More of the usual.
Nobody nor anything I have read has suggested that NOP dopes. What all the various people/sources have said is that they go right up to the edge. However, that edge is a line between illegal and legal, a very clear one. NOP I think walks up to where their toes are right there tangent to the line, but they don't cross it.
I have no problems with that. I don't assume they aren't doping, but I prefer to operate innocent until proven guilty
PS: To that guy that said Lagat bought off his B sample...really? And guys like Powell, Gay, and Gatlin who have probably 5-10x the support and income of Lagat didn't.
B sample discussion is one thing, but of all the B sample arguments you could pick that strikes me as a pretty poor one.
former NOP strength coach speaks on drugs!
Pro News/Info/Results
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
LM wrote:
Nobody nor anything I have read has suggested that NOP dopes.
Okay, first of all nobody you have read? You read people, fascinating.
Second, because you didn't READ it therefore it cannot be true. Ummm, yeah, sure. -
Maple Drive wrote:
all NOPers are dopers
No evidence, just more slimy bs on the liars rant MBs.
If you rhyme does it make it true?
Maple Drive, have you stopped abusing young children? -
TiredOfLetsunTards wrote:
This thread, like many on letsrun, makes a select group of runners look like finger pointing bitches. I'm strongly anti-drug, but I'm also anti-conspirarcy theory. Many of you sound like 'tards with an inability to critically think. From a washed up runners perspective, you sounds like jealous has beens or never will bes. Be specific, point to facts. Avoid hyperbole and red herrings. Right now your "smoke" points back to you making you look petty and immature. Grow up, post facts (pictures of lance and alberto or galen looking non-alpha make you look like a fool) or stfu.
It is not a conspiracy that Alberto Salazars athlete Mary Slaney failed a drug test. It is not smoke or even a red herring. It relevant fact. He should expect at the very least to be under the microscope considering the past. I could understand why people would be suspicious. Should we just ignore this because this was a long time ago? Some people go a little overboard on this site, but considering that he had an athlete fail in the past, I believe it calls for a little suspicion don't you think? -
LosersRant.com wrote:
I'm a NOP uber-fanboy!
A Duck is my hero's hero!
Everything I wear has a swoosh!
Okay, we know who you are. -
Fratjacket wrote:
The entire NOP group is doping. They take the top talent and see who really wants to be fast. Seeing how much they can handle is probably part of their hazing. Those who leave are those who refuse to dope. Why? With all that money and power, Nike athletes get what they want. If they want to be fast, why not take something that will help you get faster?
Why not huts make sh#t up and pretend it's true?
Another loser on liars rant.com -
Mad WIld Guy wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Alberto may be pushing science, but nothing suggests he's using banned substances or procedures.
Nothing? Okay, sure..... ;-)
No, let's just make up sh#t, act all knowing and condescending - another loser on liars rant.com -
Quackers wrote:
LM wrote:
Nobody nor anything I have read has suggested that NOP dopes.
Okay, first of all nobody you have read? You read people, fascinating.
Second, because you didn't READ it therefore it cannot be true. Ummm, yeah, sure.
1) You found a mistake in my sentence. Good work, but not especially relevant to the discussion topic.
2) Nice fallacy. Nowhere in my comment did I say, or imply, that because I haven't read anything about NOP doping that they are not doping. If you aren't trolling and actually thought I said that...nevermind, you actually seem like an intelligent poster so there is no way you extracted that meaning
Which means you are either intentionally arguing poorly, or more likely just playing the trolling game, since the clear point of my comment is that there is a serious lack of evidence in any form suggesting NOP is doping, and what little hearsay "evidence" we have gathered over time suggests that if anything NOP is not cheating. Which again, to be ABSOLUTELY clear, does NOT mean that the NOP is clean. -
Sandy Beach wrote:
ALL NOPers are dopers
If I can rhyme it must be true - just another loser on liars rant.com -
Lucker wrote:
c da change wrote:
, a guy who studied epo and knows how to pass tests is now consulted by Nike athletes. That's horrible for the sport and if you don't see that you obviously don't care about fair sport
Would you know it alls please prove this assertion?
They won't because it's a lot easier to make sh#t up on liars rant.com
See, you just accuse and it's the "guilty until you prove yourself innocent" who have the responsibility to prove a negative which can never be done.
Cynical, whiny losers love to do this sh#t. -
LM wrote:
Good work, but not especially relevant to the discussion topic.
Look beyond your fanboyism. Positive testing is a thing of the past. The Lance Armstrong case, and the xenon gas case, prove that positive testing is not necessary to convict someone, or ban something retroactively. It's a new catch-the-gray-zone-user world out there. -
LosersRant.com wrote:
quack quack quack quack quack
Your commentary is very A Duck-like. Be careful when you rant. Don't give yourself away. -
c da change wrote:
I guess you too, are not very intelligent. Go back, read my posts, I gave links. Do a quick search on the guy and BOOM. Simple, stop being lazy and uninformed.
No liar, one of your links lists a resume and the other tells an incomplete story about Lagat, see here for rest of story:
http://www.rediff.com/sports/2003/oct/02ath.htm (b sample negative) -
Quackers wrote:
LosersRant.com wrote:
quack quack quack quack quack
Your commentary is very A Duck-like. Be careful when you rant. Don't give yourself away.
Again no evidence just ad hominem and accusation. I can clearly tell you don't have much to say. -
LosersRant.com wrote:
Again no evidence... I don't have much to say.
Okay, your secret identity is safe with me. I won't rat you out. You can manage that on your own well enough. -
Quackers wrote:
LM wrote:
Good work, but not especially relevant to the discussion topic.
Look beyond your fanboyism. Positive testing is a thing of the past. The Lance Armstrong case, and the xenon gas case, prove that positive testing is not necessary to convict someone, or ban something retroactively. It's a new catch-the-gray-zone-user world out there.
"Look beyond your fanboyism" - More fallacies? You don't have a clue how I feel about NOP. How deep are you going to go with these drawing random, tangential "conclusions" from my post.
Lance Armstrong was pretty solidly convicted, considering he admitted to doping.
As far as "grey zone" stuff like Xenon gas; assuming I understand the situation correctly, what the Russian's did was not illegal. Xenon gas was not a banned substance at the time.
You assert that "positive testing is not necessary to convict someone", I'm open to this idea though don't see exactly how aside from a confession or positive test you are going to prove someone doped. -
Evidence???
No, just more ad hominem. -
LM wrote:
Quackers wrote:
LM wrote:
Good work, but not especially relevant to the discussion topic.
Look beyond your fanboyism. Positive testing is a thing of the past. The Lance Armstrong case, and the xenon gas case, prove that positive testing is not necessary to convict someone, or ban something retroactively. It's a new catch-the-gray-zone-user world out there.
"Look beyond your fanboyism" - More fallacies? You don't have a clue how I feel about NOP. How deep are you going to go with these drawing random, tangential "conclusions" from my post.
Lance Armstrong was pretty solidly convicted, considering he admitted to doping.
As far as "grey zone" stuff like Xenon gas; assuming I understand the situation correctly, what the Russian's did was not illegal. Xenon gas was not a banned substance at the time.
You assert that "positive testing is not necessary to convict someone", I'm open to this idea though don't see exactly how aside from a confession or positive test you are going to prove someone doped.
LM, I admire your effort to engage in legitimate dialogue, but understand Quackers and his ilk aren't interested in that. They have their preconceived notions to blather on about and can't be bothered with facts, evidence and rational argumentation. They assume they know everything - including your identity (crackers thinks I'm a duck, e.g.), where you stand on issues that you might not have even made known and all kinds of other matters. Perhaps a few are trolls (don't you think), but most are just aholes with opinions - facts and intelligent dialogue be damned. -
ah, letsrant and lm putting up defencive force shields for nike and nop. ¿did you two also defend nike favourite armstrong to the bitter end?
-
Nop Guilty wrote:
ah, letsrant and lm putting up defencive force shields for nike and nop. ¿did you two also defend nike favourite armstrong to the bitter end?
You guys make my point over and over - no evidence just accusation.
Not a cycling fan in the least, had no interest and paid no attention to Armstrong. But nice non sequitur on NOP and Armstrong, and ditto on the attempted guilt by association assuming that I had interest and took a position.
