More ignorance. This is not what "doping apologist" means.
As our resident doping apologist, perhaps you could explain what you think it means?
If I were, perhaps I might. It's your term, but I think in the context you always use it, it must mean you are not intelligent enough to rebut my posts.
Norwegians do not mess around with that. If that was the case, he could not a lived a good life in Norway. Gjert has to much to lose if that was the case. And also, Norway is extremely strict with doping control for adults. The media would have "killed" him. We norwegians hates doping.
Hard work, good training plan, combined with diet and sleep is what matters
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
As our resident doping apologist, perhaps you could explain what you think it means?
If I were, perhaps I might. It's your term, but I think in the context you always use it, it must mean you are not intelligent enough to rebut my posts.
Your posts don't say anything worth taking seriously. They are merely a continuation of your delusions. But you are a doping apologist even if you don't see it yourself. It's all you do. You live for it.
Norwegians do not mess around with that. If that was the case, he could not a lived a good life in Norway. Gjert has to much to lose if that was the case. And also, Norway is extremely strict with doping control for adults. The media would have "killed" him. We norwegians hates doping.
Hard work, good training plan, combined with diet and sleep is what matters
Sorry to puncture your dreams but doping is everywhere and is always at the top of sport now. That's how you get there.
If I were, perhaps I might. It's your term, but I think in the context you always use it, it must mean you are not intelligent enough to rebut my posts.
Your posts don't say anything worth taking seriously. They are merely a continuation of your delusions. But you are a doping apologist even if you don't see it yourself. It's all you do. You live for it.
And yours do? That is rich coming from the biggest troll on this site. You have absolutely NO worth - so no one takes YOU seriously. You just clutter up EVERY thread with your cynical bullcr*p. Seriously, do us all a favor and just find somewhere else to troll. Your inane responses just devalue every otherwise worthwhile thread. Given the number of threads you post on, it really seems like you have a psychological disorder - constantly repeating yourself - is it dementia?
If I were, perhaps I might. It's your term, but I think in the context you always use it, it must mean you are not intelligent enough to rebut my posts.
Your posts don't say anything worth taking seriously. They are merely a continuation of your delusions. But you are a doping apologist even if you don't see it yourself. It's all you do. You live for it.
You only prove me right every time you post. Your obsession with me is a not so hidden concession you no longer have anything intelligent to contribute.
Whatever you want to believe I am, I do not condone or defend intentional rule violations intended to gain any unfair advantage. This is just more deflection on your part, because you've run out of intelligent things to say.
Your posts don't say anything worth taking seriously. They are merely a continuation of your delusions. But you are a doping apologist even if you don't see it yourself. It's all you do. You live for it.
And yours do? That is rich coming from the biggest troll on this site. You have absolutely NO worth - so no one takes YOU seriously. You just clutter up EVERY thread with your cynical bullcr*p. Seriously, do us all a favor and just find somewhere else to troll. Your inane responses just devalue every otherwise worthwhile thread. Given the number of threads you post on, it really seems like you have a psychological disorder - constantly repeating yourself - is it dementia?
I see I've gotten under your skin. It's worth it just for that.
Your posts don't say anything worth taking seriously. They are merely a continuation of your delusions. But you are a doping apologist even if you don't see it yourself. It's all you do. You live for it.
You only prove me right every time you post. Your obsession with me is a not so hidden concession you no longer have anything intelligent to contribute.
Whatever you want to believe I am, I do not condone or defend intentional rule violations intended to gain any unfair advantage. This is just more deflection on your part, because you've run out of intelligent things to say.
You never concede anyone caught doping did so intentionally. You always strive to find excuses for their doping or arguments for their "innocence". You are a mere propagandist. That's why I never take anything you say seriously.
You only prove me right every time you post. Your obsession with me is a not so hidden concession you no longer have anything intelligent to contribute.
Whatever you want to believe I am, I do not condone or defend intentional rule violations intended to gain any unfair advantage. This is just more deflection on your part, because you've run out of intelligent things to say.
You never concede anyone caught doping did so intentionally. You always strive to find excuses for their doping or arguments for their "innocence". You are a mere propagandist. That's why I never take anything you say seriously.
You must feel seriously threatened or you wouldn't respond with such serial hostility.
Never say never. On the contrary, I would concede athletes like Martin Fagan, Christian Hesch, Eddy Hellebuyck, and Cathal Lombard doped intentionally. Russian, and Eastern women from the '70s and '80s were probably doped intentionally against their will.
Often though, you accuse athletes of doping when they haven't been caught, and then call me predictably unclever names like "doping denier" and "doping apologist". Here we are again in a thread about Narve Nordås, an athlete not caught doping -- what are you contributing to this thread? -- you are trying to spread your doping gospel according to Armstronglivs, and personal insult.
Apologies for de-derailing this thread by interrupting the same two or three people stinking up every LR thread by only discussing doping, ethnicity or continent of origin, and instead try to discuss some factors that have changed how Narve can perform, and focus on something runners can actually discuss
The lastest episode of the Swedish Podcast "Spring snyggt - med Jesus och Manne" (Run pretty - with Jesus & Manne) did a phone interview with Narve about his fantastic Bislett result. The key takeaways from that interview:
The first, unsurprising aspect: Narve has greatly benefitted from Gjert not coaching Jakob, Filip or Henrik, as it has provided much improved individual focus and adaptations.
The second aspect, which is surprising: While Gjert, and Narve still are in the double threshold crowd, they have made a somewhat radical departures from the model the Ingebrigtsens have been known to follow. Narve runs at least some proportion of his morning threshold sessions on trails/in forests with no GPS, no watch and no lactate measurements. Gjert was hesistant of this at first, because it couldn't be measured. The same also relented, because he saw that it kept Narve both happy and injury-free, and now trusts Narve to be able to train by feel.
you may attack,and he may attack,you go at each other,and he always beats you.thats my observation of it all.i think youd be lost without him,and that you actually like each other.someone to spar with..he makes this site a lot more interesting.
The survey (also old 2011/12) is some (experienced) psychologists who are tricking the athletes to popp themselves through answering a 2 min long questionnaire.Read it yourself-I have a thousand questions to the method here (f.ex did the athletes even get it in their own language/ control groups and so forth). Well, this method is highly controversial (more than lie detectors -that are highly controversial in themselves). And the researchers conclusions: One place 29% doped the year before, one place 48%, one place even higher (all the year before)…
But the point also here: They too call the data estimates, and never facts.
Regarding languages, the survey was offered in 21 languages at the WCA (and 3 languages at Pan-Arab Games, English, French, and Arabic), which probably covers most athletes at both events.
The main issue with athlete survey methods is ensuring compliance to survey instructions, such that all the answers can be relied upon to be both honest and accurate. Anonymity can remove the motivation to lie, but it doesn't remove survey apathy. Two independent methods at the same 2011 WCA event resulted in 1) a recommendation to remove 30% of the fastest responses, as hasty and unreliable, and 2) an estimate of 30% non-compliance.
I like that. Narve "hasn't been caught doping" - so he isn't doping. Like all those other athletes who haven't been caught but dope to the gills. But from 3.36 to 3.29 in a year at age 24 in a dirty sport you could put money on it that he is.
