You may not have noticed that shoes and rekrunner are separate subjects. If Sage has opinions on US politics am I obliged to share those, too? On the other hand, he is totally on the money with rekrunner. That makes him more perceptive than you.
Your last sentence is idiotic. Nothing strange, coming from the biggest idiot on this forum.
So all the preceding sentences are correct? Thanks. But unfortunately for you, the last is, too.
You may not have noticed that shoes and rekrunner are separate subjects. If Sage has opinions on US politics am I obliged to share those, too? On the other hand, he is totally on the money with rekrunner. That makes him more perceptive than you.
You are using someone as an authority who - from your crazy point of view - writes complete nonsense about other things?
Dumbstrong at his best.
I didn't say he writes complete nonsense on anything. He may simply hold a different view. You, on the other hand, have just shown that you write complete nonsense.
That's because your 5 minutes always puts you wrong. You've spent twenty years on doping and still don't see it.
You seem perpetually confused, projecting your intellectual failures onto others rather than solving them -- the 5 minutes is always more than sufficient to disprove your baseless imagination.
You have spent 50 years as a doping disciple, apparently without any proof. I have spent some years, but less than 20, searching for causes of fast running performance, but I cannot see something that has never been shown or observed.
You have carved a niche out for yourself, as someone who has purported to study doping but never seen its effects. Quite an accomplishment when it is right throughout the sport.
Rekrunner, you are truly unbelievable. First, I catch you with a wild exaggeration ("a handful" instead of 1). Then instead of admitting it, you falsely claim it's four runners, not one, hard core outright lying with 3 of 4 four examples.
Then you lied about what I said. Repeatedly. A couple of examples just from this post of yours:
"I will check myself in the future and for now accept your argument without further dispute that doping's impact on the marathon before the era of supershoes was insignificant, if not negligible" - hard core lie. My argument? I said nothing of that sort.
"Supershoes in 2016 is your own invention." - such an obvious and stupid lie. That's not my invention at all; that's a hard-core well-established fact.
(By the way: even if going with your unique definition of the start of the supershoes in September 2018, you still lied in 2 of the 4 cases you yourself chose. Simply outrageous.)
Will you be honest enough to admit your lies, or will you triple down and add more lies? My money is on the latter.
All the rest? No. Houlihan tested positive. Should that bring into question all other Americans?
It brings the into question all other 3:54 and faster women 1500m runners.
Say I have little running talent and even if I dope to the gills, I’m not able to run a marathon faster than 2:40. So say I do dope to the gills and I do run 2:40. Does that call into question all runners who run sub 2:40? I don’t think so.
You are using someone as an authority who - from your crazy point of view - writes complete nonsense about other things?
Dumbstrong at his best.
I didn't say he writes complete nonsense on anything. He may simply hold a different view. You, on the other hand, have just shown that you write complete nonsense.
You are using someone as an authority who - from your crazy point of view - contradicts you totally on other things?
Rekrunner, you are truly unbelievable. First, I catch you with a wild exaggeration ("a handful" instead of 1). Then instead of admitting it, you falsely claim it's four runners, not one, hard core outright lying with 3 of 4 four examples.
Then you lied about what I said. Repeatedly. A couple of examples just from this post of yours:
"I will check myself in the future and for now accept your argument without further dispute that doping's impact on the marathon before the era of supershoes was insignificant, if not negligible" - hard core lie. My argument? I said nothing of that sort.
"Supershoes in 2016 is your own invention." - such an obvious and stupid lie. That's not my invention at all; that's a hard-core well-established fact.
(By the way: even if going with your unique definition of the start of the supershoes in September 2018, you still lied in 2 of the 4 cases you yourself chose. Simply outrageous.)
Will you be honest enough to admit your lies, or will you triple down and add more lies? My money is on the latter.
I will be more than honest and simply point out your lies. You rendered what I said "unbelievable" by adding things I did not say, therefore fabricating the lies.
Rather than rebutting your additions, recall here is what I said:
"We already had a handful of 2:05 runners busted for doping, and what we are seeing now, in the era of new shoes, is a handful of 2:03 runners (rounding 2:02:57 to 2:03)."
This is a compound statement composed of two inarguably true statements, joined by the conjunction "and".
I did not say East Africans. You fabricated that.
I did not say 5. You fabricated that (against common sense).
I did not say the 2:05 runners' performances were before 2016. You fabricated that.
For the handful of busted 2:05 runners, I gave no strict exclusive time frame, only that their busts were in the historical past.
In my statement, "era of new shoes" is used to further describe the handful of 2:03 runners we are seeing now.
I did not create a rounding rule, but rounded one 2:02:57 time to be considered as part of the second statement about "a handful" of 2:03s. If anything, I could use a similar "rule" to include comparable times (e.g using a "~") ranging from 2:04:53 to 2:05:30 in the first statement about 2:05s.
The exaggeration you allege exists is only made possible by applying several exclusion criteria you fabricated beyond any clear meaning of my written statement.
I didn't say he writes complete nonsense on anything. He may simply hold a different view. You, on the other hand, have just shown that you write complete nonsense.
You are using someone as an authority who - from your crazy point of view - contradicts you totally on other things?
No, I don't use him as an authority on anything. But he happens to be right about rekrunner being clueless about doping.
Rekrunner, you are truly unbelievable. First, I catch you with a wild exaggeration ("a handful" instead of 1). Then instead of admitting it, you falsely claim it's four runners, not one, hard core outright lying with 3 of 4 four examples.
Then you lied about what I said. Repeatedly. A couple of examples just from this post of yours:
"I will check myself in the future and for now accept your argument without further dispute that doping's impact on the marathon before the era of supershoes was insignificant, if not negligible" - hard core lie. My argument? I said nothing of that sort.
"Supershoes in 2016 is your own invention." - such an obvious and stupid lie. That's not my invention at all; that's a hard-core well-established fact.
(By the way: even if going with your unique definition of the start of the supershoes in September 2018, you still lied in 2 of the 4 cases you yourself chose. Simply outrageous.)
Will you be honest enough to admit your lies, or will you triple down and add more lies? My money is on the latter.
I will be more than honest and simply point out your lies. You rendered what I said "unbelievable" by adding things I did not say, therefore fabricating the lies.
Rather than rebutting your additions, recall here is what I said:
"We already had a handful of 2:05 runners busted for doping, and what we are seeing now, in the era of new shoes, is a handful of 2:03 runners (rounding 2:02:57 to 2:03)."
This is a compound statement composed of two inarguably true statements, joined by the conjunction "and".
I did not say East Africans. You fabricated that.
I did not say 5. You fabricated that (against common sense).
I did not say the 2:05 runners' performances were before 2016. You fabricated that.
For the handful of busted 2:05 runners, I gave no strict exclusive time frame, only that their busts were in the historical past.
In my statement, "era of new shoes" is used to further describe the handful of 2:03 runners we are seeing now.
I did not create a rounding rule, but rounded one 2:02:57 time to be considered as part of the second statement about "a handful" of 2:03s. If anything, I could use a similar "rule" to include comparable times (e.g using a "~") ranging from 2:04:53 to 2:05:30 in the first statement about 2:05s.
The exaggeration you allege exists is only made possible by applying several exclusion criteria you fabricated beyond any clear meaning of my written statement.
The more you say the more meaningless it becomes. The English language is an excellent vehicle for communication - but, alas, not in your hands.
No, I don't use him as an authority on anything. But he happens to be right about rekrunner being clueless about doping.
You DID use him as an authority.
Dumbstrong: "Sage Canaday has made the same observation..." - regarding doping.
But is on a completely different path than you, Dumbstrong, regarding super shoes.
I simply agree with him - I have said the same as he has about rekrunner for years. Unlike you, I don't need to appeal to an authority to believe I am right. You are rekrunner's poodle. And about as bright as something that can only yap.
It doesn't take that many words, and you are quickly out of your depth.
If it doesn't take that many words why are so many of your posts tedious unreadable word-salads? Succinct and pithy are beyond you.
Wow -- that went way over your head, didn't it, and I only used 14 words. It is far worse than I thought.
Just because you can't read posts with too many words, that doesn't make then unreadable. It does require some basic intellectual prerequisites and knowledge of context.
Sometimes my posts are long when I make the effort to point out all the many things that are wrong, and why.
I simply agree with him - I have said the same as he has about rekrunner for years. Unlike you, I don't need to appeal to an authority to believe I am right.
You've been appealing to false authorities for five decades to form your beliefs.
Rekrunner, you are truly unbelievable. First, I catch you with a wild exaggeration ("a handful" instead of 1). Then instead of admitting it, you falsely claim it's four runners, not one, hard core outright lying with 3 of 4 four examples.
Then you lied about what I said. Repeatedly. A couple of examples just from this post of yours:
"I will check myself in the future and for now accept your argument without further dispute that doping's impact on the marathon before the era of supershoes was insignificant, if not negligible" - hard core lie. My argument? I said nothing of that sort.
"Supershoes in 2016 is your own invention." - such an obvious and stupid lie. That's not my invention at all; that's a hard-core well-established fact.
(By the way: even if going with your unique definition of the start of the supershoes in September 2018, you still lied in 2 of the 4 cases you yourself chose. Simply outrageous.)
Will you be honest enough to admit your lies, or will you triple down and add more lies? My money is on the latter.
Kipchoge was wearing prototype 'super shoes' in Rio 2016. I have that on good faith from a very reliable source.
Rekrunner, you are truly unbelievable. First, I catch you with a wild exaggeration ("a handful" instead of 1). Then instead of admitting it, you falsely claim it's four runners, not one, hard core outright lying with 3 of 4 four examples.
Then you lied about what I said. Repeatedly. A couple of examples just from this post of yours:
"I will check myself in the future and for now accept your argument without further dispute that doping's impact on the marathon before the era of supershoes was insignificant, if not negligible" - hard core lie. My argument? I said nothing of that sort.
"Supershoes in 2016 is your own invention." - such an obvious and stupid lie. That's not my invention at all; that's a hard-core well-established fact.
(By the way: even if going with your unique definition of the start of the supershoes in September 2018, you still lied in 2 of the 4 cases you yourself chose. Simply outrageous.)
Will you be honest enough to admit your lies, or will you triple down and add more lies? My money is on the latter.
Kipchoge was wearing prototype 'super shoes' in Rio 2016. I have that on good faith from a very reliable source.
Sure. Kipchoge wore prototypes, as well as Rupp and Flanagan and others. In July 2017, they were made available for sale to the public. In 2018 and later, marathon times started dropping significantly. Nike kept refining the shoe, as the Vaporfly 4% became Vaporfly Next%, then updated with Alphaflys and Alphafly Nexts, etc.
My comment here was more that 2016 was an "invention" not relevant to my previous statement noting the improvement from historical 2:05 runners, to current 2:03 runners.
If it doesn't take that many words why are so many of your posts tedious unreadable word-salads? Succinct and pithy are beyond you.
Wow -- that went way over your head, didn't it, and I only used 14 words. It is far worse than I thought.
Just because you can't read posts with too many words, that doesn't make then unreadable. It does require some basic intellectual prerequisites and knowledge of context.
Sometimes my posts are long when I make the effort to point out all the many things that are wrong, and why.
You only show that any kind of communication is for you an exercise in confusion. That goes with someone who has never learned to recognise the truth, about anything.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.