Wow, interesting article
This must be how Jush Kerr felt after the Olympic 1500m
The dirtiest race in Olympic history?
Pro News/Info/Results
-
01
-
Run4fun.. wrote:
Wow, interesting article
This must be how Jush Kerr felt after the Olympic 1500m
Hocker does bring back memories of 2012 - and especially Makhloufi.
43 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Run4fun.. wrote:
Wow, interesting article
This must be how Jush Kerr felt after the Olympic 1500m
Hocker does bring back memories of 2012 - and especially Makhloufi.
Hocker does bring back memories of Snell and Ryun.
23 -
Dirtiest race; any Olympic 100m after 1968. Any major marathon since the introduction of EPO.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.00 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
So you don't dispute that for you it is all about faith.
You can't follow what anyone says. I say that nothing you argue is believable. You are the champion of bs here.
"believable" only illustrates your faith-based approach. Believability doesn't necessarily mean truthful. To borrow from Mark Twain, truth is stranger than fiction. I am interested in reality-based truths, not faith-based fiction.
02 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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.
The analogy of the "tip of the iceberg" greatly exagerrates what the experts know about who is doping with what substances or methods (ignoring the indirectly related follow-up question of whether it "worked" or can "work"). In fact, only some fraction of 1-2% of athletes are known to have doped. Specific knowledge about the remaining 98-99% cannot be seen, even by the experts with the best eyesight.
03 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Everytime I have asked you to provide any basis in reality, you consistently fail, or change the subject, or move the goalposts, eventually always falling back to the mere "existence" of "doping" in "sport", and that you believe because athletes/coaches/etc. believe.
Recall your "expert view" was that the "nature of anti-doping" is "a shot in the dark" -- something that even the experts cannot see -- i.e. "the one we don’t know about".
02 -
They might all be dirty because it's a selection process. Winning a gold medal may require doping.
30 -
GreatDane wrote:
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.Rio women's 800. Ajee was the best 800 runner for like 3-4 years and this meet she should have brought home gold BUT we know why that didn't happen. She didn't even make it out of the semifinal cause semenya
43 -
yesss wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Hocker does bring back memories of 2012 - and especially Makhloufi.
Hocker does bring back memories of Snell and Ryun.
You don't have any.
14 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You can't follow what anyone says. I say that nothing you argue is believable. You are the champion of bs here.
"believable" only illustrates your faith-based approach. Believability doesn't necessarily mean truthful. To borrow from Mark Twain, truth is stranger than fiction. I am interested in reality-based truths, not faith-based fiction.
Juries come to verdicts based on what they believe the evidence shows. So do judges in judge-only trials. So you can't accept any verdict from a court.
Beliefs can be soundly-based on what the evidence shows - but not in your case. Nothing you think is soundly-based.
12 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
The analogy of the "tip of the iceberg" greatly exagerrates what the experts know about who is doping with what substances or methods (ignoring the indirectly related follow-up question of whether it "worked" or can "work"). In fact, only some fraction of 1-2% of athletes are known to have doped. Specific knowledge about the remaining 98-99% cannot be seen, even by the experts with the best eyesight.
The specific knowledge they have is that the iceberg is far larger than what can be seen. So it is with doping. There are more who dope than are caught and the most sophisticated doping cannot be detected. As antidoping experts maintain - "only the dumb and the careless are caught".
12 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
They do have a basis - except to one who has made it his life to deny reality.
Everytime I have asked you to provide any basis in reality, you consistently fail, or change the subject, or move the goalposts, eventually always falling back to the mere "existence" of "doping" in "sport", and that you believe because athletes/coaches/etc. believe.
Recall your "expert view" was that the "nature of anti-doping" is "a shot in the dark" -- something that even the experts cannot see -- i.e. "the one we don’t know about".
No one has provided you with data on doping - a secret and clandestine practice - that you accept has "any basis in reality" in over twenty years of your denying doping on this site. If the views of experts over the years don't persuade you I wouldn't waste my time trying to inform you of what you refuse to see.
12 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
"believable" only illustrates your faith-based approach. Believability doesn't necessarily mean truthful. To borrow from Mark Twain, truth is stranger than fiction. I am interested in reality-based truths, not faith-based fiction.
Juries come to verdicts based on what they believe the evidence shows. So do judges in judge-only trials. So you can't accept any verdict from a court.
Beliefs can be soundly-based on what the evidence shows - but not in your case. Nothing you think is soundly-based.
I think we are in agreement that you are easily persuaded by beliefs. Beliefs are the stuff religions and myths are made of.
Judges and juries don't always get it right, sometimes convicting the innocent, and other times letting the guilty go free. Even the US Supreme Court makes some highly questionable rulings.
I make my own conclusions based on the strength of the evidence, regardless of who believes what.
The question is are you a sheep, or a lemming, or a blind man looking for someone to follow, or do you have the capacity for independent thought?
00 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The analogy of the "tip of the iceberg" greatly exagerrates what the experts know about who is doping with what substances or methods (ignoring the indirectly related follow-up question of whether it "worked" or can "work"). In fact, only some fraction of 1-2% of athletes are known to have doped. Specific knowledge about the remaining 98-99% cannot be seen, even by the experts with the best eyesight.
The specific knowledge they have is that the iceberg is far larger than what can be seen. So it is with doping. There are more who dope than are caught and the most sophisticated doping cannot be detected. As antidoping experts maintain - "only the dumb and the careless are caught".
But if even the experts cannot see anything under the water, how can we be sure we are looking at iceberg mountains, rather than floating slabs of ice floes?
The experts need better ways to see clearly underwater, in order to transform all of their weak speculation based on the unknown into stronger conclusions based on what is known.
01 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Everytime I have asked you to provide any basis in reality, you consistently fail, or change the subject, or move the goalposts, eventually always falling back to the mere "existence" of "doping" in "sport", and that you believe because athletes/coaches/etc. believe.
Recall your "expert view" was that the "nature of anti-doping" is "a shot in the dark" -- something that even the experts cannot see -- i.e. "the one we don’t know about".
No one has provided you with data on doping - a secret and clandestine practice - that you accept has "any basis in reality" in over twenty years of your denying doping on this site. If the views of experts over the years don't persuade you I wouldn't waste my time trying to inform you of what you refuse to see.
I have accepted all of the doping data everyone has provided dating as far back as the 1970s.
I was persuaded by your latest expert view that anti-doping is "a shot in the dark" talking about the doping programs "we don't know about".
These experts are not the ones speculating "who is doing it" without any basis. I'm referring to a forum full of armchair pundits making baseless doping allegations after baseless doping allegations about any athlete who has a breakthrough season, or otherwise generally succeeds. Where is their "basis in reality"?
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted. Reason provided: Expert data02 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Run4fun.. wrote:
Wow, interesting article
This must be how Jush Kerr felt after the Olympic 1500m
Hocker does bring back memories of 2012 - and especially Makhloufi.
Another sore-arsed POM,lol.
Sure, the old poofter is trolling for attention, but his bitterness at Hocker for taking down loudmouth Kerr is glorious to behold.40 -
This must be Obiri's only professional DFL.
10 -
westsouthrunner wrote:
GreatDane wrote:
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.Rio women's 800. Ajee was the best 800 runner for like 3-4 years and this meet she should have brought home gold BUT we know why that didn't happen. She didn't even make it out of the semifinal cause semenya
Ajee? That cheat was caught and let off due to her protective coloring, unlike cheater Shelby who also tried the “tainted meat” excuse. lol
11
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.