43t34t43 wrote:
BigNickWillisFan wrote:
BTW, Nick Willis DOES read these boards. To think that he has read the disgraceful doping apologist posts from the likes of rekrunner, El K, vivalarepublica, Nipples, and the rest of the crazy gang...
https://twitter.com/nickwillis/status/1032628684547604480Hey Coevett, you racist imbecile!
Hi vivalarepublica! Talk to you soon!
It should be clear by now that for good reasons, nobody cares what you think.
BigNickWillisFan wrote:
BTW, Nick Willis DOES read these boards. To think that he has read the disgraceful doping apologist posts from the likes of rekrunner, El K, vivalarepublica, Nipples, and the rest of the crazy gang...
https://twitter.com/nickwillis/status/1032628684547604480
I am NOT a fan. Since reading his daft idea that Kenyan athletes be uprooted from their homes and families in the Rift Valley and forced to train in London(!). Another one that sees Kenyan athletes as cattle.
North West Indiana FBI wrote:
43t34t43 wrote:
Hey Coevett, you racist imbecile!
Hi vivalarepublica! Talk to you soon!
Dude, I have not posted in this thread in pages. I just check in to see if you are still slandering my name. You are a paranoid nut.
vivalarepublica wrote:
North West Indiana FBI wrote:
Hi vivalarepublica! Talk to you soon!
Dude, I have not posted in this thread in pages. I just check in to see if you are still slandering my name. You are a paranoid nut.
GFY instead of your ugly mother you paranoid imbecile. I haven't posted in this thread or anywhere else for days either. This is my first post since I got a 7 day ban for insinuating Billy Konchellah had used drugs for illicit purposes.
I am a big fan of the clean world record holder though.
rekrunner wrote:
For a detailed look the data I used, and how that shapes my opinions, please re-read the first three posts here:
Even your own self-chosen data don't show that, as there were many improvements larger than 1%.
Plus, your pre-1990 vs. post-1990 comparison would only then show the EPO effect if 1) your top-5 athletes pre-1990 were clean and 2) your top-5 athletes post-1990 were using EPO. You will not find many people agreeing to both of those assumptions...
If assumption 1) is not true, then you'd see the changes of replacing blood transfusions and lots of primitive steroids with EPO and smaller amounts of more sophisticated steroids. (I leave HGH and the speed peptide for another time.)
If assumption 2) is not true, then naturally you don't see any EPO effect.
vivalarepublica wrote:
North West Indiana FBI wrote:
Hi vivalarepublica! Talk to you soon!
Dude, I have not posted in this thread in pages. I just check in to see if you are still slandering my name. You are a paranoid nut.
Hey a$$hole, less of the "paranoid".
rekrunner wrote:
For a detailed look the data I used, and how that shapes my opinions, please re-read the first three posts here:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8635957
The only distance you have for "not more than 1%" is the 1500 (which is actually 1.1% by your calculations). You have the EAs at 1.6% (3000), 2.3% (SC), 2.6% (5000), 3.0% (10000) and 3.2% for the marathon.
Other than the ~1% for the 1500 - where is it "not more than 1%" for the other distances? Are you misinterpreting your own data?
Coevett wrote:
GFY instead of your ugly mother you paranoid imbecile. I haven't posted in this thread or anywhere else for days either. This is my first post since I got a 7 day ban for insinuating Billy Konchellah had used drugs for illicit purposes.
I am a big fan of the clean world record holder though.
Yeah! Lagat is the best!!
Survey Says.... wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
For a detailed look the data I used, and how that shapes my opinions, please re-read the first three posts here:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8635957The only distance you have for "not more than 1%" is the 1500 (which is actually 1.1% by your calculations). You have the EAs at 1.6% (3000), 2.3% (SC), 2.6% (5000), 3.0% (10000) and 3.2% for the marathon.
Other than the ~1% for the 1500 - where is it "not more than 1%" for the other distances? Are you misinterpreting your own data?
No that would be a fallacy
Now when do the names drop already
You asked me which *data* formed the basis, not about my interpretation of the performance data, and all the causes of progress. If EPO was the only changing variable over three decades, you might have a point. I don't really want to rehash the performance thread -- everything you could possibly say has been said over there, and addressed. But just the same, if you read the rest of that thread, you will find how I interpreted the data. Since EPO was a global drug, available everywhere, widely abused, and globally undetectable, and the performance success was local to athletes from two regions in Africa, even when they were permanently based in countries with testing, I argued that: - EPO is a bad explanation for the success of Africans - the small progress of non-Africans (0.3% to 0.8%) representing 85% of the world population over three decades, is a better indication - the regional success of North Africans and East Africans are best explained by other regional factors unique to Africans and Africa
Survey Says.... wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
For a detailed look the data I used, and how that shapes my opinions, please re-read the first three posts here:
The only distance you have for "not more than 1%" is the 1500 (which is actually 1.1% by your calculations). You have the EAs at 1.6% (3000), 2.3% (SC), 2.6% (5000), 3.0% (10000) and 3.2% for the marathon.
Other than the ~1% for the 1500 - where is it "not more than 1%" for the other distances? Are you misinterpreting your own data?
I don't hassle you, or call you names, but I said your MEDICAL research papers do not address the specific questions about training and performance. If Nick Willis had your back, I would still point out that you are avoiding answer Renato's questions, by providing answers to questions that were not asked.
m!ndweak wrote:
yeah i wonder if nick willis had my back and said so, maybe rek would shut up all ready about hassling me...like dude come on man, i post MEDICAL research papers and he calls me names, i post MEDICAL research papers and says i pull sh*t out of my a$$. i posted the latest MEDICAL RESEARCH PAPER from 2016, that their results showed PROFOUND changes in the number of mitochondria and how large they grew.
now i dont know, maybe rekrunner has a Phd in physiology.....my bett , is NOT, as he seems to try and argue with medical papers with his OPINION. but anyways rhEPO not only INCREASES the runners amount of red blood cells above NATURAL levels, it now is shown in the 2016 paper i linked earlier that it makes more and larger mitochondria than NATURALLY. now lets see here...more and larger mitochondria? like the cell that is responsible for all that ATP energy? nah making more and larger mitochondria wouldnt help a runner at all nope, not what i believe nope no way
I looked at more factors than doping, when interpreting the times. It is the small progress, by so few, for all non-Africans, for nearly three decades, that leads to my opinion. I rejected as unlikely all the assumptions you would need to make to explain why Solinsky was the first non-African sub-27:00 10K runner, if a powerful, global, and undetectable (or easily beatable) endurance drug existed.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
For a detailed look the data I used, and how that shapes my opinions, please re-read the first three posts here:
Even your own self-chosen data don't show that, as there were many improvements larger than 1%.
Plus, your pre-1990 vs. post-1990 comparison would only then show the EPO effect if 1) your top-5 athletes pre-1990 were clean and 2) your top-5 athletes post-1990 were using EPO. You will not find many people agreeing to both of those assumptions...
If assumption 1) is not true, then you'd see the changes of replacing blood transfusions and lots of primitive steroids with EPO and smaller amounts of more sophisticated steroids. (I leave HGH and the speed peptide for another time.)
If assumption 2) is not true, then naturally you don't see any EPO effect.
Does Rekrunner actually have any supporters on this board, apart from Canova? In fact, I think even Canova distances himself from the loon.
Rekrunner's IT Boss - Get Back To Work NOW! wrote:
Does Rekrunner actually have any supporters on this board, apart from Canova? In fact, I think even Canova distances himself from the loon.
That's got to be one of the funniest handles I've seen seen! ?
1) I'm on vacation. In Europe we get lots of vacation. 2) I don't need or seek supporters here. I'm not so insecure that I seek approval and comfort and a feeling of belonging from like-minded people coming together saying the same things. My arguments are not going to be decided by popular vote.
Rekrunner's IT Boss - Get Back To Work NOW! wrote:
Does Rekrunner actually have any supporters on this board, apart from Canova? In fact, I think even Canova distances himself from the loon.
Coevett wrote:
vivalarepublica wrote:
Dude, I have not posted in this thread in pages. I just check in to see if you are still slandering my name. You are a paranoid nut.
GFY instead of your ugly mother you paranoid imbecile. I haven't posted in this thread or anywhere else for days either. This is my first post since I got a 7 day ban for insinuating Billy Konchellah had used drugs for illicit purposes.
I am a big fan of the clean world record holder though.
As if anyone believed anything you say.
rekrunner wrote:
You asked me which *data* formed the basis, not about my interpretation of the performance data, and all the causes of progress.
If EPO was the only changing variable over three decades, you might have a point.
I don't really want to rehash the performance thread -- everything you could possibly say has been said over there, and addressed.
But just the same, if you read the rest of that thread, you will find how I interpreted the data.
Since EPO was a global drug, available everywhere, widely abused, and globally undetectable, and the performance success was local to athletes from two regions in Africa, even when they were permanently based in countries with testing, I argued that:
- EPO is a bad explanation for the success of Africans
- the small progress of non-Africans (0.3% to 0.8%) representing 85% of the world population over three decades, is a better indication
- the regional success of North Africans and East Africans are best explained by other regional factors unique to Africans and Africa.
What evidence do you have that EPO was widely abused and globally undetectable? Wasn't a test implemented in Sydney and the first ban was a positive from the 2001 WCs? And wasn't OOC testing started in the mid-00s for most of Europe & the U.S.?
Further, what are you defining as widely abused? If you're basing off of EPO positives and ABP hematological sanctions then by and large that would be #1) Russian Athletics (especially the women & men RWs - over 80 combined EPO bans & ABP sanctions!) and #2) Morroco (over 40 EPO positives & 11 ABP sanctions). No other nations come close to these numbers.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
It should be clear by now that for good reasons, nobody cares what you think.
I should remind you about your "welcome" to the message boards after you prolonged absence. Nobody cares what you think, you are an asshole, and you only get support from loons like m!ndweak and Coevett.
rekrunner wrote:
You asked me which *data* formed the basis, not about my interpretation of the performance data, and all the causes of progress.
If EPO was the only changing variable over three decades, you might have a point.
I don't really want to rehash the performance thread -- everything you could possibly say has been said over there, and addressed.
But just the same, if you read the rest of that thread, you will find how I interpreted the data.
Since EPO was a global drug, available everywhere, widely abused, and globally undetectable, and the performance success was local to athletes from two regions in Africa, even when they were permanently based in countries with testing, I argued that:
- EPO is a bad explanation for the success of Africans
- the small progress of non-Africans (0.3% to 0.8%) representing 85% of the world population over three decades, is a better indication
- the regional success of North Africans and East Africans are best explained by other regional factors unique to Africans and Africa.
Follow-up question from the first post: What would be these "regional factors unique to Africans," especially with the Morrocans?
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these