Says the guy who is corrected day in day out on many occasions. Who writes the same stuff which anybody knows hundreds of times. So, no, reky isn't the biggest m*ron on these boards.
And here is the second biggest after rek.
I just stated facts:
- you are corrected very often
- you post some things (often while doing some mistakes) hundreds of times, things which any poster knows
Says the guy who is corrected day in day out on many occasions. Who writes the same stuff which anybody knows hundreds of times. So, no, reky isn't the biggest m*ron on these boards.
Rekbot does exactly that. Those two are very much alike in their habits, but not opinion.
Crazy story. Lisa Dobriskey who represented the UK in the 1500m at the 2012 Olympics was upgraded several times over the years from her initial 10th place to 5th after more and more athletes from the race tested positive.
Of course. Thanks to the knowledge of anti-doping experts, I understand now that "It’s all a shot in the dark", because even the experts know that no one really knows anything. That's the stuff myths are made of.
That isn't what they are saying, that they don't know anything, but that the full extent of a clandestine practice (which is known to occur) cannot be definitively measured. It has to be estimated. You are the biggest m*ron on these boards.
I'm not the gulilible one drawing wishful conclusions based on what is unknown.
You called it the "tip of the iceberg". That means the knowledge is around 10%, and the unknown is 90%.
The problem is that experts appealing to the unknown can mean 100 things to 100 people, and all of them are speculating without any basis in knowledge.
I have a lot more questions than that. It is correct that the unknown is not knowledge.
We can know something exists without knowing its full or exact extent - that is "unknown" - or, in the case of a practice, who is doing it - like doping. Too subtle for the concrete in your cerebral cortex.
No one questions the existence of doping. But many do speculate "who is doing it" without any basis.
Not so sure Centro was dirty. There's a lot of Centrowitz haters out there. I ain't one of them.
Moving on, let's talk El G. To be honest, during his reign, I was a huge fan. What an amazing career. On reflection, think of that era, and what was going on. Frankly it is hard to imagine that he was clean.
Maybe it was "fair" in a twisted sense, everyone had the same access to, uh, "training."
Listen to the interview. Sharpe is very reluctant to state the obvious which is admirable straight after the Olympic final. Very dignified responses to a reporter who is after a quote.
That isn't what they are saying, that they don't know anything, but that the full extent of a clandestine practice (which is known to occur) cannot be definitively measured. It has to be estimated. You are the biggest m*ron on these boards.
I'm not the gulilible one drawing wishful conclusions based on what is unknown.
You called it the "tip of the iceberg". That means the knowledge is around 10%, and the unknown is 90%.
The problem is that experts appealing to the unknown can mean 100 things to 100 people, and all of them are speculating without any basis in knowledge.
If the analogy of an iceberg is used it means it is known it exists but that we only clearly see the tip. You of course see nothing.
We can know something exists without knowing its full or exact extent - that is "unknown" - or, in the case of a practice, who is doing it - like doping. Too subtle for the concrete in your cerebral cortex.
No one questions the existence of doping. But many do speculate "who is doing it" without any basis.
They do have a basis - except to one who has made it his life to deny reality.
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.
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.