lololololol wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Waltzing Matilda doesn't go like that. And your spelling is a bit off. But this place is forgiving of those with learning difficulties, like yours.
Your existence is worth less than a fart in the wind. And yet you make sure to insult people on the boards every single day.
What a sad little man you are.
Chelimo being very active on these boards the last few days.
lololololol wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Waltzing Matilda doesn't go like that. And your spelling is a bit off. But this place is forgiving of those with learning difficulties, like yours.
Your existence is worth less than a fart in the wind. And yet you make sure to insult people on the boards every single day.
What a sad little man you are.
And you don't throw about insults? Not that I am bothered. Your wit is a rather blunt instrument.
Coevett wrote:
bannnedd i got wrote:
hmm thats strange.....i dont post racists stuff, like some british guy on here who has never been banned. i dont post homophobic stuff, anti trans stuff, i dont bash women, and i have been threatened by said british guy, and some florida guy. said british guy also uses my handles and makes up all sorts of unhinged crazy sh*t and gets my handle banned, which annoyingly if the blowjoes would check the IP address they would see it was him and not me.
You really are certified crazy. I don't post racist stuff. I've been proven entirely correct about the Kenya doping problem. I was even accused of racism 2 or 3 years ago when I started posting here for claiming Mo was dirty. The worst the likes of Observski/Spade detector have on me is that I ironically referred to Kenyans as 'noble savages', which is that attitude he and the other white, liberal gated community types have of Africans and their supposed inability to tell what their Italian coach is injecting them with etc etc.
You on the other hand are ceaseless in your hardcore anti-British racism, which gets a complete pass her from the Brojos and mods, both for you and the many other American anti-Brit racists here.
I never once threatened you and have never once complained about you to mods. You clearly need medication. The only 'person' I've ever threatened here is the anonymous troll who has threatened me on numerous occasions, including trying to find my address etc while claiming he's going to r*** my dead father and such like. If you're saying that is you (which I never really considered, but then you do appear as unhinged as that person) then give me one reason Chad I shouldn't be contacting the FBI right now.
Another doping thread mindwrecked by you. I 'm starting to suspect that you and Rekrunner are working together.
Ooooh! Bad Mama Cleo be maaaaaad!
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Because it works for them. Even if you can't believe that.
Do you have any foundation for that view?
Yes. Your view, on the other hand, is one that athletes don't accept. That is because they are athletes. You are not.
El Keniano wrote:
Coevett wrote:
You really are certified crazy. I don't post racist stuff. I've been proven entirely correct about the Kenya doping problem. I was even accused of racism 2 or 3 years ago when I started posting here for claiming Mo was dirty. The worst the likes of Observski/Spade detector have on me is that I ironically referred to Kenyans as 'noble savages', which is that attitude he and the other white, liberal gated community types have of Africans and their supposed inability to tell what their Italian coach is injecting them with etc etc.
You on the other hand are ceaseless in your hardcore anti-British racism, which gets a complete pass her from the Brojos and mods, both for you and the many other American anti-Brit racists here.
I never once threatened you and have never once complained about you to mods. You clearly need medication. The only 'person' I've ever threatened here is the anonymous troll who has threatened me on numerous occasions, including trying to find my address etc while claiming he's going to r*** my dead father and such like. If you're saying that is you (which I never really considered, but then you do appear as unhinged as that person) then give me one reason Chad I shouldn't be contacting the FBI right now.
Another doping thread mindwrecked by you. I 'm starting to suspect that you and Rekrunner are working together.
Ooooh! Bad Mama Cleo be maaaaaad!
Sorry if I've upset you again Cleo. Why don't you DM George and ask for a hug? Just make sure coach Ouma doesn't find out!
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Do you have any foundation for that view?
Yes. Your view, on the other hand, is one that athletes don't accept. That is because they are athletes. You are not.
What is your foundation then?
I thought we both held the same view that athletes believe in doping.
Are you saying athletes don't accept my view because athletes don't believe in doping?
Which athletes do you speak for? Are they athletes that dope? Athletes that win? Both? Neither?
Thanks in advance for a demonstration of your inside knowledge.
Chelimo spotter wrote:
lololololol wrote:
Your existence is worth less than a fart in the wind. And yet you make sure to insult people on the boards every single day.
What a sad little man you are.
Chelimo being very active on these boards the last few days.
Check the IP, noob.
Armstronglivs wrote:
lololololol wrote:
Your existence is worth less than a fart in the wind. And yet you make sure to insult people on the boards every single day.
What a sad little man you are.
And you don't throw about insults? Not that I am bothered. Your wit is a rather blunt instrument.
You are bothered enough that you always reply.
You are so imature...
Your comebacks are like those of a 9 year old "nahhh, you're looking in the mirror!!!" and yet you think you're smart.
My wit is a rather blunt instrument. Ha!
Another one...
Sad, sad little man you are...
Chelimo has actually admitted in the past that he likes to troll online.
There was also a poster here a little while back who claimed to be an elite Kenyan born American runner and ranted and raved that we were all racist for accusing Kenya of having a doping problem.
And now Chelimo has done the same thing outside of LetsRun.
Hmmm...
And here's me thinking El K was really Kiprop
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yes. Your view, on the other hand, is one that athletes don't accept. That is because they are athletes. You are not.
What is your foundation then?
I thought we both held the same view that athletes believe in doping.
Are you saying athletes don't accept my view because athletes don't believe in doping?
Which athletes do you speak for? Are they athletes that dope? Athletes that win? Both? Neither?
Thanks in advance for a demonstration of your inside knowledge.
It's not inside knowledge. It's common knowledge, especially amongst the athletes who use it. You say they are smart enough to understand the benefits they gain from altitude training - which are real - but not smart enough to realise that doping doesn't confer advantage (which it does - sorry). And your foundation for that apparent contradiction in their thought processes is?
Your view of doping is a Trumpian version of reality, which is to say it isn't based on reality but only on what you wish to believe. I will accept that thousands of athletes and their coaches know better than you do what it takes to succeed today in sport.
lololololol wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
And you don't throw about insults? Not that I am bothered. Your wit is a rather blunt instrument.
You are bothered enough that you always reply.
You are so imature...
Your comebacks are like those of a 9 year old "nahhh, you're looking in the mirror!!!" and yet you think you're smart.
My wit is a rather blunt instrument. Ha!
Another one...
Sad, sad little man you are...
Now you are sounding really bothered. Which you are, otherwise you wouldn't have come here to indulge in a sustained tantrum. You have had nothing to say about the subject of the thread or even on the point of doping that arose from it. A subject beyond you - as most will be. I don't have to make a point about your wit - or more accurately, the lack of it - it reveals itself all by itself.
Armstronglivs wrote:
It's not inside knowledge. It's common knowledge, especially amongst the athletes who use it. You say they are smart enough to understand the benefits they gain from altitude training - which are real - but not smart enough to realise that doping doesn't confer advantage (which it does - sorry). And your foundation for that apparent contradiction in their thought processes is?
Your view of doping is a Trumpian version of reality, which is to say it isn't based on reality but only on what you wish to believe. I will accept that thousands of athletes and their coaches know better than you do what it takes to succeed today in sport.
I knew you would wimp out after calling your bluff.
It's a common belief, especially among athletes.
I did not say athletes were smart.
Benefits from altitude training is also a belief.
There is no contradiction. The difference is that altitude training is legal.
I don't believe you speak for thousands of athletes and their coaches.
I knew you would try to deflect it back to "my view" -- when you were asked to provide the foundation you said you had. Ironically this is a Trumpian tool.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It's not inside knowledge. It's common knowledge, especially amongst the athletes who use it. You say they are smart enough to understand the benefits they gain from altitude training - which are real - but not smart enough to realise that doping doesn't confer advantage (which it does - sorry). And your foundation for that apparent contradiction in their thought processes is?
Your view of doping is a Trumpian version of reality, which is to say it isn't based on reality but only on what you wish to believe. I will accept that thousands of athletes and their coaches know better than you do what it takes to succeed today in sport.
I knew you would wimp out after calling your bluff.
It's a common belief, especially among athletes.
I did not say athletes were smart.
Benefits from altitude training is also a belief.
There is no contradiction. The difference is that altitude training is legal.
I don't believe you speak for thousands of athletes and their coaches.
I knew you would try to deflect it back to "my view" -- when you were asked to provide the foundation you said you had. Ironically this is a Trumpian tool.
Your vanity is undoubtedly of Trumpian proportions - along with a significant number of your other defects. Thousands of athletes - up to 40% of elites - are estimated to dope because of the advantage it will give them. Coaches, trainers and physicians aid them to that purpose. Thousands of other athletes refuse to dope, because they regard the advantage they would get as cheating. Each group of athletes and their respective support teams regard doping as conferring advantage, and differ only in terms of their response to it. But you know better than all of them.
You are not a professional athlete, coach, trainer or physician. You have even admitted to not being informed on doping but rather being "mathematically inclined and interested in statistical correlations". Yet you still insist on making pronouncements about doping practices that are in direct contradiction to the professionals. You are like Trump saying the WHO analysis of coronavirus is wrong. The combination of vanity and ignorance you both share cannot be measured - even by one whose interest is in "statistical correlations".
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your vanity is undoubtedly of Trumpian proportions - along with a significant number of your other defects. Thousands of athletes - up to 40% of elites - are estimated to dope because of the advantage it will give them. Coaches, trainers and physicians aid them to that purpose. Thousands of other athletes refuse to dope, because they regard the advantage they would get as cheating. Each group of athletes and their respective support teams regard doping as conferring advantage, and differ only in terms of their response to it. But you know better than all of them.
You are not a professional athlete, coach, trainer or physician. You have even admitted to not being informed on doping but rather being "mathematically inclined and interested in statistical correlations". Yet you still insist on making pronouncements about doping practices that are in direct contradiction to the professionals. You are like Trump saying the WHO analysis of coronavirus is wrong. The combination of vanity and ignorance you both share cannot be measured - even by one whose interest is in "statistical correlations".
I knew you would double-down on wimpiness, once again failing to support yourself, and finding creative ways to attack me again, as if to divert the attention away from your serial failures.
You said you had foundation, but your foundation appears to be second-hand unfounded beliefs of others.
I don't make pronouncements of doping practices, beyond relaying estimates of prevalence, or directing people to ADA and ADO websites.
It is others, like you, who claim there is a relation between elite performances and doping, but fail to provide data when asked.
I'm the opposite of Trump, who received data from the specialists.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your vanity is undoubtedly of Trumpian proportions - along with a significant number of your other defects. Thousands of athletes - up to 40% of elites - are estimated to dope because of the advantage it will give them. Coaches, trainers and physicians aid them to that purpose. Thousands of other athletes refuse to dope, because they regard the advantage they would get as cheating. Each group of athletes and their respective support teams regard doping as conferring advantage, and differ only in terms of their response to it. But you know better than all of them.
You are not a professional athlete, coach, trainer or physician. You have even admitted to not being informed on doping but rather being "mathematically inclined and interested in statistical correlations". Yet you still insist on making pronouncements about doping practices that are in direct contradiction to the professionals. You are like Trump saying the WHO analysis of coronavirus is wrong. The combination of vanity and ignorance you both share cannot be measured - even by one whose interest is in "statistical correlations".
I knew you would double-down on wimpiness, once again failing to support yourself, and finding creative ways to attack me again, as if to divert the attention away from your serial failures.
You said you had foundation, but your foundation appears to be second-hand unfounded beliefs of others.
I don't make pronouncements of doping practices, beyond relaying estimates of prevalence, or directing people to ADA and ADO websites.
It is others, like you, who claim there is a relation between elite performances and doping, but fail to provide data when asked.
I'm the opposite of Trump, who received data from the specialists.
A long-winded way of your still maintaining you know better than thousands of athletes, coaches and physicians.
Subway Surfers wrote:
And here's me thinking El K was really Kiprop
Even El K doesn't know who the hell he/she is.
Armstronglivs wrote:
A long-winded way of your still maintaining you know better than thousands of athletes, coaches and physicians.
Well that goes without saying, and is beside the point.
Who would have predicted you tripling-down on wimpiness?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
A long-winded way of your still maintaining you know better than thousands of athletes, coaches and physicians.
Well that goes without saying, and is beside the point.
Who would have predicted you tripling-down on wimpiness?
So it "goes without saying" that you know better than thousands of athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians. And you have no sporting expertise. You are beyond ludicrous. Your narcissism is off the scale.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Thousands of athletes - up to 40% of elites - are estimated to dope ...
This is a side point, but since you keep repeating this, sometimes going as far as referring to this as an "official estimate", it bears repeating from the primary source of this estimate, in the words of the authors.
Not many will have actually read the study, relying instead on an interpretation of the abstract not found within the study.
You might be surprised to read these expressly stated "Key Points" extracted verbatim in its entirety, in the words of the authors, for track and field athletes (WCA):
Doping in Two Elite Athletics Competitions Assessed by Randomized-Response Surveys
Rolf Ulrich, Harrison G. Pope Jr, Léa Cléret, Andrea Petróczi, Tamás Nepusz, Jay Schaffer,
Gen Kanayama, R. Dawn Comstock, Perikles Simon
Key Points
Although elite athletes routinely receive biological tests to detect prohibited doping, these tests likely
fail to detect many cutting-edge doping techniques, and thus the true prevalence of doping remains
unknown.
We utilized a "randomized response technique" -- a method that guarantees anonymity for individuals
when answering a sensitive question -- to estimate the prevalence of past-year doping at two major
international athletic events: the 13th International Association of Athletics Federations World
Championships in Athletics (WCA) in Daegu, South Korea and the 12th Quadrennial Pan-Arab Games
(PAG) in Doha, Qatar, both held in 2011.
After performing numerous sensitivity analyses, assessing the robustness of our estimates under
various hypothetical scenarios of intentional or unintentional noncompliance by respondents, we
found that the prevalence of past-year doping was at least 30% at WCA and 45% at PAG.
These findings suggest that biological testing greatly underestimates the true prevalence of doping in elite
athletics, and indicate the need for future studies of the prevalence of doping in athletics using
randomized response techniques.
The UQM approach (the specific random-response technique) they used seems to be a work in progress.
While it guarantees anonymity, it does not guarantee compliance from the respondents. Indeed, when reading the study, the study is highly concerned with modeling all the forms of non-compliance among survey respondents. Although UQM is unable to measure any form of non-compliance, the authors still recommended ignoring 30% of the fastest respondents, to eliminate an observable over-estimation bias (approx. 40%, or 12%-points), subjectively suggesting, but not showing, the remaining 70% is not significantly biased.
In a followup study, one of the authors suggests that UQM could be lead to heavily inflated estimates for sensitive questions. In a similar doping prevalence study, they found the UQM method prevalence of 58% did not correspond well with other methods, included for cross-checking the result: SSC (19.8%), social projection (13.8% in own sport and 26.1% in all sports), and network scale-up (19.3%). This inflated effect was not seen for a non-sensitive question on herbal supplements. For more details see:
A potential inflating effect in estimation models: Cautionary evidence from
comparing performance enhancing drug and herbal hormonal supplement use
estimates
Ricky A. James, Tamás Nepusz, Declan P. Naughton, Andrea Petróczi