Killeriottt wrote:
ImpaIa31 wrote:
This ^^
Read my above post. It is interesting how simple minds tend to agree with each other.
It's no coincidence your name rhymes with idiot.
Killeriottt wrote:
ImpaIa31 wrote:
This ^^
Read my above post. It is interesting how simple minds tend to agree with each other.
It's no coincidence your name rhymes with idiot.
Killeriottt wrote:
you think like a doper wrote:
Thinking like a doper ^^^^^^^
I suppose the best law enforcement are able to think like criminals. Yes this is true. If you cannot do this then please leave the business to the adults.
You aren't an adult.
It's true that everyone else who has ran sub 12:40 was way faster at 1500m, including the equally kickless Komen
So Impala you are not bright enough to deal with doping control. Neither is the other mental midget your agreed with. Those of us with a surplus of intellectual horsepower will do the work you’re not capable of performing. You can thank us later.
rekrunner wrote:
The rest is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about performance:
- I never deny "drug usage in sport"; I talk about performance, not prevalence
Incorrect.
Googling rekrunner prevalence letsrun proves you wrong.
1st hit out of 362 :
rekrunner wrote:
It is true though that doping prevalence can vary widely depending on event or sport or dope or sex or country
2nd:
rekrunner wrote:
Can you convert "parade of doping busts" into a percentage? Given the large number of East African athletes, I am not convinced that the prevalence is unusually high.
Moving on...
rekrunner wrote:
- I never apologize for anyone breaking the rules
Also incorrect. For example, you made lots of apologies for banned drug cheat Salazar, many times.
For example:
rekrunner wrote:
Salazar did act to benefit his athletes. With respect to the rule violations, here is who was being helped and how:
1) Magness infusion -- "L-Carnitine", a WADA legal substance, was intended to help athlete performance. No NOP athlete was helped by the infusion of excess liquid to Magness, nor was their sufficient evidence that others received an excessive infusion, nor would excess liquid help performance.
2) The "infusions are injections" email -- the purpose of this was to avoid unnecessary discussions about infusions, based on a series of misunderstandings. Infusions/injections are legal under 50ml, and become a "banned doping practice" above 50ml. (The rule has since been relaxed.) No NOP athlete's performance benefitted by the receipt of an email. No one benefitted in any way from the receipt email that in any case was not correct, nor relevant, nor applied.
3) The "trafficking" of testosterone -- According to the report, the testosterone experiment, performed on non-athletes, was intended to address a concern of post-race sabotage of NOP athletes. All athletes benefited indirectly from the knowledge that it would take a lot of cream, too much to go unnoticed, for sabotage to trigger a positive.
nor was their (sic) sufficient evidence that others received an excessive infusion, nor would excess liquid help performance.
It's clear as day fella. I'm interested in one thing and one thing only - catching bent coaches.
rekrunner wrote:
Killeriott wrote:
As per usual you are out of your league here. PEDs don’t necessarily mean he will run a 10.2 100m. How silly are you as you attempt to deny drug usage in sport? You end up as the biggest advocate of PEDs here. Yes I said advocate. Due to your being such a relentless apologist, your are a de facto advocate of PED usage.
"PEDs" is an ambiguous term. PEDs can mean 100 things to 100 people. Some PEDs are even WADA legal, so PEDs doesn't seem like a useful term.
If we carry your thought just a little further, PEDs don't necessarily mean he will run a 12:35 5000m either.
The rest is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about performance:
- I never deny "drug usage in sport"; I talk about performance, not prevalence
- I never advocate breaking any rules; I would only advocate PEDs that don't break any rules or harm the health of any athlete
- I never apologize for anyone breaking the rules
"PED'S " is not an ambiguous term - except to you. It is only used in respect of banned drugs. No one is talking about coffee or fruit bars. But I am not surprised that you say you advocate PED'S, as the greatest apologist on these boards for their use.
rekrunner wrote:
Killeriott wrote:
Joshua ran a 12:35 5000m which meant he was running liken 3 and 1/3 1500m avg 3:46.6 and yet he cannot easily run faster than 3:37 for 1500m. He should be able to EASILY run 3:37. It makes me think he is taking PEDs.
If he was taking PEDs, shouldn't that mean he is able to EASILY run 3:37?
Mo ran 3.28x. 3.37 seems a little slow for a 12.35 runner. Off his cycle?
This type of stupidity is 100% posted by the type of inconsequential clowns who post threads titled: "27 years old, can I improve from 20:13 5k to sub-18 (or 19, eventually).
Very poor analysis from the OP. Nothing surprising about a 3:37 at 4k feet for a rust-busting underdistance race. If he ran the 1500m at Monaco he'd run at least 3:32.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Mo ran 3.28x. 3.37 seems a little slow for a 12.35 runner. Off his cycle?
Mo Farah ran just 3:34.66 in mid-May of his 2012 double gold Olympic year, and a disastrous 3:57 mile indoors to finish 4th. Must've been off his cycle then you blithering idiot.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The rest is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about performance:
- I never deny "drug usage in sport"; I talk about performance, not prevalence
Incorrect.
Googling rekrunner prevalence letsrun proves you wrong.
1st hit out of 362 :
rekrunner wrote:
It is true though that doping prevalence can vary widely depending on event or sport or dope or sex or country
2nd:
rekrunner wrote:
Can you convert "parade of doping busts" into a percentage? Given the large number of East African athletes, I am not convinced that the prevalence is unusually high.
Moving on...
rekrunner wrote:
- I never apologize for anyone breaking the rules
Also incorrect. For example, you made lots of apologies for banned drug cheat Salazar, many times.
For example:
rekrunner wrote:
Salazar did act to benefit his athletes. With respect to the rule violations, here is who was being helped and how:
1) Magness infusion -- "L-Carnitine", a WADA legal substance, was intended to help athlete performance. No NOP athlete was helped by the infusion of excess liquid to Magness, nor was their sufficient evidence that others received an excessive infusion, nor would excess liquid help performance.
2) The "infusions are injections" email -- the purpose of this was to avoid unnecessary discussions about infusions, based on a series of misunderstandings. Infusions/injections are legal under 50ml, and become a "banned doping practice" above 50ml. (The rule has since been relaxed.) No NOP athlete's performance benefitted by the receipt of an email. No one benefitted in any way from the receipt email that in any case was not correct, nor relevant, nor applied.
3) The "trafficking" of testosterone -- According to the report, the testosterone experiment, performed on non-athletes, was intended to address a concern of post-race sabotage of NOP athletes. All athletes benefited indirectly from the knowledge that it would take a lot of cream, too much to go unnoticed, for sabotage to trigger a positive.
Sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood several points.
I was accused of attempting to "deny drug usage in sport". It is a common accusation, but also false, as I have never attempted to deny drug usage in sport.
"I talk about performance, not prevalence" only refers back to this thread, when I said "shouldn't that mean he is able to EASILY run 3:37?" -- the trigger for the smokescreens. In the past, in other threads, with other subjects, where the topic drifted to prevalence, or was specifically about prevalence, I have talked about prevalence. But here, I talk about performance, not prevalence.
The statement was "apologize for anyone breaking the rules", not "made apologies for banned drug cheat".
These quotes about Salazar's rule violations, and who they helped, are not apologies for breaking the rules.
Apparently the point there was whether he acted to benefit his athletes, even if he didn't dope them, which seemed to be in doubt.
Acting to benefit your athletes, even indirectly, should not be seen as an apologetic justification for breaking the rules.
Every instance of rule breaking is arguably acting to benefit an athlete, so this can't be the basis for an exception.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
If he was taking PEDs, shouldn't that mean he is able to EASILY run 3:37?
Mo ran 3.28x. 3.37 seems a little slow for a 12.35 runner. Off his cycle?
Did you just compare a perfect Monaco time trial in the peak of the season to an unrabbited season opener on a track in Uganda?
Armstronglivs wrote:
"PED'S " is not an ambiguous term - except to you. It is only used in respect of banned drugs. No one is talking about coffee or fruit bars. But I am not surprised that you say you advocate PED'S, as the greatest apologist on these boards for their use.
Despite your denial, it is still highly ambiguous, because the meaning of the words do not match what is meant. What may be clear to you, is not clear to the next one in the same way. It turns into a phrase that means what you want it to mean.
Choosing ambiguous terms can only lead to confusion, as some less informed individuals may think that all banned drugs are also performance enhancing, and all performance enhancing drugs should be banned.
Many non-performance enhancing drugs are banned, and many performance enhancing drugs are not.
You shouldn't be surprised that I would advocate coffee or fruit bars and any other substance that breaks no rules. No apologies are necessary for these performance enhancing substances.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Mo ran 3.28x. 3.37 seems a little slow for a 12.35 runner. Off his cycle?
Mo Farah ran just 3:34.66 in mid-May of his 2012 double gold Olympic year, and a disastrous 3:57 mile indoors to finish 4th. Must've been off his cycle then you blithering idiot.
I was referring to Mo's best time, which was also indication of his speed. Has Cheptegei ever run faster than 3.37?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"PED'S " is not an ambiguous term - except to you. It is only used in respect of banned drugs. No one is talking about coffee or fruit bars. But I am not surprised that you say you advocate PED'S, as the greatest apologist on these boards for their use.
Despite your denial, it is still highly ambiguous, because the meaning of the words do not match what is meant. What may be clear to you, is not clear to the next one in the same way. It turns into a phrase that means what you want it to mean.
Choosing ambiguous terms can only lead to confusion, as some less informed individuals may think that all banned drugs are also performance enhancing, and all performance enhancing drugs should be banned.
Many non-performance enhancing drugs are banned, and many performance enhancing drugs are not.
You shouldn't be surprised that I would advocate coffee or fruit bars and any other substance that breaks no rules. No apologies are necessary for these performance enhancing substances.
The truth is you don't believe any drugs are performance enhancing; it's all in the minds of the athletes. If anything is all in the mind it is your perceptions of doping.
under a bridge wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Mo ran 3.28x. 3.37 seems a little slow for a 12.35 runner. Off his cycle?
Did you just compare a perfect Monaco time trial in the peak of the season to an unrabbited season opener on a track in Uganda?
So that explains 9 seconds difference? I suppose you are going to tell me he was running in army boots, too. I see that his previous best of 3.37.8 was recorded in 2016. This is pedestrian stuff for a world record-holder over 5k and 10k.
Armstronglivs wrote:
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Mo Farah ran just 3:34.66 in mid-May of his 2012 double gold Olympic year, and a disastrous 3:57 mile indoors to finish 4th. Must've been off his cycle then you blithering idiot.
I was referring to Mo's best time, which was also indication of his speed. Has Cheptegei ever run faster than 3.37?
No - he hasn't. Mo could have run that time on one leg.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I was referring to Mo's best time, which was also indication of his speed. Has Cheptegei ever run faster than 3.37?
Has he ever time-trialed a 1500 seriously? The answer is no. You don't have to be as quick over 1500 as Mo is to run fast in the 5,000. And by the way Mo didn't even run a fast 5,000 so who even cares. The comparable athletes to Cheptegei (World XC champs and/or road and 10K success) who did run fast 5,000s (Bekele, Geb) weren't running 3:29 1500s annually.
Armstronglivs wrote:
under a bridge wrote:
Did you just compare a perfect Monaco time trial in the peak of the season to an unrabbited season opener on a track in Uganda?
So that explains 9 seconds difference? I suppose you are going to tell me he was running in army boots, too. I see that his previous best of 3.37.8 was recorded in 2016. This is pedestrian stuff for a world record-holder over 5k and 10k.
I didn’t say it makes a 9 second difference. I pointed out how ludicrous it is to compare the two without context. Do you not see why?
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion