Lenny Leonard wrote:
Yes, yes yes wrote:
I've heard this rumored around the team as well when I've joined for an easy run or two over the past year.
Shelby has done 10-mile sessions on the grass in well below 5:20 average on the grass. She's an areobic beast.
How is that impressive? She's a low-14 5K runner, of course she should be able to do that kind of work.
Definitely this. Why should we be impressed that she can do 10 miles at an elite marathon pace (2:20)?
Jhb wrote:
Gidey {is} probably the biggest female talent to come out of Ethiopia ever.
Assesing talent is very difficult. But Sifan Hassan, who was born in Ethiopia, had better results than Gidey in the Tokyo Olympics a few months ago:
Gidey = Women's 10,000m bronze medallist
Hassan = Women's 1500m bronze medallist; Women's 5000m gold medallist; Women's 10,000m gold medallist
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Those are your words, not mine. You are just confirming my points.
Yes or no - is she a doper?
Yes or no - was she banned for taking a banned drug?
Yes or no - do dopers take banned drugs?[/quote
Don’t know.
No
Yes.
Proof of incurable stupidity. Yours.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yes or no - is she a doper?
Yes or no - was she banned for taking a banned drug?
Yes or no - do dopers take banned drugs?
I don’t know what “doper” means to you.
She was banned for violating rules 2.1 “presence” and 2.2 “use”, not for “taking”.
So the word "doper" has no meaning for you? How about being found to have nandrolone in your body? The rest is your usual retreat into meaningless semantic drivel.
Because marathons are run on the road, not on grass. The roads are a lot faster than the grass. Running 10 miles at marathon pace way harder on a soft, uneven surface than on the roads.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Yes or no - is she a doper?
Yes or no - was she banned for taking a banned drug?
Yes or no - do dopers take banned drugs?[/quote
Don’t know.
No
Yes.
Proof of incurable stupidity. Yours.
Why ?
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I don’t know what “doper” means to you.
She was banned for violating rules 2.1 “presence” and 2.2 “use”, not for “taking”.
So the word "doper" has no meaning for you? How about being found to have nandrolone in your body? The rest is your usual retreat into meaningless semantic drivel.
An other intelligent response?
Sorry but semantics and its grasp are the sign of some brainpower.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Proof of incurable stupidity. Yours.
Why ?
And why?
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So the word "doper" has no meaning for you? How about being found to have nandrolone in your body? The rest is your usual retreat into meaningless semantic drivel.
An other intelligent response?
Sorry but semantics and its grasp are the sign of some brainpower.
Armstronglivs got cornered on an other thread and then said he would not answer.
The biggest contaminant on this site.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I don’t know what “doper” means to you.
She was banned for violating rules 2.1 “presence” and 2.2 “use”, not for “taking”.
So the word "doper" has no meaning for you? How about being found to have nandrolone in your body? The rest is your usual retreat into meaningless semantic drivel.
Armstronglivs lies again.
Rekrunner never said “ doper” had no meaning to him.
The opposite
.
Why does Armstronglivs lie and lie.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I don’t know what “doper” means to you.
She was banned for violating rules 2.1 “presence” and 2.2 “use”, not for “taking”.
So the word "doper" has no meaning for you? How about being found to have nandrolone in your body? The rest is your usual retreat into meaningless semantic drivel.
Sure, “doper” has one meaning for me.
And another meaning for WADA.
And surely another meaning for you.
I know what it means for me, and what it means for WADA.
If you find “doper” in the CAS report, I’m happy to discuss what they meant.
rekrunner wrote:
Isn’t this ad hominem?
No. Why would you ask that?
A question was truthfully answered, without attacking the poster, without deflecting. No other person was mentioned either.
liar soorer wrote:
I have no skin in the SH game.
Then why do you keep falsely accusing posters of lying and cheating for correctly citing WADA and or CAS?
liar soorer wrote:
For completeness had I been on the panel I would have had to correctly interpret the rules and would have found her guilty.
Obviously, open and shut case.
liar soorer wrote:
Whether under revamped rules, in say ten years, would have caused the same decision I have huge doubts.
I certainly hope that such a person would always get banned for intentional doping.
Testing positive for roids and having no remotely plausible excuse? If one gets away in such a scenario, we could just as well dismantle WADA, and then we will soon be back to the dirty 70s and 80s (but now with more powerful drugs).
Well, at least then it would be a real level playing field, not one depending on your NADO etc.
casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
I have no skin in the SH game.
Then why do you keep falsely accusing posters of lying and cheating for correctly citing WADA and or CAS?
liar soorer wrote:
For completeness had I been on the panel I would have had to correctly interpret the rules and would have found her guilty.
Obviously, open and shut case.
liar soorer wrote:
Whether under revamped rules, in say ten years, would have caused the same decision I have huge doubts.
I certainly hope that such a person would always get banned for intentional doping.
Testing positive for roids and having no remotely plausible excuse? If one gets away in such a scenario, we could just as well dismantle WADA, and then we will soon be back to the dirty 70s and 80s (but now with more powerful drugs).
Well, at least then it would be a real level playing field, not one depending on your NADO etc.
Lying being pointed out.
I can point to such whether or not I actually care for SH.
The case may be shut be the interpretation is not.
Real law and jurisprudence may dismantle WADA.
We have no real idea of the extent of drug use that Wada may be incapable of stopping anyway.
Testing positive does not mean cheating .
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Isn’t this ad hominem?
No. Why would you ask that?
A question was truthfully answered, without attacking the poster, without deflecting. No other person was mentioned either.
No other person was mentioned? I don’t mean directed towards the poster asking, but your “truthful answer” mentions “PR shills”, “trolls”, and “doping apologists”. Are they not “other persons”?
Seems like the primary purpose of this kind of name-calling is to avoid truthful answers, and attacking those persons, and deflecting.
Maybe it has another name.
No other specific person was mentioned, so no specific person was attacked.
Trolls spamming gibberish garbage and people looking for reasons to get offended. Yet another thread turned into a dumpster fire. Nike shills frothing at the mouth, cant have a shelbo thread without this bullsht.
fatsos wrote:
Trolls spamming gibberish garbage and people looking for reasons to get offended. Yet another thread turned into a dumpster fire. Nike shills frothing at the mouth, cant have a shelbo thread without this bullsht.
Great that you have read all the rules; well done.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So the word "doper" has no meaning for you? How about being found to have nandrolone in your body? The rest is your usual retreat into meaningless semantic drivel.
Sure, “doper” has one meaning for me.
And another meaning for WADA.
And surely another meaning for you.
I know what it means for me, and what it means for WADA.
If you find “doper” in the CAS report, I’m happy to discuss what they meant.
A "doper" has only one meaning. It appears you are yet to discover it. But we do know that someone who has committed "an intentional ADRV" (CAS) is not a doper in your books. No one ever is.
Armstronglivs wrote:
A "doper" has only one meaning. It appears you are yet to discover it. But we do know that someone who has committed "an intentional ADRV" (CAS) is not a doper in your books. No one ever is.
I discovered that WADA defines “doping” quite differently than Merriam-Webster. Apparently, my understanding is richer than yours.