Are you guys still coping with Gidey's records? 😂
Are you guys still coping with Gidey's records? 😂
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
As I said - nothing rouses your suspicions, including if Gidey ran 57x. You haven't denied that point. It is only doping that you deny (including Houlihan's - since you refuse to concede a violation makes her a doper). Guaranteed. You are a predictable tedious apologist.
On the contrary — you repeatedly say nothing and this is precisely why my suspicion is not roused.
But what you actually said is “there is no level of performance that would rouse” my suspicion. Surprisingly from you, that is quite accurate. There are things that would rouse my suspicion, but for distance running, it is not clear to me, after reading from dozens of decades of anti-doping research, and reviewing decades of all-time performances, that any strong positive relationship exists between higher levels of elite distance running performance and doping.
I assumed this is precisely what you mean when you say things like “in the modern era it is no longer possible to tell the difference” and “we can no longer can tell (sic) a doped from a clean performance, or a doped from a clean athlete” and “it becomes impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level” and “it becomes very difficult to confidently distinguish the clean from the doped performance next to it” and “it is difficult to distinguish the doped from the clean competitor, and there is a 50% chance (*) that an athlete would be doped. (* but then you immediately correct yourself) … most expert estimates tend to a ball-park of between 20-50% over a range of sports.”
You want to fault me for not using level of performance as a basis for suspicion when you yourself repeatedly acknowledged it is “impossible”, and that “we can no longer .. tell”, and that “it is difficult” and concede that “most expert estimates” would still give Gidey a 50%-80% chance that she is clean.
When the best (or worst) you can do is argue it is 50/50, while repeatedly failing to respond to my requests to demonstrate any positive correlation, I’m forced to say we need to wait for better data.
I feel sorry for you that you were so easily duped way back in the ‘70s, when you were young and ignorant and naive and impressionable, and now you have developed a false confidence built upon 40+ years of confirmation bias.
Regarding Houlihan, I simply can’t find any common definition of “doper” at the WADA website, nor the World Athletics website, nor at the Athletics Integrity Unit website, nor can I find the term used in the detailed CAS report. The CAS didn’t call her a “doper”, nor did the AIU, nor did the World Athletics, so I don’t find it important to speak in undefined terms that are potentially ambiguous out of the narrow context of anti-doping.
Nothing I have said supports your claims. I don't know who all the dopers are but I do know that there are some for whom it is the only rational explanation. Like Gidey. But you will defend them - all of them - to the death. The fact that you see no level of performance is indicative of doping shows the extent of your denial. As I said, Gidey could run the equivalent of the male wr (you twice ducked responding to that point) and you would still refuse to concede it shows doping. You will never see what you can't accept. You are no different from a Trumpster claiming "election fraud", or a climate-change denier or Covid denier, except that doping denial is your chosen mania.
astro wrote:
What complete horse manure. So doping has no effect on performance? LOLLL. OK. So much for the last 50 years. This is taking apologia and self-delusion to the next level.
Maybe doping can have a positive effect on the very fastest half-marathon running performances. Who knows?
What I know for sure is that Gidey’s performance was very fast.
Whether it was doped, is pure speculation — good for tabloids, and bad for the sport.
Whether the speculated doping made it faster is again something else.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Nothing I have said supports your claims. I don't know who all the dopers are but I do know that there are some for whom it is the only rational explanation. Like Gidey. But you will defend them - all of them - to the death. The fact that you see no level of performance is indicative of doping shows the extent of your denial. As I said, Gidey could run the equivalent of the male wr (you twice ducked responding to that point) and you would still refuse to concede it shows doping. You will never see what you can't accept. You are no different from a Trumpster claiming "election fraud", or a climate-change denier or Covid denier, except that doping denial is your chosen mania.
I accepted your claim, that it is “impossible” to tell. Seems like you should be happier when I say you were right.
I also said that you were correct that no performance level, even your imaginary 57xx, would rouse my suspicion.
Slow performances and fast performances alike can be clean, or can be doped, and, as you claimed, it is “impossible” to tell the clean one from the doped one.
Disregard what the self confessed liar and non reader says.
liar soorer wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Seriously? According to the links I already provided to the IAAF website, it could come from the athlete, her National Federation, or the IAAF Medical Manager, acting with good faith on reasonable grounds from any reliable source. Nothing is compulsory, unless she wants to compete as a female in international competitions in the Restricted Events. As all things in sport, eligibility to compete, and any obligations, are managed by contract.
Excellent ; very helpful.
3.3 ; says from doping samples and this is what I think breaches data laws and Wada IST.
However; it would seem that anyone could be pulled in under these rules at the unchallengeable decision of the IOC medical manager.
I wonder how medical ethics works with that.
But at least we have an answer.
Would not a team doctor have a be bound by confidentiality to the athlete ?
Another basic human right overridden by sport.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Excellent ; very helpful.
3.3 ; says from doping samples and this is what I think breaches data laws and Wada IST.
However; it would seem that anyone could be pulled in under these rules at the unchallengeable decision of the IOC medical manager.
I wonder how medical ethics works with that.
But at least we have an answer.
Would not a team doctor have a be bound by confidentiality to the athlete ?
Another basic human right overridden by sport.
I have asked a Doctor and am informed that medical confidentiality would rule and this would be for all health checks or advice or treatments.
So quite a serious breach required by World Athletics.
And doping data is personal sensitive data and controlled by Data Protection Law; so that can’t be used.
liar soorer wrote:
Disregard what the self confessed liar and non reader says.
But you don't. You respond to everything I say. With your vacuous indignant spluttering.
rekrunner wrote:
I also said that you were correct that no performance level, even your imaginary 57xx, would rouse my suspicion.
Slow performances and fast performances alike can be clean, or can be doped, and, as you claimed, it is “impossible” to tell the clean one from the doped one.
So Gidey running a men's record would not suggest doping to you. No further proof is needed of the extent of your denial or your ignorance. You have confirmed that no level of performance is capable of rousing your suspicions in a sport rife with doping.
You also misquote me. Of course you do. I do not say and have not said that it is "impossible" to tell the clean performance from the doped one as an absolute. Doubts may apply to the runner in the middle of the pack, about whom we have little personal information, but with outlier performances like Gidey's they ring out "doping" like a police klaxon. Only someone utterly ignorant of the extent of doping in sports and its effect on performance will not see that. But that is you. You are like someone who attends a concert but is unable to tell that it is music. Tone deaf. To doping.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I also said that you were correct that no performance level, even your imaginary 57xx, would rouse my suspicion.
Slow performances and fast performances alike can be clean, or can be doped, and, as you claimed, it is “impossible” to tell the clean one from the doped one.
So Gidey running a men's record would not suggest doping to you. No further proof is needed of the extent of your denial or your ignorance. You have confirmed that no level of performance is capable of rousing your suspicions in a sport rife with doping.
You also misquote me. Of course you do. I do not say and have not said that it is "impossible" to tell the clean performance from the doped one as an absolute. Doubts may apply to the runner in the middle of the pack, about whom we have little personal information, but with outlier performances like Gidey's they ring out "doping" like a police klaxon. Only someone utterly ignorant of the extent of doping in sports and its effect on performance will not see that. But that is you. You are like someone who attends a concert but is unable to tell that it is music. Tone deaf. To doping.
This poster is an admitted liar and will not read.
Ignore.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Disregard what the self confessed liar and non reader says.
But you don't. You respond to everything I say. With your vacuous indignant spluttering.
I ignore what you say and my point is to tell others that you are a self admitted liar and won’t read.
cramberrys wrote:
Internetsherlock wrote:
Majority of people on LR has such low expectations of themselves and others. Its a shame really. Accusing someone of doping straightaway when they have no idea how much of testings and investigation goes on for these top athletes, and not forgetting the sacrifice, the amount of training to reach this level . Of course how would you know when you cant even outrun a high school east African girl.
Welcome to the future. There is no limit. Men Elites should now be targeting Sub 55 minutes for the Half and women should be aiming for sub 1 hour. And the rest of you losers can keep complaining and stop improving . The world is evolving. Wake up.
No, it's rather because people here know the nature of doping and how hard it is to test positive (through microdosing for instance). No one is disputing that every single elite athlete is very talented and hard-working. But there's for sure reason to be sceptic, otherwise you're just delusional.
Yes keep living your life in Doubts when people are aiming for the Stars.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I also said that you were correct that no performance level, even your imaginary 57xx, would rouse my suspicion.
Slow performances and fast performances alike can be clean, or can be doped, and, as you claimed, it is “impossible” to tell the clean one from the doped one.
So Gidey running a men's record would not suggest doping to you. No further proof is needed of the extent of your denial or your ignorance. You have confirmed that no level of performance is capable of rousing your suspicions in a sport rife with doping.
You also misquote me. Of course you do. I do not say and have not said that it is "impossible" to tell the clean performance from the doped one as an absolute. Doubts may apply to the runner in the middle of the pack, about whom we have little personal information, but with outlier performances like Gidey's they ring out "doping" like a police klaxon. Only someone utterly ignorant of the extent of doping in sports and its effect on performance will not see that. But that is you. You are like someone who attends a concert but is unable to tell that it is music. Tone deaf. To doping.
The only thing I ever deny are products of your imagination.
Gidey running a men's world record is just more of your imagination.
If doping could lead Gidey to run 57xx, we should have seen many more sub-64 performances by now, given all of your assumptions about extent and effect. The fact that we haven't undermines assumptions of extent, or effect, or both.
The reasons for Gidey running 57xx will be something local, and not something global, with a long history, like doping.
Furthermore, there are too many obvious anomalies to which you remain blind and deaf.
Answer me this: If doping is so extensive, and has such a powerful effect, shouldn't it be powerful everywhere and anytime? Why is Ingrid Kristiansen from 1987 still #3 all time among all non-Africans world wide in all of history? Doesn't effective doping extend as far as non-Africans? Is doping more effective for altitude born and raised athletes, and powerless for sea-level athletes? Are top non-Africans not doping, and doping only extends to middle of the pack wannabes?
One or more of your assumptions needs serious refinement, if not complete rejection.
In which thread did you ever suggest that outlier performances would be an exception to what you repeatedly claim is "impossible"? What would be the basis, in the real world, for any such exception? Is such a suggestion something that others suggest, or simply another product your imagination?
She is on performance enhancing drugs 100%. Look at how thin and fragile she is. She is as weak as a kitten.
Threads like this are a great way to make new runners disillusioned with the sport. New runner comes to LRC, see's the whining and crying and loses interest in the sport because of all the bitter distrustful "experienced" runners. This site is terrible optically for the new runner. I remember in 2001 when the site didn't have all of this stupid bitterness and skepticism.
Gidey is landing all sorts of punches and bodyslamming so many of you guys by virtue of the effects her performance is having on your stress levels. Keep getting torn up. Soon you'll have a heart attack as that bitterness eats away at your core.
Reading this thread is like reading female domination story where Gidey is dominating and destroying a bunch of guys. lol.
Yes, this beautiful person is faster than most of your favorite American runners. Deal with it!
https://liyusport.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PhotoEditor_20191109_212552665.jpg
You just posted four times in succession, so who is suffering stress? :)
astro wrote:
You just posted four times in succession, so who is suffering stress? :)
I just enjoy rubbing in the feeling of humiliation LRC betas are suffering due to Gedey owning them lol.
