The sport is in disaray. Nike, Salazar, and USATF are corrupt and it's time for a new organization to replace USATF as the governing body of US track and field. It's hard to cheer for any NOP athlete after last night.
The sport is in disaray. Nike, Salazar, and USATF are corrupt and it's time for a new organization to replace USATF as the governing body of US track and field. It's hard to cheer for any NOP athlete after last night.
Disappointed wrote:
It's hard to cheer for any NOP athlete after last night.
Unfortunately, I feel the same way.
Mary Cain will probably win tonight and I would normally cheer for her but now?
I am sorry, Mary, I wish you all the best - away from Alberto Salazar.
P White wrote:
Am I the only seeing lots of similarities between Salazars actions/behaviour and Lance back in his day?
The angry, control freak attitude seems to be there.
Good observation.
retty wrote:
the truth hurtzzz wrote:If this DQ goes through, never will I support a Salazar athlete ever again.
That's just dumb. Dumber than what Salazar has supposedly done. His athletes did not do this. HE did this (allegedly). There's no reason to dislike them for this.
Yeah. And Hitler was bad, but the nazis were good.
Bob Costas wrote:
The officials do the DQing, not the coaches.
Absolutely true.
Bad, bad call by the officials. Certainly gives the appearance of Nike getting their way instead of things being done fairly.
Testy wrote:
...Time will catch up with this crew...
Unfortunately that isn't how it works in this society. Plenty of bullies and less-deserving individuals get ahead and stay ahead by flexing economic muscle.
Capitalism rewards sociopaths
george oscar bluth wrote:
...getting a cancer survivor DQ'd for contact that DID NOT IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THE QUALIFIERS. Gane and Shannon were the best in the race.
What does her being a cancer survivor have to do with this DQ situation?
Please tell me you're not a defense lawyer or anything like that
Emotional outburst logic fail wrote:
george oscar bluth wrote:...getting a cancer survivor DQ'd for contact that DID NOT IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THE QUALIFIERS. Gane and Shannon were the best in the race.
What does her being a cancer survivor have to do with this DQ situation?
Please tell me you're not a defense lawyer or anything like that
It has nothing to do with whether or not she should be DQ'd, but has plenty to do with Sleazy's ability to sleep at night, which is what I'm baffled by.
Agreed!
Salazar was the greatest runner of his era. Perhaps all time.
Salazar is the greatest coach ever.
That sounds more like the Lance story than does Alberto's "control freak" behavior. If GG were an athlete from Turkey and she accelerated away from Rowbury like that - she gained 10 freaking meters within the course of 40 meters! - we'd all be in an uproar about her being obviously doped. Why isn't anyone talking about that? Because it's the USAs? Because she's a cancer survivor? Because she's from Minnesota? A 15% improvement is no joke - especially for a pro.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Emotional outburst logic fail wrote:What does her being a cancer survivor have to do with this DQ situation?
Please tell me you're not a defense lawyer or anything like that
It has nothing to do with whether or not she should be DQ'd, but has plenty to do with Sleazy's ability to sleep at night, which is what I'm baffled by.
OK, let's try again. If it has no bearing on whether she should have been DQ'd or not, then why should it have any bearing on whether AS can sleep at night? You're implying that AS shouldn't have gone for a DQ because she had cancer in the past. If you're not implying that, why did you bring up her cancer?
Consequently, you fail.
Emotional outburst logic fail wrote:
george oscar bluth wrote:It has nothing to do with whether or not she should be DQ'd, but has plenty to do with Sleazy's ability to sleep at night, which is what I'm baffled by.
OK, let's try again. If it has no bearing on whether she should have been DQ'd or not, then why should it have any bearing on whether AS can sleep at night? You're implying that AS shouldn't have gone for a DQ because she had cancer in the past. If you're not implying that, why did you bring up her cancer?
Consequently, you fail.
You clearly don't know the difference between ethics and legality, so there's no point engaging your ignorance.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Emotional outburst logic fail wrote:OK, let's try again. If it has no bearing on whether she should have been DQ'd or not, then why should it have any bearing on whether AS can sleep at night? You're implying that AS shouldn't have gone for a DQ because she had cancer in the past. If you're not implying that, why did you bring up her cancer?
Consequently, you fail.
You clearly don't know the difference between ethics and legality, so there's no point engaging your ignorance.
Lol.
Lawyer: "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I ask you to find the defendant guilty on the grounds he has dark hair"
Judge: " how is his hair color relevant?"
Lawyer: "it isn't, but I don't have a better argument"
Post up your email. I'd like us to meet up so I can laugh at your inability to construct an argument to your face.
Emotional outburst logic fail wrote:
george oscar bluth wrote:You clearly don't know the difference between ethics and legality, so there's no point engaging your ignorance.
Lol.
Lawyer: "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I ask you to find the defendant guilty on the grounds he has dark hair"
Judge: " how is his hair color relevant?"
Lawyer: "it isn't, but I don't have a better argument"
Post up your email. I'd like us to meet up so I can laugh at your inability to construct an argument to your face.
You're proving my point.
BTW, read Jamie Whyte's "Crimes against Logic"
I think it will help you in life
It was all a work to generate interest in the sport.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Emotional outburst logic fail wrote:Lol.
Lawyer: "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I ask you to find the defendant guilty on the grounds he has dark hair"
Judge: " how is his hair color relevant?"
Lawyer: "it isn't, but I don't have a better argument"
Post up your email. I'd like us to meet up so I can laugh at your inability to construct an argument to your face.
You're proving my point.
OK, I'm feeling charitable. I'm sorry I said mean stuff. Let's go back to basics. Answer one simple question for me, then we can get onto the more advanced stuff (like the difference between ethics and legality. Just DYING to hear what you have to say on that, BTW). Will you do this for me? Good. Now, try to stay on topic. Just answer this question:
"Is her prior cancer diagnosis relevant to the issue of whether or not she should have DQ'd?"
Post your answer and we can go from there.
Thanks
xmas games wrote:
Totally! I'm sure they are keen to risk losing their endorsements etc. over a petty argument with their coach. I bet you get in your bosses face to every time a minor injustice is done at work.
First, get one thing straight: Salazar is not Hasay or Rowbury's "boss."
If I lost a contract to a better prepared and more qualified professional, and a colleague engaged in corruption to get our competitor off the contract, I would leave that position.
If you wouldn't, I feel sorry for you and those around you. Gutless.