KEJELECHA DESTROYED CHEPTEGEI - 26:37 VS 26:53

Do you think you can be proved right based on your personal interpretation of another anonymous poster? You may appreciate my subjective assessment that "self praise detector" is one of the "small handful" of posters, now hiding behind many anonymous handles in various threads. But I could be wrong, and you may be right, that it is not only a small handful who make such baseless accusations, but maybe up to a half-dozen, or a dozen, or a score, or more who reflexively use the same psychological self-defense mechanisms attempting to mask their inability to provide the requested supporting objective facts, evidence, and controlled observations.

But more importantly, this anonymous poster does not baselessly call me "probably pro-doping" like you do. He accused me of exhalting myself, and spattering on myself, the same way you did by saying "I'm very good at identifying patterns". And he accused me of giving "tragicomical defenses of all the convicted dopers".

He is wrong on both counts. You are asking me to trust you based on your self-proclaimed excellence in several areas, where I do not ask anyone to take my words on such faith of any self-proclaimed expertise in any area. My words stand on their own based on the objective facts I provide, regardless of my expertise, or lack thereof. He also misleadingly characterizes my highlighting some of the established historical facts surrounding various convictions of various athletes "from Gatlin to Houlihan" as a defense of dopers, rather than a defense of the facts surrounding the doping convictions, intentionally erasing any nuance in an obvious attempt to discredit otherwise unrefutable and undisputed facts.

I think your persistent faith in the appeal to authorities as infallible is letting you down.

When you say "convicted doper", it is my pro-fact agenda which reminds everyone here that it is WADA who defines what that means in the context of convictions of violations of the WADA Code. It is also my pro-fact agenda which says that WADA also explains what "intentional" means, as well as the legal standard required for adjudicators and arbitrators to deem "intentional".

Contrary to your assertion, these WADA modified definitions are not tautological to the everyday mundane understanding of these same terms.

You alleged I made false claims, but you are not in any position to conclude that any of my fact supported claims are false. Who do you mean by certain experts (plural?) I don't consider Prof. McGlone was dishonest, as he honestly conceded several things that supported Houlihan's case, and I suppose he honestly gave other of his own expert opinions. He did downplay certain of his statements, and in my opinion given other facts publicly available, his expert testimony seems non-exhaustive and incomplete, but I don't consider him or his testimony to the CAS rises to the level of "dishonest". Regarding Prof. Ayotte, the inconsistencies in her statements in the CAS hearing, in previous anti-doping hearings, and her own peer-reviewed research, not to mention the potential conflict of interest, are all a matter of public record. All of my opinions on these two experts, based on a wide variety of publicly available facts, are in line with my pro-fact agenda.

You may have missed the latest AIU/Kenya doping thread about a new interview with Clothier:

Clothier also disclosed that doping cheats are discovering new substances and practices to avoid detection by moving from the common Erythropoietin (EPO) to a new special form of EPO called serum

So if I'm harassing you why aren't you blocking me on LRC?????

"If dark forces conspire to prevent anyone from making such confirmations, this explanation at best still concedes that both your cause and effect remain unconfirmed hypotheses."

Sorry this statement shows your holding steadfastly to your dogmatic demand of objectivity to a SINISTER fault. Now I know why so many folks are bent on calling you pro-doping!!!!

If dark forces conspire to prevent anyone from making such confirmation, this explanation AT BEST concedes that both cause and effect are rather TRUER AND STRONGER than before!!!!! This should be to the deductive angle to take!!!!

The effect: information willfully suppressed by BIG TECH and BIG GOVERNMENT just as for COVID vaccines

The CAUSE OR WHY: because it's so true beyond a shadow of doubt that the possibility of collapse of BIG TECH and BIG GOVERNMENT and their unjust human rights stratagems and schemes could be shockingly exposed sooner if the truth is not suppressed and allowed to circulate like wildfire!!! It will become a human rights travesty with lawsuits galore okay?????

The suppression is an aggravation of the truth, NOT A DETRACTOR WHICH YOU ALWAYS TEND TO INSIST!!!!

This is why you need to diversify your repertoire and admit subjective space-time events rather than be dogmatic about 100% objective evidence because you never know the circumstances of the objective evidence you see, you read online from web browers, articles, journals when I, Khamis have personally invested time, energy and flight tickets to sit nose to nose with Olle Johansson and Henry Lai, 2 greatest RF geniuses, to see pictures and other evidences of how rigged, suppressed, indeed faked and prevaricated 'objective evidences' are!!!!!! They are showing me, which I double and triple confirm, that many of the RF experiments done by government scientists were intentionally rigged to omit negative effects and only neutral or no/negligible effects-----and then sold you to, dear rekrunner on google and even NLM, PUBMED as 'OBJECTIVE'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But it's not objective one bit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay do you understand you fool??????

That's why you have a lot to learn, a lot to diversify your portfolio and start paying much more homage to subjective space-time events around supposedly objective doctrines/facts precisely because the moment you know the FULL PICTURE you will be shocked at how PARTIAL the 'objective' evidence is hence grossly subjective all the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Back to square one my dear rekrunner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"but I cannot take it for granted as a foregone conclusion,"

That's fine, but don't come attacking me and persuade incessantly that I must follow you and not take for granted as foregone conclusion. Do we think, reason and emote alike??? Have you been in the RF health effects research industry as a member, researcher, scientist, advocate for half a century like me??? Have you actually been as close as nose-to-nose or otherwise with heavyweight superstars like Henry Lai and Olle Johansson and seen pictorial evidence, death threats in the form of letters in fountain ink, seen where they live and what they do from day to day like I did?????

I have the ability, skills, capacity to take for granted as foregone conclusion due to a culmination of favorable space-time events that is obviously more advantageous towards taking for granted as foregone conclusion while you don't and that's why you can't, refuse, or deny taking for granted as foregone conclusion okay????

"I would be happy to wait in silence until the moment you can report that such progress in RF-research has been made."

That's why this is the problem of your attitude which makes you very pretentious. You press me for the answer and not only you don't except my, and Henry Lai's and Olle Johansson's all-knowing God-level judgement or otherwise being between the 3 of us we have 200 years of RF knowledge and understanding and experience, but you yourself don't go in pursuit of the answer yourself!!!!! You prefer to cast aspersions on LRC and throw insults and sarcasm at me and my answers to you when being not satisfied with my answers you could easily, SO EASILYYYYYY, take 1 month of your time away from LRC to specifically look up NOT GOOGLE, NOT BING, but the National Library of Medicine of the United States of America Journal, PubMed, Degrutyer, Reviews on Environmental Health, Sciencedirect, so many to choose from!!!

That you rather choose to pick on me and even mock at me and my knowledge by saying stuff like "if RF is real we would all be lying dead around now" to make me seem insane or mad or otherwise rather than switch frames in a jiffy and go on an Aladdin-esque carpet journey on PubMed, Sciencedirect, NLB truly reveals your insincere, inauthentic and morally questionable behavior and acting.

And then as your final act, you are now telling me I cannot be allowed to be given my rights to come to any means of reasoned conclusion that you are 'pro-doping' and 'pro-doper'????

What are you friggin doing babe??????

"You are asking me to trust you based on your self-proclaimed excellence in several areas, where I do not ask anyone to take my words on such faith of any self-proclaimed expertise in any area. My words stand on their own based on the objective facts I provide, regardless of my expertise, or lack thereof."

Are you sure you don't want me to take your words not because you are afraid you are being disingenuous with me and want to protect me but rather to ensure you can be very impartial or objective????

If your words on your own achievement and standing in society can be trusted in and of themselves then why wouldn't you ask anyone to take your word in faith unless you yourself have a history of being unfaithful and thus WOULD LIKE TO KNOW also the unfaithfulness in other men????

Why would I lie or be dishonest about things I say on LRC??? Don't you see I write and reason meticulously with elegance and style and thus have to use energy, time and resources to do so rather than out of random vexation like a street wanderer or troublemaker????

You see that's the problem with you, you miss out on so many subjective assets and advantageous-ness of reason and reasoning due to dogmatically fallaciously sticking to a 100% objective doctrine only---which I still explained to you previously is born of fundamentally subjective emotion, imagination and feelings first and foremost.

Yes I was referring to this when I talking speaking to rekrunner. Apparently, he is slow in following the news on LRC LOL!!!

I'm not trying to support, I'm trying to question instead why you choose to add stress on anthropogenic RF rather than doping. If, in your frame of reference you cannot seem to find both the negative harm of RF as well as the positive benefit of doping, then at least be mentioning them together as ONE in your statements. Say completely-----elite athletes are getting faster in a climate of both increased AD violations some of which include those for banned substances, and, increasing anthropogenic RFs.

So you do also question the supposed benefit of banned substances in raising performance level yet this is equally as susceptible for elite athletes getting faster as anthropogenic RFs because ironically the retardation caused by RFs that pushed athletes to using banned substances to raise performance thereby get faster.

I did. I don't see anyone saying the new substances are "sophisticated" like Khamis suggested here. In fact, Clothier and the AIU seems to already know about "serum" and other new drugs and regarding using new drugs to avoid detection, he said "we are smarter than them".

Why would I? I'm not afraid of words. Just pointing out the irony and hypocrisy.

So what changes materially in my above conclusions about "sophisticated" and "performance"?

Recall you were suggesting that "the correct way to view RF is that it's slowing down runners soon and fast enough in space and time that they have to turn to doping to break even". The AIU and Clothier say nothing about RF and nothing about performance.

What's even more curious is that you were arguing that RF makes modern non-Africans exposed to anthropogenic RF slower than the East Africans in countries with low anthropogenic RF. I'm talking about the non-Africans like Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Whiteman, Fischer, etc. from modern RF-rich countries who are getting faster. How does Kenyan doping with new drugs help you make your point?

Dear rekrunner, as expected you are again wrong on all counts, and try to distract from your anti-fact pro-myth agenda.

My persistent faith? You have no idea about my faith. "appeal to authorities as infallible"?? Neither did I appeal to authorities nor do I think authorities are infallible. Curious distraction, however.

"Contrary to your assertion"?? I asserted no such thing. Another curious distraction from you.

WADA sees Shelby as a doper, and so does the public at large. "everyday mundane understanding"?? Weird point to make, especially without saying what the everyday mundane understanding of a doper is.

Regarding the experts, now you are finally getting to the point, but alas with utter nonsense, from beginning to end. "downplay", "non-exhaustive", "incomplete", "inconsistencies" etc. only exist in your imagination. None of these words appear in that context in the CAS report, or in the Supreme Court's decision. Nor did Shelby's laywers make such false claims during the CAS meetings or in their appeal! That should tell you something...

"public record"??? You gotta be kidding; writing down your wild dreams on this forum doesn't constitute "public record".

You pretending your myths are facts prove your anti-fact pro-myth agenda.

I am wrong? Prove it. Instead of distracting again, show these public records. Ya you can't, that's what I thought.

Not everyone uses multiple handles like you, dear rekrunner.

And now you are denying your repeated futile attempts to praise yourself??? For realz? Just go back one page...

"otherwise unrefutable and undisputed facts" ROFL I just demonstrated how wrong your "facts" aka myths are.

These are not my choices but yours. You chose to link anthropogenic RF to slower performance. It is your burden to establish both that there is a slower performance and that it is linked to anthropogenic RF. Rather than meeting your burden, you chose to introduce the existence of a confounder, which only adds to your burden.

It is hardly complete to say "doping AND RF", as this neglects at least a half dozen if not more factors which can cause elite performances to be faster or slower.

But make no mistake -- you are the one who needs to make all of the choices to support your initial claim.

After reading all this, your initial claim regarding anthropogenic RF slowing performances remains "unconfirmed hypothesis".

You cannot confirm the hypothesis by claiming "BIG TECH and BIG GOVERNMENT" prevents everyone from confirming the hypothesis. That is not a standard that will pass peer review.

But if you want me to go down that route blaming BIG TECH and BIG GOVERNMENT for obstructing the truth, again, to get me started, you will have to give me some objective facts, evidence and controlled observations.

I don't actually press you for any answers, but only for objective evidence that supports your initial unconfirmed hypothesis. You've told me from the beginning, that no one has such objective evidence -- so I will wait until that time in space when and where someone will. It is not my burden to research your claims.

The reason we have "peer review" is that no one's words can be trusted, regardless of achievement and standing. Even Newton was eventually proved wrong by Einstein, and his achievements and standing were far superior to mine.

I don't particularly want you to take my words, or not take my words. You can take them or leave them, and it makes no difference to me. In a forum where virtually everyone is anonymous, I am not bothered whether you agree with my subjective opinions, or not. And like you, I am free to discard all of your subjective ideas, replacing them with my own whenever necessary. But objective facts, evidence, and controlled observations are not things you can choose to believe or disbelieve, but rather the reality you are forced to accomodate. Eventually they may be refined or even disproved, but only by introducing newer, better objective facts, evidence, and controlled observations.

I only post as rekrunner.

I went back one page. Not sure why.

If I am wrong, it is customary to show me which parts are wrong, and what is considered to be right.

Regarding Shelby's "doping", much of the public believes the WA/AIU and the CAS established that Shelby intentionally doped with an oral nandrolone precursor.

Yet the WADA Code makes it clear that an athlete can be sanctioned for 4-years for violations presumed intentional, yet not requiring to establish knowing use or fault or negligence or intent of doping on the Athlete's part.

WADA and the CAS make it clear that intent was not established to any standard (i.e. not beyond reasonable doubt) but rather presumed. Therefore at least reasonable doubt if intent remains. The CAS also makes it clear that the source of the nandrolone was not established to any standard.

Therefore, WADA's view of "convicted doper" and the public's view of "convicted doper" are not tautologies. WADA's view is a result of some built-in shortcuts.

Regarding "downplay", "non-exhaustive", "incomplete", "inconsistencies", I have already explained these in more detail in other threads. But sure, here is a non-exhaustive example of each:

Prof. McGlone conceded "pigs ate soy diets during the pandemic", then downplayed its significance.

Prof. McGlone's testimony did not address other sources of intact pigs, e.g. chemically castrated pigs slaughtered several weeks after the vaccine wore off -- a likely scenario during the pandemic, making his testimony incomplete and non-exhaustive.

Both experts argued specifically against "pork stomach" and "pork meat" -- again making their testimony incomplete and non-exhaustive, when attempting to address Houlihan's broader claim of "pork offal". Prof. McGlone said high concentrations can be found in pork kidneys, fat, testes, and salivary glands, which supports Houlihan's broader claim of "pork offal".

Prof. Ayotte misleadingly argued that Shelby's values were 2-3x what occured in the "pork meat" literature, yet Prof. Ayotte neglected to mention that her own research showed that Shelby's claim of "pork offal" can produce up to 20-25x Shelby's values. This inconsistency between Prof. Ayotte's testimony and her research is a matter of public record.

Shelby's team did not limit their arguments to pork meat, pork stomach, or cryptorchid pigs, their claims were broader than the AIU expert responses.

Yet Shelby's response was also incomplete and non-exhaustive. They were under time constraints, not always in possession of exculpatory evidence, and constrained by scopes and definitions in the WADA Code -- limiting what they could argue in front of the CAS.