My "agenda" includes busting and sanctioning doped runners in accordance with anti-doping rules
LOL
On on the contrary, your agenda includes defending busted and sanctioned doped runners. Over and over and over and over again. Case in point: Shelburrito - caught with synthetic steroids in her system. How many times have you - however desperately and futile - tried to come to her rescue?
Clearly you are Pro-Doper. Pro-doping not so much, as in your wild imagination doping doesn't help elite male long distance runners despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Never forget that Western (I speak particularly of the fanatic of the white power) are frightened by the idea of genetics. They try to fight it by any mean but in their bottom they admit it. Look at the examples of USA with Athing Mu and Nuguse.
One example of these fanatics is someone that called Mo Farah by Mo Doorbell (despite him running for his country) some days ago.
I didn't start anything about you, I was just kindly responding to others who also knew and mentioned about your pro-doping agenda. I was just concurring and lending support okay??? Don't need to be so self-conscious unless you are really at least probably pro-doping!!!!! It's totally fine if you are pro-doping, you just will be avoided that's all!!!
I didn't say you started anything, but you are still trying to make it about me, attempting to wrongly attach pro-doping ideas to me which I do not hold and in any case have nothing to do with a thread about "Ouamaiz BUSTED". I can see you were just a willing and gullible victim of another troll post.
Contrary to your description of what you were just kindly doing, I can see, like everyone else, that you responded to a poster who listed two of Ouamaiz's best performances, who responded to, and falsely accused me of being, another poster who said that Ouamaiz was a pretty unknown runner. Neither of those posts were mine, and neither mentions any "pro-doping agenda".
Keeping this post partly on-topic:
The first post was about name-recognition, which incidentally stands unrebutted. A quick search here shows that the oldest letsrun post about Ouamaiz is from this thread three days ago. A google search across the internet on his name produced three hits before the news of his bust.
You should try much harder not to jump to any false conclusions. My "agenda" includes busting and sanctioning doped runners in accordance with anti-doping rules -- even the slow and unrecognized ones -- especially when they are caught with synthetic peptides in their system.
I'm not being "self-conscious", but rather "anti-nonsense".
I don't think so dear rekrunner. Don't you start this all over again on this thread. Don't you ever launch into your probably pro-doping rhetoric all over again and go off-topic even in self-defense.
For you, self-defense would be guilt proven if you want it to be true that you are anti-nonsense and not pro-doping!!! We on LRC wish to also reason that your self-defense against pro-doping accusation is your trying to take the heat off of what is legitimately a pro-doping agenda in the first place!!!!!! Hence pro-doping all the same LOL!!!!
The poster responded to you in such a manner precisely because perhaps you like to use various anonymous handles against your claim that you don't isn't it???? He must have felt something disingenuous about you to believe you come in many various forms and handles on LRC supposedly to further a pro-doping agenda!!!!! Why can't you think that it was you who set in motion his soul and heart to feel this way about you??? Why can't you take charge of that and change from your pro-doping appearances????
Perhaps the day you start denouncing a whereabouts failure as the very improvement in sport performance would people start seeing the change in your appearance and have faith in you!!!
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Did rekrunner even go to the extent to advocate that doping doesn't benefit elite male long distance runners???????????????????
This is very despicable and outrageous from him and this extent or level of belief can only be hypocritically or pretentiously held!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This means he MUST BE holding such belief only on condition of a more underlying agenda to benefit and advocate for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What else can it be by now?????????
It's a probably pro-doping agenda, what else could be more underlying!!!!!! It's a no-brainer!!!!
This post was edited 45 seconds after it was posted.
15 looks like a very small sample size, and 5 bans looks even smaller, to draw general conclusions about all Moroccan athletes. When I counted fast athletes (faster than my 1990 benchmarks) between 1990 and 2018 across all distance events, I counted 19 Moroccans, and 3 ex-pat Moroccans (USA, Bahrain, and Belgium). Kaouch was not fast enough for that specific count, being slower than Cram and Coe and as fast as Ovett. Before 1990 there was one more Moroccan, Aouita.
Do you think that Moroccans who go to foreign countries are doping more, or is there an element that they are target tested and sanctioned disproportionally because they are Moroccan?
The answer for Bahrain looks clear that it is a country that encourages their foreign athletes to dope.
Just throwing out general numbers. My inclination is that Moroccan runners who change countries might be both a) more likely to dope based on the situation (Ramzi/Bahrain case) b) protected less by their new countries and targeted more than those who don’t.
Considering the reporting on Morocco’s state-sponsored system, it seems prudent to say it’s an all of the above situation. What we have now is far fewer Moroccan runners in the mix, which is a bit suspicious (was doping a large part of past success?). That being said some promising Moroccan have gone through the NCAA system and just seem to be fizzling out (Essayi, Zahafi) after impressive starts. It’s a small sample size, but for other countries the NCAA has worked much better it seems. Talbi is a great success, and I think most here believe him to be clean and an underdog to root for.
This post was edited 47 seconds after it was posted.
My "agenda" includes busting and sanctioning doped runners in accordance with anti-doping rules
LOL
On on the contrary, your agenda includes defending busted and sanctioned doped runners. Over and over and over and over again. Case in point: Shelburrito - caught with synthetic steroids in her system. How many times have you - however desperately and futile - tried to come to her rescue?
Clearly you are Pro-Doper. Pro-doping not so much, as in your wild imagination doping doesn't help elite male long distance runners despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Whether you want to believe I am pro-doper or pro-doping, I remind you that this thread is about neither. But at least you concede I am "Pro-doping not so much" -- Khamis are you listening? And I'm always happy to see any "evidence to the contrary" with respect to elite distance running performance, regardless of the thread topic.
Regarding Houlihan, if you have been following my posts diligently, much of what I have said you can find directly from the anti-doping adjudicators in the CAS report, or from the anti-doping experts who argued for the AIU, or in the World Anti-Doping documents, or outside criticisms about the modified sanctioning process from the US anti-doping chief arising from WADA Code 2015 changes.
The first Africain that got the Worldwide title were Moroccan: Abdeslam Radi and Ben Assou Al Ghazi.
Take the example of Iguidir who never tested positif until the end of his career.
Adil Kaouch never did a big jump in his performances in the 1500m util 2004 where he run 3:32 while ranking 6th. Don't tel me he started doping in 2004.
Did rekrunner even go to the extent to advocate that doping doesn't benefit elite male long distance runners???????????????????
This is very despicable and outrageous from him and this extent or level of belief can only be hypocritically or pretentiously held!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This means he MUST BE holding such belief only on condition of a more underlying agenda to benefit and advocate for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What else can it be by now?????????
It's a probably pro-doping agenda, what else could be more underlying!!!!!! It's a no-brainer!!!!
You do seem to gravitate towards "no brainers", but when you use your brain, everything is explainable by my being pro-"scientific method" and "anti-nonsense" without the need for fabricated moral judgements.
If you want to know what I really advocate, you have to read my posts (the ones with the registered username "rekrunner", preferably in context), and not the paraphrased posts of anonymous others like "true datt".
Whether it is doping or RF/EMF, I simply ask for objective facts, evidence, and controlled observations -- so I can make up my own mind about all the various competing hypotheses -- without all the amateur interpretation and speculation and jumping to conclusions about what it must mean, or what can be.
This basic request for supporting data -- something that my education taught me should go without saying -- seems to offend those who cannot respond to such basic requests, or believe their partial responses are complete and conclusive, ultimately leading you and others to fabricating positions and conclusions I do not hold or make. I can only speculate this is a psychological defense mechanism meant to discredit me for arguments I am not making that cannot otherwise be rebutted.
The underlying logic here seems to be broken too. If my message were truly "doping is not effective for elite distance running", logically and rationally, this would be an argument ultimately intended to persuade athletes to stop doping (i.e. "don't be stupid because it's all risk and no reward"), rather than an argument suggesting athletes doping is OK. Whether that argument is right or wrong -- it is illogical and irrational to suggest that this is part of a "pro-doping agenda".
My consistent message to any athlete willing to listen to me is that legal altitude training is as scientifically proven as any form of illegal blood doping. Doping is for dopes.
I don't think so dear rekrunner. Don't you start this all over again on this thread. Don't you ever launch into your probably pro-doping rhetoric all over again and go off-topic even in self-defense.
For you, self-defense would be guilt proven if you want it to be true that you are anti-nonsense and not pro-doping!!! We on LRC wish to also reason that your self-defense against pro-doping accusation is your trying to take the heat off of what is legitimately a pro-doping agenda in the first place!!!!!! Hence pro-doping all the same LOL!!!!
The poster responded to you in such a manner precisely because perhaps you like to use various anonymous handles against your claim that you don't isn't it???? He must have felt something disingenuous about you to believe you come in many various forms and handles on LRC supposedly to further a pro-doping agenda!!!!! Why can't you think that it was you who set in motion his soul and heart to feel this way about you??? Why can't you take charge of that and change from your pro-doping appearances????
Perhaps the day you start denouncing a whereabouts failure as the very improvement in sport performance would people start seeing the change in your appearance and have faith in you!!!
There would be no need to start any self-defense if you don't start the nonsensical attacks. This is completely up to you.
The reality is that I do not post with other anonymous handles, despite what you seem to need to believe in order to make sense of what would otherwise be nonsense.
I cannot control the hearts and souls and minds of others, although they may want to blame me for the darkness in their souls.
If you expect me to denounce "whereabouts failure as the very improvement in sport performance", I will predictably first ask for controlled data demonstrating that whereabouts failures in and of themselves can be correlated to faster performances. This seems particularly problematic, as only the fast athletes are subject to whereabouts obligations. These athletes will always have some medal or victory or past success -- that is why they are in the OOC pool to begin with. The sample size is small, and removing the uncertainties will require a large amount of data.
What I can do is denounce the athletes committing whereabouts failures in and of themselves, without any requirement to demonstrate performance, as all the fan speculation surrounding these failures causes reputational harm to the sport. I support programs that educate athletes and raise their awareness of their whereabouts obligations so that there are fewer whereabouts failures.
Just throwing out general numbers. My inclination is that Moroccan runners who change countries might be both a) more likely to dope based on the situation (Ramzi/Bahrain case) b) protected less by their new countries and targeted more than those who don’t.
Considering the reporting on Morocco’s state-sponsored system, it seems prudent to say it’s an all of the above situation. What we have now is far fewer Moroccan runners in the mix, which is a bit suspicious (was doping a large part of past success?). That being said some promising Moroccan have gone through the NCAA system and just seem to be fizzling out (Essayi, Zahafi) after impressive starts. It’s a small sample size, but for other countries the NCAA has worked much better it seems. Talbi is a great success, and I think most here believe him to be clean and an underdog to root for.
Thoughtsleader -- I really appreciate your posts as generally thoughtful.
Whatever the general numbers may be, they all still seem rather small, for a country that was considered second to Russia in doping. When is this timeframe for "Morocco's state-sponsored system"? As far as doping being "a large part of past success", this would make sense if Morocco significantly stopped doping around 2000-2004 timeframe, when historically the fastest performances (a top-5 average trend) started regressing.
Same guy who tried clowning on Jakob during Euro XCs in Tilburg, 2018.
Just not true. He was actually honored to run with Jakob and wanted to recreate the funny moment where Jakob high fived his brother Henrik before dusting the field in the euro champs earlier the same year.