We changed the title to make it accurate. It was initially titles, "Parker Valby calls out Letsrun Users Armstronglivs and Astro on TikTok". She didn't mention any posters by name.
You are misconstruing the point. It isn't that Valby and Ingebrigtsen should have got exactly the same results from cross training but that the results were extremely disparate. Valby used cross training as her main form of training for years with very little road mileage. She got her best ever results with this. It got her to the Olympics. Ingebrigtsen used cross training for a relatively short period after injury. Running has always been his main form of training. Cross training may have kept him on his legs but failed to enable him to recapture his previous form. So my conclusion is that he has shown that cross training, like an arc trainer, isn't as effective as more conventional forms of training for pro distance runners. That is why it is used sparingly and typically in situations like that of Ingebrigtsen, when an athlete is recovering from injury. It is a "second best" form of training. Except for Valby.
That doesn't make sense. Why would you expect the results to be similar if the contexts are so vastly different?
Because cross training and the arc trainer in particular has been touted here as working wonders. Ingebrigtsen shows that isn't true. There's a reason why few distance runners use it as their main form of training and typically it is when they have been injured, as Ingebrigtsen was.
Interesting what she has achieved through cross training and what it did (didn't do?) for Jakob.
You could actually make an argument that what Jakob achieved at world meet was hugely positive.
From serious injury to making 5000 final and running at least a competitive 1500 was quite impressive.
No one on the cross training support squad claims that it is better than running. The claim is that it can reduce injury by reducing your weekly high impact volume, and it can keep you fit during injury. Not race fit, but less unfit than doing nothing while you recover. This gives you a higher fitness startpoint when you resume training, allowing you to compete again quicker.
It has been argued here that it is better than running. It was given as the main reason for Valby's success and not seen as a limiting factor.
As far as Jakob was concerned, I guess you could say it was a "positive" that Jakob was fit enough to compete but as I have pointed out he was a shadow of his former self and cross training didn't change that.
This site has daily transphobic threads, and one of the co-owners posts regularly about "non-African born" people as if it's an important category of runners to track.
I don't know about "daily transphobic threads," but the regular references to a category of "non-African born" runners are annoyingly euphemistic. If one of the co-owners of this site means to make a rather different distinction between groups of runners (which seems highly likely), perhaps he should make that distinction explicit and live with the fallout.
As for the main topic at hand, I wasn't aware of accusations or suggestions of doping by Valby until I saw this thread. In the absence of supporting evidence, they're both disgusting and implausible to me, and the assertion that Valby, as an elite athlete of some renown, should just get used to them rings hollow to me. The sense of fair play that has generally characterized this sport should extend to how we treat and judge one another, including the more famous or gifted participants.
Finally, I've had little or nothing to do with USADA in many years, and may therefore have either forgotten or been unaware of so-called "silent bans" by USADA, but I'd like to see some actual evidence that they exist. It sounds as though at least half of the posters on this thread know much more about them than I do, which I find implausible but not impossible.
You could actually make an argument that what Jakob achieved at world meet was hugely positive.
From serious injury to making 5000 final and running at least a competitive 1500 was quite impressive.
No one on the cross training support squad claims that it is better than running. The claim is that it can reduce injury by reducing your weekly high impact volume, and it can keep you fit during injury. Not race fit, but less unfit than doing nothing while you recover. This gives you a higher fitness startpoint when you resume training, allowing you to compete again quicker.
It has been argued here that it is better than running. It was given as the main reason for Valby's success and not seen as a limiting factor.
As far as Jakob was concerned, I guess you could say it was a "positive" that Jakob was fit enough to compete but as I have pointed out he was a shadow of his former self and cross training didn't change that.
My favorite part of the whole saga was how she was able to demolish ncaa records so effortlessly that she was blowing kisses to the crowd as she did it, all magically based on cross-training supposedly, yet the usual board yahoos get absolutely indignant when you raise the obvious questions.
That doesn't make sense. Why would you expect the results to be similar if the contexts are so vastly different?
Because cross training and the arc trainer in particular has been touted here as working wonders. Ingebrigtsen shows that isn't true. There's a reason why few distance runners use it as their main form of training and typically it is when they have been injured, as Ingebrigtsen was.
You're still not making sense. It's silly to expect the same outcomes from totally different contexts.
I voice suspicions when the circumstances warrant it. Her performances were not credible. But forget that. We got all this internet chatter about a positive test, followed by her deleting social media, followed by her leaving her team which subsequently imploded, followed by a long vacation. The most plausible explanation is that she did test positive and there is an attempt to bury the information. And it is not like UF is spotless.
This post was edited 38 seconds after it was posted.
This site has daily transphobic threads, and one of the co-owners posts regularly about "non-African born" people as if it's an important category of runners to track.
Please get over yourself. Saying males should compete against males is what the vast majority of people believe. You call it transphobic. I call it what the #1 trans person in the world supports, Caitlyn Jenner. Same with probably the most prominent lesbian athlete of all-time Martina Navratilova.
Personally, I think Robert focuses on "non-African" born too much but he thinks there is a genetic component to the sport. I'm fine with someone distinguishing between Conner Mantz and Khalid Khannouchi's American records.
Please get over yourself. Saying males should compete against males is what the vast majority of people believe. You call it transphobic. I call it what the #1 trans person in the world supports, Caitlyn Jenner. Same with probably the most prominent lesbian athlete of all-time Martina Navratilova.
Personally, I think Robert focuses on "non-African" born too much but he thinks there is a genetic component to the sport. I'm fine with someone distinguishing between Conner Mantz and Khalid Khannouchi's American records.
But Robert would say that Conner Mantz today I think became the 77th fastest man ever in the marathon. 75 of the guys faster than him were born in Africa so it's a relevant thing to think about.
Does any other world wide sport have such dominance from one continent?
Houlihan was NEVER "silently banned." She failed a test and filed an appeal. Appeals remain private until they are decided. She tested positive on December 15 and her appeal was decided on June 11 and was immediately released publicly.
"Silent ban" is a term made up by people on this board with zero knowledge of the sport.
Man, the Cult is really getting desperate with their little princess getting crushed every race and getting dead last at USATFs.
False and false.
1) The AIU decided to ignore its own policy and kept Houlihan's provisional ban secret.
See for example the current list of provisionally banned athletes at the AIU page:
2) There have been several examples of NADOs (e.g., American, German, Kenyan) that imposed (not provisional) "silent bans".
In conclusion: you either have zero knowledge of the sport or are trolling here.
The "silent ban" thing is interesting.
WADA rules say when you have to provisionally suspend someone but they don't say they have to be announced. When a ruling is "final" they have to be announced.
The AIU meanwhile says it will generally disclose provisional suspensions, but then has this huge carve out "Exceptions The exceptions to this policy will be (i) where public disclosure is not required under the World Anti-Doping Code and there is in the opinion of the AIU compelling justification not to publicly disclose the relevant information"
So this is what people mean when they talk about "silent bans". i've always said there aren't "silent bans" but now I see how people can say that there are and actually mean that in good faith. The AIU would say there are only "silent bans" for people who are still contesting their case or perhaps cooperating with them in an ongoing investigation.
You could actually make an argument that what Jakob achieved at world meet was hugely positive.
From serious injury to making 5000 final and running at least a competitive 1500 was quite impressive.
No one on the cross training support squad claims that it is better than running. The claim is that it can reduce injury by reducing your weekly high impact volume, and it can keep you fit during injury. Not race fit, but less unfit than doing nothing while you recover. This gives you a higher fitness startpoint when you resume training, allowing you to compete again quicker.
It has been argued here that it is better than running.
But Robert would say that Conner Mantz today I think became the 77th fastest man ever in the marathon. 75 of the guys faster than him were born in Africa so it's a relevant thing to think about.
Does any other world wide sport have such dominance from one continent?
who is the non-African-born guy that’s faster than Conner?
But Robert would say that Conner Mantz today I think became the 77th fastest man ever in the marathon. 75 of the guys faster than him were born in Africa so it's a relevant thing to think about.
Does any other world wide sport have such dominance from one continent?
who is the non-African-born guy that’s faster than Conner?
This site has daily transphobic threads, and one of the co-owners posts regularly about "non-African born" people as if it's an important category of runners to track.
Please get over yourself. Saying males should compete against males is what the vast majority of people believe. You call it transphobic. I call it what the #1 trans person in the world supports, Caitlyn Jenner. Same with probably the most prominent lesbian athlete of all-time Martina Navratilova.
Personally, I think Robert focuses on "non-African" born too much but he thinks there is a genetic component to the sport. I'm fine with someone distinguishing between Conner Mantz and Khalid Khannouchi's American records.
You have a very bizarre view of groups of people such that you can pick the #1 person among them to represent them. Wow!
This site has daily transphobic threads, and one of the co-owners posts regularly about "non-African born" people as if it's an important category of runners to track.
I don't know about "daily transphobic threads," but the regular references to a category of "non-African born" runners are annoyingly euphemistic. If one of the co-owners of this site means to make a rather different distinction between groups of runners (which seems highly likely), perhaps he should make that distinction explicit and live with the fallout.
As for the main topic at hand, I wasn't aware of accusations or suggestions of doping by Valby until I saw this thread. In the absence of supporting evidence, they're both disgusting and implausible to me, and the assertion that Valby, as an elite athlete of some renown, should just get used to them rings hollow to me. The sense of fair play that has generally characterized this sport should extend to how we treat and judge one another, including the more famous or gifted participants.
Finally, I've had little or nothing to do with USADA in many years, and may therefore have either forgotten or been unaware of so-called "silent bans" by USADA, but I'd like to see some actual evidence that they exist. It sounds as though at least half of the posters on this thread know much more about them than I do, which I find implausible but not impossible.
Your posts are dripping with logic and read like a legal brief. I mean that without irony and, more important, as a compliment. If only this site had a judge to make rulings that accord with wisdom. (She would be trolled to oblivion...so, that absence of such a figure is probably a good thing.)
1. "transphobic threads" Many people here are hostile to trans individuals. They believe that people who transition have a mental illness, which is an odd thing to say because: mental illness are both a) common (1 out of 5 Americans) and b) treatable. It's still a logically coherent argument, and it doesn't have to lead to further leaps in logic and displaying the worst aspects of your personality. It is harder to fix a crap personality than it is to treat a mental illness.
Consider Nikki Hiltz, who gets trashed on this forum daily. She is nonbinary, not trans, which means she doesn't identify as either male or female. People "misgender" her, meaning they don't use her correct pronouns ("they"/"them"). Go ten posts deep in any thread, and you will find people referring to Ms. Hitlz as "it,' which is a pointed an unnecessary insult. The complaint: she only competes against women, not men. The governing body of the sport allows it, so why is this really a problem? (If Nikki Hiltz were born male and competed against women, *that* would be a relevant issue to discuss, and, yes, complain about. Also, I referred to her as "she" and "Ms Hitlz." Does that mean I "misgendered" her? Well, when I was in school, the pronoun, "they" was taught to me to refer to more than one person; it boggles my mind when it is used in singular form. Also, she was born a biological woman. Certainly, people who are militant about rules of nomenclature might take offense at me referring to her as "Ms." But, she is biologically female, and is, to my knowledge, unmarried....so...)
2. Doping allegations. On this website, *everybody* who has a success in running is accused of doping, including many athletes who do not dope. The owners of this website would like a measure of fairness when allegations are thrown about. If you read the site rules, there are examples of what is considered appropriate when making that claim. It boils down to having evidence to support your claim. The owners of this website also believe in "freedom of speech," and will permit perspectives they do not agree with. There is tension there and there are no hard and fast rules. Doping allegations, which are probably disgusting to them, are generally permitted, even as a matter of opinion, when they amount to baseless speculation. Think about how conversations would go if those opinions were moderated to oblivion. (Spoiler alert: you would see a lot more threads with the title: "My unpopular opinion was deleted: the mods are awful, this website is awful, and here is my opinion once more for the record."
This website is one of the few places online where we celebrate female athletic achievements without sparing women from criticism. Valby doesn't like having aspersions cast on those accomplishments. If you pay attention to the song that she uses to introduce her "running betrayal list" you will notice that it is Kanye West's "Runaway." The chorus of that song goes:
Ye wrote:
Let's have a toast for the douchebags Let's have a toast for the assholes Let's have a toast for the scumbags Every one of them that I know Let's have a toast for the jerk-offs That'll never take work off Baby, I got a plan Run away fast as you can
The song is actually meant ironically, as the verses reveal its narrator to be among those groups (he's telling his intimate partner to leave him, because he can't treat her right: "Baby I've got a plan/Runaway fast as you can.") But it's used here in an ironic sense (double irony!), or meant literally. Valby is calling her haters card-carrying members of each and every group. I see her point, and it's actually very funny.
3. You were involved in USADA? What are you doing here? Professional organizations are somehow treated worse than alleged dopers and trans individuals here. Because they make decisions that people here don't like. I would not have shared that, were I you, because guilt by association rules the roost. But...I also don't care.
If you read through what I wrote about and count the use of the pronoun "I" and make a check mark every time you find an opinion that follows it, you will see that, just like everyone else here, I think my opinions are important and, by extension, that people who hold them are wrong. Just another day on the forums. When you consider that I'm responding to a message directed at someone else, it looks even worse.
Valby is wrong. Her haters mean that she has made it, that people recognize her accomplishments, even if they question them. But this clip isn't about right or wrong. It's about trolling a group of trolls. To that, I say: well done!
Because cross training and the arc trainer in particular has been touted here as working wonders. Ingebrigtsen shows that isn't true. There's a reason why few distance runners use it as their main form of training and typically it is when they have been injured, as Ingebrigtsen was.
You're still not making sense. It's silly to expect the same outcomes from totally different contexts.
Again, you misstate the issue. I was not arguing that Valby and Ingebrigtsen should have got exactly the same outcome from using arc training but that the outcomes are so disparate as undercut the claims being made here that arc training is at least as effective as conventional distance training if not better. Valby peaked with this training, with very little running training, whereas cross training only enabled Ingebrigtsen to arrive at his worst form in years - and he wasn't injured at the world's or he wouldn't have made the start line.
Finally, I've had little or nothing to do with USADA in many years, and may therefore have either forgotten or been unaware of so-called "silent bans" by USADA, but I'd like to see some actual evidence that they exist. It sounds as though at least half of the posters on this thread know much more about them than I do, which I find implausible but not impossible.
WADA’s statement revealed that at least three athletes who committed serious doping violations were allowed to compete for years as USADA informants. This was without notifying WADA or adhering to any rules permitting such actions.
-> USADA thinks rules do not apply to them.
And they have openly declared, repeatedly, to keep provisional suspensions secret.
2) There have been several examples of NADOs (e.g., American, German, Kenyan) that imposed (not provisional) "silent bans".
In conclusion: you either have zero knowledge of the sport or are trolling here.
The "silent ban" thing is interesting.
WADA rules say when you have to provisionally suspend someone but they don't say they have to be announced. When a ruling is "final" they have to be announced.
The AIU meanwhile says it will generally disclose provisional suspensions, but then has this huge carve out "Exceptions The exceptions to this policy will be (i) where public disclosure is not required under the World Anti-Doping Code and there is in the opinion of the AIU compelling justification not to publicly disclose the relevant information"
So this is what people mean when they talk about "silent bans". i've always said there aren't "silent bans" but now I see how people can say that there are and actually mean that in good faith. The AIU would say there are only "silent bans" for people who are still contesting their case or perhaps cooperating with them in an ongoing investigation.
