You boast of beating younger men at tennis but you only do it thanks to your prosthetics. You are a hypocrite.
I know you are vile enough to wish for my death but if I jump out of one of my windows I will land on soft grass. So **** off darling 😊
"Dear" or "darling", as you are wont to use - it is apparent I am being stalked by a woman of a certain age. The age when no one will be interested. But the image of you falling on your face on the grass is at least an entertaining one, although unlikely to be balletic.
"Dear" or "darling", as you are wont to use - it is apparent I am being stalked by a woman of a certain age. The age when no one will be interested. But the image of you falling on your face on the grass is at least an entertaining one, although unlikely to be balletic.
I am agile, not a cripple like you. 😊
It's a shame when agility doesn't extend to the intellect. Unlike arthritic joints, there are some thing surgeons can't repair. You have my sympathy.
I don't rely on what Coevett says - or anyone else - for my own views. Another irrelevant point from you. But he is right about the prevalence of Kenyan doping.
But do you rely on facts, evidence, or observations, for your own views? Are either of you right about performance?
I don't rely on what Coevett says - or anyone else - for my own views. Another irrelevant point from you. But he is right about the prevalence of Kenyan doping.
But do you rely on facts, evidence, or observations, for your own views? Are either of you right about performance?
I rely on all of the above. I don't need to have performance benefit quantified - it will vary with every athlete - to know that there will be a benefit. There would be no prevalence without it. Coaches and athletes are rational actors, even though on this issue you would depict them as otherwise.
But do you rely on facts, evidence, or observations, for your own views? Are either of you right about performance?
I rely on all of the above. I don't need to have performance benefit quantified - it will vary with every athlete - to know that there will be a benefit. There would be no prevalence without it. Coaches and athletes are rational actors, even though on this issue you would depict them as otherwise.
Which facts and evidence and observations? I will wait.
I rely on all of the above. I don't need to have performance benefit quantified - it will vary with every athlete - to know that there will be a benefit. There would be no prevalence without it. Coaches and athletes are rational actors, even though on this issue you would depict them as otherwise.
Which facts and evidence and observations? I will wait.
Don't bother. As you have shown for the better part of 20 years, the only "facts" and "evidence" you recognise are those that confirm your doping-denial views.
As I have stated previously, are we to believe that Kiptum is clean and runs 2:00:16? Right, so if he was doping that makes him capable of what, 1:58? So thats 2:47/km. It's actually comical to consider. Though I suppose even H.G. Wells believed in fairies.
As I have stated previously, are we to believe that Kiptum is clean and runs 2:00:16? Right, so if he was doping that makes him capable of what, 1:58? So thats 2:47/km. It's actually comical to consider. Though I suppose even H.G. Wells believed in fairies.
Which facts and evidence and observations? I will wait.
Don't bother. As you have shown for the better part of 20 years, the only "facts" and "evidence" you recognise are those that confirm your doping-denial views.
That would be the totality of all of the substantial facts and evidence available to the public for the last few decades. Apparently the your facts and evidence cannot be seen except by a select few who are pure of mind and soul.
I still don't know what "doping-denial views" means to you. I don't deny that doping exists and that the belief in doping among athletes/coaches/fans/journalists/pseudo-scientists is strong and wide and deep and even goes to the top.
As I have stated previously, are we to believe that Kiptum is clean and runs 2:00:16? Right, so if he was doping that makes him capable of what, 1:58? So thats 2:47/km. It's actually comical to consider. Though I suppose even H.G. Wells believed in fairies.
I believe he ran 2:00:35. In the era of new shoes, times have dropped from the sub-2:03s-2:05s to 2:01s-2:03s. Given that Kipchoge and Bekele both ran 2:01s at the end of very long careers, it is unsurprising that a young athlete would improve on that in his prime.
But let's get this straight. Are we to believe that doping could turn a 2:00:35 runner into a 1:58 runner? Why would anyone choose to believe that? It is actually comical to consider. Though I suppose even H.G. Wells believed in fairies.
But let's get this straight. Are we to believe that doping could turn a 2:00:35 runner into a 1:58 runner? Why would anyone choose to believe that? It is actually comical to consider. Though I suppose even H.G. Wells believed in fairies.
Well, both Salazar and Canova believe that, and of course Professor Schumacher. Are you really sure that doping, whatever kind and however much, gives you less than 96 seconds in a marathon?
"actually comical to consider"???? You are quite the joker here with your fairy tales of a clean sport where doping is useless because us God created super humans cannot ever be improved by pharmaceuticals.
But let's get this straight. Are we to believe that doping could turn a 2:00:35 runner into a 1:58 runner? Why would anyone choose to believe that? It is actually comical to consider. Though I suppose even H.G. Wells believed in fairies.
Well, both Salazar and Canova believe that, and of course Professor Schumacher. Are you really sure that doping, whatever kind and however much, gives you less than 96 seconds in a marathon?
"actually comical to consider"???? You are quite the joker here with your fairy tales of a clean sport where doping is useless because us God created super humans cannot ever be improved by pharmaceuticals.
1/10 for trolling because you got a bite.
Giving (alleged) examples of believers doesn't answer "why?".
But do any of them believe a clean 2:00:35 runner would run 1:58 doped?
Salazar said something in 1999, when the top-5 runners were sub-2:07, and the top was sub-2:06. By 2012, in an interview with Weldon here at Letsrun, Salazar said he changed his mind, after the creation of USADA, and WADA.
I doubt Canova believes it. He says athletes can set world records clean.
I have never seen Schumacher express any opinion about the marathon, let alone for the 2:00:35 runner.
I have my doubts that any doping would allow any runner to run the marathon faster than what they can achieve cleanly with altitude training. It's not a statement about what god created, but about what man has (or hasn't) found.
Giving (alleged) examples of believers doesn't answer "why?".
But do any of them believe a clean 2:00:35 runner would run 1:58 doped?
Salazar said something in 1999, when the top-5 runners were sub-2:07, and the top was sub-2:06. By 2012, in an interview with Weldon here at Letsrun, Salazar said he changed his mind, after the creation of USADA, and WADA.
I doubt Canova believes it. He says athletes can set world records clean.
I have never seen Schumacher express any opinion about the marathon, let alone for the 2:00:35 runner.
I have my doubts that any doping would allow any runner to run the marathon faster than what they can achieve cleanly with altitude training. It's not a statement about what god created, but about what man has (or hasn't) found.
Well you wrote "Why would anyone choose to believe that? It is actually comical to consider." My answer is because several experts more or less explicitly said so (and of course because several star athletes use(d) doping including 2:02, 2:03, 2:04 runners who might know their bodies better than you do).
Canova for example wrote this just last week in the "More Kenyans busted" thread: "if I administered some illegal steroid to my athletes, probably the WR of Shaheen could be under 7'50" and the marathon of Mosop under 2:02'."
Recall that was pre super shoes and Mosop was the 30k WR holder, before you start claiming that Kiptum is a super star and Mosop tier 2. I also don't see why a 2:05 runner in 1999 would react differently to doping than a 2:00 runner with super shoes in 2023. Do you have any evidence for that claim?
So why would it be comical to consider that a clean 2:00 runner could run 1:58 doped?
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.