you insist that I have to respond to you. So in the end it is all about you after all.
Go away
And you. An infant who never stops having a tantrum.
0812 wrote:
"liar soorer" - what is this? Learnt English before posting on here you ret@rd.
You're asking too much of him.
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
So you don't want to answer the question (and many others)? Because you don't have to do so? You are free to answer what ever question you want, for sure. But why are you posting at all always such strong claims, if you don't want to explain your position?
I've explained my position as much as I care to in this thread. But I am not interested in explaining it to you. You have made your attitude very clear. I have read other comments earlier in the thread with interest. But not yours. You have offered nothing.
Regarding Gidey, you made your position very clear: she is too fast. Nothing else. If that's enough to you, then you are just a clown.
letsdrum wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I've explained my position as much as I care to in this thread. But I am not interested in explaining it to you. You have made your attitude very clear. I have read other comments earlier in the thread with interest. But not yours. You have offered nothing.
Regarding Gidey, you made your position very clear: she is too fast. Nothing else. If that's enough to you, then you are just a clown.
Unlike you, I have spent years informing myself about doping, and I have discussed these issues with professional athletes, coaches and anti-doping officials. My views of Gidey are based on that knowledge. You have also ignored the posters who have pointed out, with data, that she is now running as fast as elite males. You only bring your ignorance to the table. Informing you is a task I have no desire for. Hercules cleaning the Augean stables. No thanks.
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
Regarding Gidey, you made your position very clear: she is too fast. Nothing else. If that's enough to you, then you are just a clown.
Unlike you, I have spent years informing myself about doping, and I have discussed these issues with professional athletes, coaches and anti-doping officials. My views of Gidey are based on that knowledge. You have also ignored the posters who have pointed out, with data, that she is now running as fast as elite males. You only bring your ignorance to the table. Informing you is a task I have no desire for. Hercules cleaning the Augean stables. No thanks.
Go away
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Go away
And you. An infant who never stops having a tantrum.
Go away
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Go away
And you. An infant who never stops having a tantrum.
Go away
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
So you don't want to answer the question (and many others)? Because you don't have to do so? You are free to answer what ever question you want, for sure. But why are you posting at all always such strong claims, if you don't want to explain your position?
I've explained my position as much as I care to in this thread. But I am not interested in explaining it to you. You have made your attitude very clear. I have read other comments earlier in the thread with interest. But not yours. You have offered nothing.
Go away
0812 wrote:
"liar soorer" - what is this? Learnt English before posting on here you ret@rd.
Well known early American family or a very attractive young lady.
Now apologise.
Gidey #1
GOAT in the making. Most talented athlete in all of track and field right now
Armstronglivs wrote:
Unlike you, I have spent years informing myself about doping, and I have discussed these issues with professional athletes, coaches and anti-doping officials. My views of Gidey are based on that knowledge. You have also ignored the posters who have pointed out, with data, that she is now running as fast as elite males. You only bring your ignorance to the table. Informing you is a task I have no desire for. Hercules cleaning the Augean stables. No thanks.
You say that, but it doesn’t sound credible. Whatever you desire, are you qualified for the task?
Can you be more specific about which information and knowledge you base your beliefs of Gidey on?
Have they told you anything specific about Gidey? You say “knowledge”, but how would they know? Do they know? What do they know?
Top women will always finish around men in mixed races. What relevant data are you referring to that is being ignored?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Unlike you, I have spent years informing myself about doping, and I have discussed these issues with professional athletes, coaches and anti-doping officials. My views of Gidey are based on that knowledge. You have also ignored the posters who have pointed out, with data, that she is now running as fast as elite males. You only bring your ignorance to the table. Informing you is a task I have no desire for. Hercules cleaning the Augean stables. No thanks.
You say that, but it doesn’t sound credible. Whatever you desire, are you qualified for the task?
Can you be more specific about which information and knowledge you base your beliefs of Gidey on?
Have they told you anything specific about Gidey? You say “knowledge”, but how would they know? Do they know? What do they know?
Top women will always finish around men in mixed races. What relevant data are you referring to that is being ignored?
In this thread he has given exactly one reasen why Gidey is a doper (for him it's a fact): she is running too fast. But he won't explain it to me.
By now, I know my questions will be treated as rhetorical.
He cannot explain his strongly held beliefs. It is not a question of his desire.
rekrunner wrote:
By now, I know my questions will be treated as rhetorical.
He cannot explain his strongly held beliefs. It is not a question of his desire.
I agree. He says he had studied doping matters but all he can say is that she runs fast as that means she doped .
In those rare moments when he chooses not to personally insult, this is the quality of argument you can expect. The facts he seems most knowledgeable about are from the 1960s, as if he has nothing more recent to share. Then this is supported by “I do not believe (training) …” and “I believe (doping) …” There is no knowledge shared that can be attributed to these alleged professional athletes, coaches, and anti-doping officials.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The differential between the men's best hm time and full marathon is only about 3 mins per split (less, if you take Kipchoge's sub-2). A similar differential for the women would give a marathon time of between 2.10-12. But either time is doped to the gills. Abebe Bikila won the '64 Olympic marathon in 2.12 by a record margin. Women now running the same sort of time is achievable only one way. But all of the sport is now infected by it - men and women.
Bikila dominated marathon running in an era when endurance training was becoming an integral part of competition from the middle distances to marathon running. That was not so in the Finn's era. Bikila was also a fantastic athlete. I do not believe that training has changed so much that female competitors in those events should now be equal to male distance runners of his calibre. In the same era, male competitors (Snell, Elliott) were running the 800 and 1500 in 1.44 and 3.35. So why aren't women also running those times? That women are now hard on the heels of distance runners like Bikila is evidence to me of the benefits of drugs like EPO, that greatly boost aerobic capacity (but not strength, which is also important in the middle distances, which women are not able to match to the same degree - even with steroids). I believe EPO also lies behind the recent significant improvements in the men's distance events. I say this because we know that EPO can considerably boost endurance, that its use has been prevalent since the late '80's, and that most athletes who are using it will not be caught. As we learn of its widespread use we also see world marks have improved dramatically.
It is ironic, that in the discussion about transgender athletes competing in women's sport, in which we hear about the advantages of being born male, that women distance runners today are matching the very best men of the past. So it seems women can sometimes run as fast as men. How has training evolved to such a degree that it can explain that? There is a better, simpler, explanation than changes to training methods - but one that is unwelcome to those who wish to simply ascribe these improvements to "progress".
rekrunner wrote:
In those rare moments when he chooses not to personally insult, this is the quality of argument you can expect.
The facts he seems most knowledgeable about are from the 1960s, as if he has nothing more recent to share.
Then this is supported by “I do not believe (training) …” and “I believe (doping) …”
There is no knowledge shared that can be attributed to these alleged professional athletes, coaches, and anti-doping officials.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Bikila dominated marathon running in an era when endurance training was becoming an integral part of competition from the middle distances to marathon running. That was not so in the Finn's era. Bikila was also a fantastic athlete. I do not believe that training has changed so much that female competitors in those events should now be equal to male distance runners of his calibre. In the same era, male competitors (Snell, Elliott) were running the 800 and 1500 in 1.44 and 3.35. So why aren't women also running those times? That women are now hard on the heels of distance runners like Bikila is evidence to me of the benefits of drugs like EPO, that greatly boost aerobic capacity (but not strength, which is also important in the middle distances, which women are not able to match to the same degree - even with steroids). I believe EPO also lies behind the recent significant improvements in the men's distance events. I say this because we know that EPO can considerably boost endurance, that its use has been prevalent since the late '80's, and that most athletes who are using it will not be caught. As we learn of its widespread use we also see world marks have improved dramatically.
It is ironic, that in the discussion about transgender athletes competing in women's sport, in which we hear about the advantages of being born male, that women distance runners today are matching the very best men of the past. So it seems women can sometimes run as fast as men. How has training evolved to such a degree that it can explain that? There is a better, simpler, explanation than changes to training methods - but one that is unwelcome to those who wish to simply ascribe these improvements to "progress".
I agree.
I also note that he has not made any contribution to any of variety of doping areas of interest other than the shallow comments that follow from his perception that all dope and therefore …..
Yet he has studied well but refuses to read.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Unlike you, I have spent years informing myself about doping, and I have discussed these issues with professional athletes, coaches and anti-doping officials. My views of Gidey are based on that knowledge. You have also ignored the posters who have pointed out, with data, that she is now running as fast as elite males. You only bring your ignorance to the table. Informing you is a task I have no desire for. Hercules cleaning the Augean stables. No thanks.
You say that, but it doesn’t sound credible. Whatever you desire, are you qualified for the task?
Can you be more specific about which information and knowledge you base your beliefs of Gidey on?
Have they told you anything specific about Gidey? You say “knowledge”, but how would they know? Do they know? What do they know?
Top women will always finish around men in mixed races. What relevant data are you referring to that is being ignored?
I am not interested in discussing any of these questions with a practised doping denier, as you are. Dialogue with you on any of these issues is as helpful as wading through dog manure and expecting my shoes will be clean. But you have some brainless yapping poodles here who will be happy to wallow in what you leave behind.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I am not interested in discussing any of these questions with a practised doping denier, as you are. Dialogue with you on any of these issues is as helpful as wading through dog manure and expecting my shoes will be clean. But you have some brainless yapping poodles here who will be happy to wallow in what you leave behind.
I don’t ask you for any discussion, just to share some of this alleged knowledge that you base your strong beliefs on.
But if the problem is just me, who on this forum would you be interested in discussing these questions with?
Then would they be interested in discussing these questions with you?