Canova is very naive when it comes to doping.It's NOT possible for a woman to run a 2:09 marathon without drugs cheating, with or without super shoes.
He was paid by China and Qatar to make their distance runners go fast.
Not sure he's that naive.
I don’t think so. Canova is definitely clean in my book. Impossible for him to have doped. His athletes do succeed and do fail too. And those that fail do so due to the natural effects of long term oxidative cellular stress. But Jerry Schumacher seems to be able to partially reverse it training and coaching out of elektramagnetically polluted American cities. He could actually guarantee success in space and time. Simply amazing fellow!
Look I’m new to the forum. It’s only been a month and half. The scant information i gather about you comes mostly from loyal long time LRC gurus like Armstrongliv and Coevett. I remembered seeing multiple posts of them calling you a rekbot with not so much of an offense from you. You just went about business like it’s another day at the office. You spurned so many chances to address the anxiety if you had one so I guessed it might have turned into some sick pleasure for you?
It’s different for me. My name is KOP and I’m a European citizen just like Coevett. But I’m called ‘Mark Gan aka Joe KS’, a 2 in 1 combinant name by some doping rascal I don’t even know from Singapore 🇸🇬!!
So you have a tendency to draw conclusions on scant information, from relative newbies to the forum like Armstronglivs and Coevett.
I don't recall Armstronglivs calling me "rekbot" either -- his vocabulary tends to be more derogatory -- a reflection of his moral purity. I cannot patrol every post in every thread, nor do I want to, but I have clarified many times I am not "rekbot" and that "rekbot" posts seem meant primarily to parody my posts and/or troll me.
I'm actually not offended nor anxious, but want to clarify that this is a childish game that others play, and apparently even Kings of Physics are not discriminating enough and fall for it.
It’s not a tendency, it’s a systematic flair in me rather. The lesser the better ( more efficient )in fact! Isn’t it good to be efficient and energy conserving? The moment ‘evidence’ accumulates too much it becomes mundane and sleepy for me! I need a verdict when others say it’s impossible. I need ‘impossible is nothing’. If marathoners in their late 30s or late into their career can do the impossible by running a WR, why should I be limited in also ‘running a WR’ or draw conclusions from supposedly scant evidence?
note that evidence by its very implication can never be ‘enough’ in space and time. You can never wait enough for the day that the evidence will be enough to draw a conclusion because space-time is infinite. That day will never come. You can only draw a conclusion because you want to and not because there should be limiting rules to govern the drawing of conclusions.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Very familiar. But if you are not that offended then it simply means I can continue calling you the rekbot? It’s different than ‘Mark Gan aka Joe KS’ as it’s completely out of turn and without recent precedent. Whereas rekbot was closely socially developed and acknowledged in space and time from multiple consenting players. The subject in question which is you is also present in the forum and the rek in rek-bot is at least easily inferred to be from or about rekrunner.
but ‘Mark Gan aka Joe KS’ has no such semantical or syntactical relationship with ‘El Rey del Fisica’! 😅
It means how you treat others is how you want to be treated. If you cry about mistreatment later, it means you lack "moral purity in word and deed" by mistreating others. Persisting with the falsehood now also means you are willingly gullible in addition to morally impure.
It’s not a tendency, it’s a systematic flair in me rather. The lesser the better ( more efficient )in fact! Isn’t it good to be efficient and energy conserving? The moment ‘evidence’ accumulates too much it becomes mundane and sleepy for me! I need a verdict when others say it’s impossible. I need ‘impossible is nothing’. If marathoners in their late 30s or late into their career can do the impossible by running a WR, why should I be limited in also ‘running a WR’ or draw conclusions from supposedly scant evidence?
note that evidence by its very implication can never be ‘enough’ in space and time. You can never wait enough for the day that the evidence will be enough to draw a conclusion because space-time is infinite. That day will never come. You can only draw a conclusion because you want to and not because there should be limiting rules to govern the drawing of conclusions.
Any jester can jump to false conclusions based on scant information.
If space-time is infinite, there is ample time to wait for the day that the evidence will be enough. Knowledge comes with making the journey to destinations unknown.
Very familiar. But if you are not that offended then it simply means I can continue calling you the rekbot? It’s different than ‘Mark Gan aka Joe KS’ as it’s completely out of turn and without recent precedent. Whereas rekbot was closely socially developed and acknowledged in space and time from multiple consenting players. The subject in question which is you is also present in the forum and the rek in rek-bot is at least easily inferred to be from or about rekrunner.
but ‘Mark Gan aka Joe KS’ has no such semantical or syntactical relationship with ‘El Rey del Fisica’! 😅
It means how you treat others is how you want to be treated. If you cry about mistreatment later, it means you lack "moral purity in word and deed" by mistreating others. Persisting with the falsehood now also means you are willingly gullible in addition to morally impure.
I don’t think you were mistreated by Coevett or Khamis, both by your own stated belief and by the moral urgency demanded by Khamis and Coevett who felt you were rather a secret doping faction! I tend to agree with them but have since stopped calling you rekbot. But I have to retain my opinion that you have subliminal doping intention! This is my true belief from already enough information available.
This post was edited 31 seconds after it was posted.
It’s not a tendency, it’s a systematic flair in me rather. The lesser the better ( more efficient )in fact! Isn’t it good to be efficient and energy conserving? The moment ‘evidence’ accumulates too much it becomes mundane and sleepy for me! I need a verdict when others say it’s impossible. I need ‘impossible is nothing’. If marathoners in their late 30s or late into their career can do the impossible by running a WR, why should I be limited in also ‘running a WR’ or draw conclusions from supposedly scant evidence?
note that evidence by its very implication can never be ‘enough’ in space and time. You can never wait enough for the day that the evidence will be enough to draw a conclusion because space-time is infinite. That day will never come. You can only draw a conclusion because you want to and not because there should be limiting rules to govern the drawing of conclusions.
Any jester can jump to false conclusions based on scant information.
If space-time is infinite, there is ample time to wait for the day that the evidence will be enough. Knowledge comes with making the journey to destinations unknown.
Wrong. The bible explicitly mentions that God will make space and time in such a way that mankind cannot directly prove (cause) God thus making belief out of it because he wants belief to only come from deductive reasoning with a bent for God, which is also called faith. You can thus never wait enough for proof to come because you can assume that some of the proofs of the worlds most complex behaviours will never come directly.
It’s not a tendency, it’s a systematic flair in me rather. The lesser the better ( more efficient )in fact! Isn’t it good to be efficient and energy conserving? The moment ‘evidence’ accumulates too much it becomes mundane and sleepy for me! I need a verdict when others say it’s impossible. I need ‘impossible is nothing’. If marathoners in their late 30s or late into their career can do the impossible by running a WR, why should I be limited in also ‘running a WR’ or draw conclusions from supposedly scant evidence?
note that evidence by its very implication can never be ‘enough’ in space and time. You can never wait enough for the day that the evidence will be enough to draw a conclusion because space-time is infinite. That day will never come. You can only draw a conclusion because you want to and not because there should be limiting rules to govern the drawing of conclusions.
Any jester can jump to false conclusions based on scant information.
If space-time is infinite, there is ample time to wait for the day that the evidence will be enough. Knowledge comes with making the journey to destinations unknown.
Moreover they can also be evil forces who shall seek to ensure any direct or even indirect evidence, if any, will never see the light of day, thus again you can never wait enough for the evidence to come if it will also never come BY EVIL SINFUL DESIGN!! This is an assumption you also must take I’m sorry. It’s part of the spiritual equation!
and it’s because of this repression of the evidence thus of the truth that the truth and evidence has already long ago been Scot free!! And thus the reason why all the evidence about everything by 2024 should have been or long ago has been Scot free.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Wrong. The bible explicitly mentions that God will make space and time in such a way that mankind cannot directly prove (cause) God thus making belief out of it because he wants belief to only come from deductive reasoning with a bent for God, which is also called faith. You can thus never wait enough for proof to come because you can assume that some of the proofs of the worlds most complex behaviours will never come directly.
We were not talking about proving God.
You spend a great deal of words talking about the important role of faith and beliefs, which only reinforces one of my main points -- that which is not yet proved must be called faith or belief or myth, rather than knowledge and experience.
You and the other spazzes denying the efficacy of drugs are examples of incels with too much time on their hands.
I don't ever deny the efficacy of drugs (a rather vague claim), but simply ask those making claims of extraordinary performances to provide the data supporting such claims.
Wrong. The bible explicitly mentions that God will make space and time in such a way that mankind cannot directly prove (cause) God thus making belief out of it because he wants belief to only come from deductive reasoning with a bent for God, which is also called faith. You can thus never wait enough for proof to come because you can assume that some of the proofs of the worlds most complex behaviours will never come directly.
We were not talking about proving God.
You spend a great deal of words talking about the important role of faith and beliefs, which only reinforces one of my main points -- that which is not yet proved must be called faith or belief or myth, rather than knowledge and experience.
All proofs subsist on the proof of God. All space-time proofs are ultimately trying to prove the deity of God so everything and anything we talk about in this world is talk ultimately related to God. Don’t you get it. What has Khamis taught you?
that which is not yet proven is usually for want of integrity and moral standard rather than for want of time and resources. By this you shall know thus that all things have been proven and there are no ‘unknowns’, and even if it can’t be proven to imperfect man made standards it is still known to any amount of knowledge and understanding which suffices for ‘knowing’. This applies to all of physics and all space and time.
This post was edited 48 seconds after it was posted.
All proofs subsist on the proof of God. All space-time proofs are ultimately trying to prove the deity of God so everything and anything we talk about in this world is talk ultimately related to God. Don’t you get it. What has Khamis taught you?
that which is not yet proven is usually for want of integrity and moral standard rather than for want of time and resources. By this you shall know thus that all things have been proven and there are no ‘unknowns’, and even if it can’t be proven to imperfect man made standards it is still known to any amount of knowledge and understanding which suffices for ‘knowing’. This applies to all of physics and all space and time.
I guess that's one way to look at it.
My only interest here are factors related to running performance, to the extent they are related.
Khamis seemed to suggest RF and EMF are related to running performance degradation, but he couldn't really explain it. He similarly seemed to draw his own conclusions based on his own intuition with little to no information. When last we spoke, I told him I would put his claims on hold from any further consideration, until someone else is able to explain them -- after all there is infinite space-time.
All proofs subsist on the proof of God. All space-time proofs are ultimately trying to prove the deity of God so everything and anything we talk about in this world is talk ultimately related to God. Don’t you get it. What has Khamis taught you?
that which is not yet proven is usually for want of integrity and moral standard rather than for want of time and resources. By this you shall know thus that all things have been proven and there are no ‘unknowns’, and even if it can’t be proven to imperfect man made standards it is still known to any amount of knowledge and understanding which suffices for ‘knowing’. This applies to all of physics and all space and time.
I guess that's one way to look at it.
My only interest here are factors related to running performance, to the extent they are related.
Khamis seemed to suggest RF and EMF are related to running performance degradation, but he couldn't really explain it. He similarly seemed to draw his own conclusions based on his own intuition with little to no information. When last we spoke, I told him I would put his claims on hold from any further consideration, until someone else is able to explain them -- after all there is infinite space-time.
It’s strange how I could understand completely Khamis explanation for how man made elektramagnetica fields degrade and molest human physiology in all its varying ways and extents from the sick to the healthy and young to old. It seems your inability to understand is rather a same stubbornness related to denying doping at every turn. Except instead of denying doping you are now denying the molestation of man made elektramagnetica fields on human physiology. Your game is a game is denial, always. It’s a moral choice you made and a fallacious one. Do repent as Khamis likes to say and stop pretending you need an exact custom made proof to be convinced.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
It’s strange how I could understand completely Khamis explanation for how man made elektramagnetica fields degrade and molest human physiology in all its varying ways and extents from the sick to the healthy and young to old. It seems your inability to understand is rather a same stubbornness related to denying doping at every turn. Except instead of denying doping you are now denying the molestation of man made elektramagnetica fields on human physiology. Your game is a game is denial, always. It’s a moral choice you made and a fallacious one. Do repent as Khamis likes to say and stop pretending you need an exact custom made proof to be convinced.
I competely understood Khamis' explanations too. Unfortunately for him, his explanations were incomplete, and lacking supporting data. When I asked him to fill in some of the gaps, he was unable to do so, and instead self-proclaimed that his subjective conclusions were not only sufficient, but superior than providing supporting data.
My game is a game of "doubt". What I "doubt" are alleged cause and effect relations which are inadequately supported by data. What is fallacious is jumping to such conclusions with inadequate data. It is also unpersuasive. It is not immoral to always assume the possibility of the "null hypothesis" (i.e. the alleged effect doesn't exist), but rather a fundamental and necessary scientific principle that must be considered and addressed when arguing an alternative hypothesis.
Funny that my post was removed for "lacking content". What would one call THIS post!?
My posts have directly addressed Canova's "life-long experience with coaching" and "inside experience with life in Kenya", just not as the hagiography that his sycophants at LRC would prefer. And judging by the upvotes, I'm not exactly an outlier in my views on this guy.
But of course you're the extremely tendentious "there's no evidence that doping works" guy, so your defense of Canova is precisely on-brand.
Neither rekrunner nor Canova has stated “there’s no evidence that doping works”. On the contrary -I have read posts where both clearly have stressed a believe in for instance steroids as performance boosters…
When it comes to EPO neither of the two has claimed categorically that it doesn’t work. But they have in an interesting way stressed some nuances, for instance that Russia didn’t seem to get a performance advantage out of it’s modern doping regime, and that one could speculate around the effect or lack of effect of EPO doping for the very top elite, that already has had the advantage of professional (f.x altitude) training…
Renato claimed at one point that steroids were more beneficial to cyclists than epo
Also feigned ignorance of the widespread doping issue in kenya
I believe he jests regarding the prevalence and benefits of epo
Otherwise a great contributor and not suspected of being involved in doping himself
It’s strange how I could understand completely Khamis explanation for how man made elektramagnetica fields degrade and molest human physiology in all its varying ways and extents from the sick to the healthy and young to old. It seems your inability to understand is rather a same stubbornness related to denying doping at every turn. Except instead of denying doping you are now denying the molestation of man made elektramagnetica fields on human physiology. Your game is a game is denial, always. It’s a moral choice you made and a fallacious one. Do repent as Khamis likes to say and stop pretending you need an exact custom made proof to be convinced.
I competely understood Khamis' explanations too. Unfortunately for him, his explanations were incomplete, and lacking supporting data. When I asked him to fill in some of the gaps, he was unable to do so, and instead self-proclaimed that his subjective conclusions were not only sufficient, but superior than providing supporting data.
My game is a game of "doubt". What I "doubt" are alleged cause and effect relations which are inadequately supported by data. What is fallacious is jumping to such conclusions with inadequate data. It is also unpersuasive. It is not immoral to always assume the possibility of the "null hypothesis" (i.e. the alleged effect doesn't exist), but rather a fundamental and necessary scientific principle that must be considered and addressed when arguing an alternative hypothesis.
You are jesting again. Your government gladly served you 3 rounds of covid jabs lacking real explanation, lacking scientific method and principle, lacking supporting data, and just lacking so many more stuff and you happily consumed it!
similarly you gladly marry your living wife while lacking real complete supporting data about her character and behaviour only available at her death, discarding the scientific method and principle as applied to finding a TRULY compatible wife!! And you still did so.
in these 2 examples I have shown you that your method of knowledge and understanding is highly lacking in and lf itself as the moment I extend it to other applications in life you begin to see the difficulty in the fully objective method. This method simply doesn’t work in world with always limited time and energy. Once you are limited you need to filter to the next best option which is to do subjective assessment.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
You are jesting again. Your government gladly served you 3 rounds of covid jabs lacking real explanation, lacking scientific method and principle, lacking supporting data, and just lacking so many more stuff and you happily consumed it!
similarly you gladly marry your living wife while lacking real complete supporting data about her character and behaviour only available at her death, discarding the scientific method and principle as applied to finding a TRULY compatible wife!! And you still did so.
in these 2 examples I have shown you that your method of knowledge and understanding is highly lacking in and lf itself as the moment I extend it to other applications in life you begin to see the difficulty in the fully objective method. This method simply doesn’t work in world with always limited time and energy. Once you are limited you need to filter to the next best option which is to do subjective assessment.
I thought we were in agreement that space-time was infinite.
Being an American residing in Europe, I'm wondering who you think "my government" is, and what it is you think I happily consumed. With respect to vaccines and follow-up boosters for Covid-19, there was plenty of scientific data, and plenty of unscientific misinformation and disinformation, especially in the USA. Fortunately for me, my superior talent for subjective meta-analysis grants me the perspective to integrate all of the data and conduct an informed risk analysis.
Nothing in your post addresses any of my expressed doubts.
As I repeatedly explained to the your RF colleague, my method is not "fully objective". I already possess more than enough subjectivity. I have no reason nor motiviation to substitute any of my subjectivity for yours or his, and remain unpersuaded by your subjective and baseless conclusions. However, I remain open to persuasion by objective data which supports, or contradicts, any hypothesis.