Yeah. That was so weird when it was pretty obvious Geneze Dibaba had to be doped to the gills based on her performances and her immediate degradation in performance once he was arrested and banned.
rekrunner crawls back into his mom's basement devastated
Actually my mom lives on another continent and she actually doesn't have a basement.
Who is Geneze Dibaba? Another sister?
One thing about Genzebe Dibaba is that she abruptly lost her coach. I would think any athlete who loses their coach under similar circumstances would perform worse, both from a psychological perspective, and from the obvious disruption of her training.
Unlike most, I waited patiently for more information to come out after the arrest. Turns out that David Torrence had to admit he didn't really know anything about Aden and drugs, and Aden was ultimately cleared of criminal charges, and the IAAF never charged Aden with any rule violation and Dibaba tested clean.
Seems like I was smart to wait and go with the evidence.
One of the world's top middle-distance runners has been banned for two years in a dispute over a missed drug test which overshadowed the opening of last year's world championships.
Genzebe Dibaba Keneni (Oromo: Ganzabee Dibaabaa Qananii; Amharic: ገንዘቤ ዲባባ ቀነኒ; born 8 February 1991) is an Ethiopian middle- and long-distance runner. A 1,500 metres 2016 Rio Olympics silver medalist, she won a gold medal in...
You are obtuse to the point of hilarity to run cover for Africans - no one else - just Africans. Your general hatred for the US, well, that’s typical of your ilk, as is the urge to be contrarian. Drugs work, and literally every world class East African since ‘87 has been “to the gills”. It’s getting to the point where one has to wonder if you’re helping supply things to the cheats, and are trying to protect your livelihood.
I don’t think the Rekster hates Africans. He jumps in and has the same approach when it comes to non-Africans. You just see what you want to see.
Yeah. That was so weird when it was pretty obvious Geneze Dibaba had to be doped to the gills based on her performances and her immediate degradation in performance once he was arrested and banned.
rekrunner crawls back into his mom's basement devastated
You are obtuse to the point of hilarity to run cover for Africans - no one else - just Africans. Your general hatred for the US, well, that’s typical of your ilk, as is the urge to be contrarian. Drugs work, and literally every world class East African since ‘87 has been “to the gills”. It’s getting to the point where one has to wonder if you’re helping supply things to the cheats, and are trying to protect your livelihood.
I don’t think the Rekster hates Africans. He jumps in and has the same approach when it comes to non-Africans. You just see what you want to see.
The guy didn’t say rek hates Africans. He stated the opposite. Why are you trying to deflect in such a manner? Rek bends over backward to cover for the endless African cheats. Period.
I don’t think the Rekster hates Africans. He jumps in and has the same approach when it comes to non-Africans. You just see what you want to see.
The guy didn’t say rek hates Africans. He stated the opposite. Why are you trying to deflect in such a manner? Rek bends over backward to cover for the endless African cheats. Period.
Palli mispoke and corrected that mistake in the very next post: "Excuse me. I don’t think the Rekster favors Africans…." He is right in both cases -- I neither hate nor favor Africans.
About the only athlete I can say I hate is Lance Armstrong, and then it was more because he was so evil to so many of his friends, staff, teammates, former friends and staff and teammates, competitors, and even an American legend, often ruining their lives and businesses (Lemond lost his line of bikes estimated at $30 million) and leaving a wake of destruction behind him in his race to seven yellow jerseys. One mechanic had to move him and his family to New Zealand and restart his life, to escape the evil clutches of Armstrong.
Contrary to popular belief and opinions, I do not ever "cover" for any cheats, African or not, but always try do what the poster "LR Expertus" advised was the smarter thing above and "(go) by (the) evidence". I don't cover for "cheats", but try to uncover all of the evidence, whether it favors a certain prejudgement or not. I'm an equal opportunity uncoverer.
Quite often in these threads, the evidence necessary to jump to popular conclusions are missing or ambiguous, rendering such judgements premature, or weak. For example, although many drugs were found, the truth is that there was never any evidence linking Aden to any WADA banned drugs, but just the injectable vitamins that Torrence corroborated that Aden used (some WADA legal, but not legal in Spain).
In this case, "the guy" "Smiling Cheats All" said I only cover "just Africans" and have a "general hatred for the US". (Huh? Why single out the US? why not Europe too? Why exclude South America/Russia/India/Japan/China/Oceania?) That guy was likely unaware of my many many posts highlighting contradictory or unreliable or missing evidence regarding Radcliffe, Houlihan, Decker Slaney, all the NOP athletes under Salazar, Colvert, Karus, Sommer, etc., when he wrote "just Africans" and "hatred for the US". I also don't generally hate the US, although I am gravely concerned about how the US has evolved in the last 30 years, both for Americans and their legal residents/immigrants, as well as people in many countries around the world.
My search for robust evidence to replace mythology is equal opportunity.
This post was edited 12 minutes after it was posted.
About the only athlete I can say I hate is Lance Armstrong, and then it was more because he was so evil to so many of his friends, staff, teammates, former friends and staff and teammates, competitors, and even an American legend, often ruining their lives and businesses (Lemond lost his line of bikes estimated at $30 million) and leaving a wake of destruction behind him in his race to seven yellow jerseys. One mechanic had to move him and his family to New Zealand and restart his life, to escape the evil clutches of Armstrong.
Palli mispoke and corrected that mistake in the very next post: "Excuse me. I don’t think the Rekster favors Africans…." He is right in both cases -- I neither hate nor favor Africans.
Yeah sure. That other fella. With a new unregistered handle. From one OCD stalker who wants to demonize anti-doping organisations?
Palli mispoke and corrected that mistake in the very next post: "Excuse me. I don’t think the Rekster favors Africans…." He is right in both cases -- I neither hate nor favor Africans.
Yeah sure. That other fella. With a new unregistered handle. From one OCD stalker who wants to demonize anti-doping organisations?
"Palli" asked a lot of questions about the rules -- this should have been your biggest clue that it couldn't have been me.
He didn't demonize any ADOs. Nor do I -- I simply try to do the smart thing and go by the evidence, and often point out when others fail to meet that standard, regardless of who they are.
Since you are back again, do you care to explain, or apologize for, your initial behavior, jumping to all these false conclusions and lobbing personal attacks?
And you asked similar questions using the rekrunner handle, such as what is so stupid about choosing to believe and what Tucker wrote and what Tygart wrote etc. And then you contradicted yourself in typical Troll fashion. And pretended to have known the answers all the time LOL.
And you asked similar questions using the rekrunner handle, such as what is so stupid about choosing to believe and what Tucker wrote and what Tygart wrote etc. And then you contradicted yourself in typical Troll fashion. And pretended to have known the answers all the time LOL.
My questions were not similar to saying "I admit I don't know the rules about OOC testing -- what are they?"
And I surely asked no questions before you insulted me in two posts.
It looks like you just want to accuse me of asking stupid questions and accuse me of contradicting myself, without any substance. Maybe because you feel like you lost so many arguments in the past, so you want to play these games.
My explanation for my behavior is I look for evidence and go by the evidence. My ideas are generally evidence based, and my doubts are generally rooted in the lack of evidence, or the ambiguity in the evidence. Tucker did not resolve any of my expressed doubts. Some of my doubts about the process in the WADA Code originate in part with Tygart, among others. And Gault is right when the evidence is lacking or ambiguous -- everyone has a choice what and whom to believe, and they do it all the time, whether they realize it or not.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Genzebe is the one with the mustache. "She" quit the sport after her coach supplement guru was caught with some bad things in his hotel. But......she's clean. Hahahahahahahaha.....
My questions were not similar to saying "I admit I don't know the rules about OOC testing -- what are they?"
And I surely asked no questions before you insulted me in two posts.
It looks like you just want to accuse me of asking stupid questions and accuse me of contradicting myself, without any substance. Maybe because you feel like you lost so many arguments in the past, so you want to play these games.
My explanation for my behavior is I look for evidence and go by the evidence. My ideas are generally evidence based, and my doubts are generally rooted in the lack of evidence, or the ambiguity in the evidence. Tucker did not resolve any of my expressed doubts. Some of my doubts about the process in the WADA Code originate in part with Tygart, among others. And Gault is right when the evidence is lacking or ambiguous -- everyone has a choice what and whom to believe, and they do it all the time, whether they realize it or not.
Don't act so holy and innocent.
Yes, I mused whether you used one different handle. You yourself admitted that you had used a different handle before.
You however mused whether I used several different handles, as if calling out your OCD is the same as calling out your stupid questions.
Yes, I called you childish.
You however called me childish and butthurt.
Yes, I find your questions stupid, and gave examples. You asked many others in different threads, as you should remember.
You however baselessly and falsely claimed that I had a "consistent pattern of jumping to many wrong conclusions" - without even one example instead of at least 5, to justify your alleged "many".
I don't see a substantial difference between "what are the rules regarding this “designated time slot?"” (which you should know by now) and "Is it hilariously stupid because we don't have a choice what and whom to believe?" (which should be obvious) and "But did the CAS do the smart thing in this specific doping case?" (which you should know by now) and "Did [Tygart and Tucker] bring new evidence?" (which you should know by now).
"It looks like" hahaha your new little trick when you have no argument and cannot use what was actually said.
None of your actions have anything to do with you looking for evidence, but you playing childish games because you have no argument and lose all discussions and love to go off-topic and discuss the Houlihan case. A white American runner rightfully banned for intentional doping must drive you crazy.
In fact, you often deny the existence of evidence when it's right in front of you. Point in case was your baseless and false claim that the CAS Panel chose to believe instead of considering the evidence. Ironically evidence that you had previously acknowledged and agreed to (f.ex. uncastrated boar is extremely rare). Based on that evidence and the evidence of her positive test, Houlihan was rightfully banned. If you knew the rules, you would agree to that too - and would never ever have even started arguing against the decision. But you love playing your childish games because you have nothing else to do. And as as many other posters have pointed out, you must have the last word. For some strange reason, you enjoy special status here: calling you childish got deleted, but you calling me childish and butthurt is no problem. Don't worry: at least one mod will help you soon again, and delete the posts that prove your childish behavior.
Yes, I mused whether you used one different handle. You yourself admitted that you had used a different handle before.
You however mused whether I used several different handles, as if calling out your OCD is the same as calling out your stupid questions.
Yes, I called you childish.
You however called me childish and butthurt.
Yes, I find your questions stupid, and gave examples. You asked many others in different threads, as you should remember.
You however baselessly and falsely claimed that I had a "consistent pattern of jumping to many wrong conclusions" - without even one example instead of at least 5, to justify your alleged "many".
I don't see a substantial difference between "what are the rules regarding this “designated time slot?"” (which you should know by now) and "Is it hilariously stupid because we don't have a choice what and whom to believe?" (which should be obvious) and "But did the CAS do the smart thing in this specific doping case?" (which you should know by now) and "Did [Tygart and Tucker] bring new evidence?" (which you should know by now).
"It looks like" hahaha your new little trick when you have no argument and cannot use what was actually said.
None of your actions have anything to do with you looking for evidence, but you playing childish games because you have no argument and lose all discussions and love to go off-topic and discuss the Houlihan case. A white American runner rightfully banned for intentional doping must drive you crazy.
In fact, you often deny the existence of evidence when it's right in front of you. Point in case was your baseless and false claim that the CAS Panel chose to believe instead of considering the evidence. Ironically evidence that you had previously acknowledged and agreed to (f.ex. uncastrated boar is extremely rare). Based on that evidence and the evidence of her positive test, Houlihan was rightfully banned. If you knew the rules, you would agree to that too - and would never ever have even started arguing against the decision. But you love playing your childish games because you have nothing else to do. And as as many other posters have pointed out, you must have the last word. For some strange reason, you enjoy special status here: calling you childish got deleted, but you calling me childish and butthurt is no problem. Don't worry: at least one mod will help you soon again, and delete the posts that prove your childish behavior.
I'm not acting anything.
None of this justifies your first two posts, where you had already called me lazy, uninformed, unintelligent, bizarrely misgendering me, and predictably accusing me of trolling -- how about that for some concrete examples of jumping to false conclusions.
I did "muse" some possible reasons, only because you have failed to explain your compulsive obsession with me.
I don't wish to further derail this thread discussing Houlihan, but, after giving all the evidence due consideration, I'm not yet persuaded that she was properly banned within the rules. But even assuming she was, the CAS findings of rule violations, don't establish that she knowingly doped, or did so intentionally, only that she was unable to persuade the CAS Panel with enough evidence that she didn't.
This makes Gault right -- we still have a choice to make.
I don’t think the Rekster hates Africans. He jumps in and has the same approach when it comes to non-Africans. You just see what you want to see.
The guy didn’t say rek hates Africans. He stated the opposite. Why are you trying to deflect in such a manner? Rek bends over backward to cover for the endless African cheats. Period.
You have a low IQ. I corrected myself in the next post. Rekster is an equal opportunity apologist in defending suspected dopers.
