You are correct! Dont feed the trolls. She hasn’t even commented here besides saying she doesn’t cheat. She sent a letter to the director so I commend her. Let the proper authorities take it from here.
You are correct! Dont feed the trolls. She hasn’t even commented here besides saying she doesn’t cheat. She sent a letter to the director so I commend her. Let the proper authorities take it from here.
I agree with you wrote:
Anyone like Dunes Runner who give people like Ashley passes for cheating are, at their heart, cheaters too.
So says the deceitful person who makes up dishonest statements about people you don't even know,
which is the very definition of cheating.
I don't know Ms Paulson, but she's not displaying the questionable behavior on here that you are.
dunes runner wrote:
I don't know Ms Paulson, but she's not displaying the questionable behavior on here that you are.
No, but she is elsewhere, and it's you who's doing it here on her behalf and your own.
kmaclam wrote:
"The facts are independent of anything this guy says or does. You say that you're not exonerating her, but then go on to say that she looks better the more Walter posts."
But the "facts" are all coming from Walter and all I'm saying (again) is that the more kooky Walter comes across the better Ashley looks. And I'll say it again - this in no way exonerates her!
The only kook on this thread is Walter, and his/her many pseudonyms.
dunes runner wrote:
I agree with you wrote:
Anyone like Dunes Runner who give people like Ashley passes for cheating are, at their heart, cheaters too.
So says the deceitful person who makes up dishonest statements about people you don't even know,
which is the very definition of cheating.
I don't know Ms Paulson, but she's not displaying the questionable behavior on here that you are.
Your behavior is suspect. It’s clear her course cutting was no accident yet you insist on coming in here and defending her. Stop now. She got caught taking SARMs and used the same “it was an accident” defense. You clearly haven’t been on the course as there is no ambiguity and would take willful effort to get “lost”. Stop speculating about going off course at other races - if you haven’t done this race shut up and stop defending her.
How did this get to 7 pages? Did something interesting happen?
Cliff notes for the lazy, mildly curious reader please.
dunes runner wrote:
I don't know Ms Paulson, but she's not displaying the questionable behavior on here that you are.
She seems to keep her questionable behavior to the course and finish area. Is that better or worse?
th3bt wrote:
dunes runner wrote:
I don't know Ms Paulson, but she's not displaying the questionable behavior on here that you are.
She seems to keep her questionable behavior to the course and finish area. Is that better or worse?
Well, and on her social media page.
As to the poster who asked if anything interesting happened on this thread to make it 7 pages: no.
I just went to her IG, and this caught my eye immediately. Not making this about me, but my PR's are pretty well in line with each other.
MINE
5K- 15:53 (on the track)
10K - 33:49 (on the road)
13.1 - 1:12:28 (Lake Placid Half Marathon)
26.2 - 2:39:51 (Chicago, 2015)
HERS
5K - 17:32
10K - 33:23 (back-to-back 16:41's?! with a 17:32 5K PR?!)
13.1 - "1:18"
26.2 - "2:42"
She's a BS'er. I know triathlete courses are short AF often, and maybe she's claiming these short splits as PR's, but this is the opposite of a truthful person.
Tony Soprano wrote:
I just went to her IG, and this caught my eye immediately. Not making this about me, but my PR's are pretty well in line with each other.
MINE
5K- 15:53 (on the track)
10K - 33:49 (on the road)
13.1 - 1:12:28 (Lake Placid Half Marathon)
26.2 - 2:39:51 (Chicago, 2015)
HERS
5K - 17:32
10K - 33:23 (back-to-back 16:41's?! with a 17:32 5K PR?!)
13.1 - "1:18"
26.2 - "2:42"
She's a BS'er. I know triathlete courses are short AF often, and maybe she's claiming these short splits as PR's, but this is the opposite of a truthful person.
She just hasn't found a downhill 5k, yet.
Ashcheatn wrote:
The second link was meant to be this
https://i.imgur.com/3KHdxYe.jpg
Tony Soprano wrote:
I just went to her IG, and this caught my eye immediately. Not making this about me, but my PR's are pretty well in line with each other.
MINE
5K- 15:53 (on the track)
10K - 33:49 (on the road)
13.1 - 1:12:28 (Lake Placid Half Marathon)
26.2 - 2:39:51 (Chicago, 2015)
With a 15:53, you should be running at least sub 2:30 for the marathon.
Your endurance is quite weak.
Other than the 5k, which she probably doesn't focus on, her performances are much more in line than yours are.
Point A to Point B, no matter how you get there has the SAME net elevation change.
That' is what you Rhode's Scholars are missing.
Seriously, I love calling out a cheater, and she surely did cheat. But claiming you don't understand Dunes critique, shows your profound stupidity.
LRC trolls are SOOOO IGNORANT wrote:
Point A to Point B, no matter how you get there has the SAME net elevation change.
That' is what you Rhode's Scholars are missing.
Seriously, I love calling out a cheater, and she surely did cheat. But claiming you don't understand Dunes critique, shows your profound stupidity.
Net might be the same, but how you get there is totally different. Would you rather run a flat half or one with +1200/-1200 feet of change in it?
And this lady took out seemingly the only hills in the course.
bob here wrote:
LRC trolls are SOOOO IGNORANT wrote:
Point A to Point B, no matter how you get there has the SAME net elevation change.
That' is what you Rhode's Scholars are missing.
Seriously, I love calling out a cheater, and she surely did cheat. But claiming you don't understand Dunes critique, shows your profound stupidity.
Net might be the same, but how you get there is totally different. Would you rather run a flat half or one with +1200/-1200 feet of change in it?
And this lady took out seemingly the only hills in the course.
The LRC truthers on here a stating that the part she cut was "all uphill" and the part she did run was "all downhill". That, as DuneyBourke said, is not possible. That is my point. And that is what the LRC simpletons are not comprehending.
LRC trolls are SOOOO IGNORANT wrote:
Point A to Point B, no matter how you get there has the SAME net elevation change.
That' is what you Rhode's Scholars are missing.
Seriously, I love calling out a cheater, and she surely did cheat. But claiming you don't understand Dunes critique, shows your profound stupidity.
If there's a hill ahead and you run around it, that's an advantage, if it also shortens the course that's another advantage, you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand that.
LRC Troller wrote:
bob here wrote:
Net might be the same, but how you get there is totally different. Would you rather run a flat half or one with +1200/-1200 feet of change in it?
And this lady took out seemingly the only hills in the course.
The LRC truthers on here a stating that the part she cut was "all uphill" and the part she did run was "all downhill". That, as DuneyBourke said, is not possible. That is my point. And that is what the LRC simpletons are not comprehending.
This simpleton needs to see the "all uphill" and "all downhill" quotes in context.
I need a face palm simile for the posters here that cannot grasp the concept of going up a hill versus going around one.
Going down a hill is an advantage over running on a flat road.
But why doesn’t the course elevation map a few post back show any up hills during the last several miles. It just looks like a gentle sloping downhill.
