HA! When is the last time you joined Coevett in condemning a doper? Clearly far from "everytime" as proven by all recent examples.
I hereby condemn, for all time in the past, present, and future, all athletes in all sports in all of history, and all future instances hereafter, who intentionally dope against anti-doping rules, as well as all coaches, doctors, pharmacists, and any other support personnel who intentionally dope the athletes against anti-doping rules, like WADA, for reasons of fairness, health, and spirit of the sport.
I join Coevett everytime, in spirit, for the condemnation of intentional doping. Do I need to explicitly say that 400x a year, everytime an athlete is announced for suspension, then again for the ban? Is that the minimum standard of fealty? -- everyone must condemn every instance twice, or risk being labeled an apologist? Would that even work? That would make for very uninteresting discussion. But rest assured, I do not ever apologize for intentional doping against the anti-doping rules.
While Coevett largely focuses on the highly publicized Kenyan busts, in his quest to debunk genetics, he fails to join me in condemning the Indian, Russian, American, European, Chinese, Moroccan, Bahranian, etc. intentional doping, as well as doping in cycling, bodybuilding, and all the rest of Olympic and non-Olympic competitive sports.
This shouldn't prevent meaningful discussions about potential performance, or any other relevant facts.
So you cannot come up with a single example where "you joined Coevett in condemning a doper". That's what I thought.
So you cannot come up with a single example where "you joined Coevett in condemning a doper". That's what I thought.
I guess you are going to think whatever you want.
I wonder, does Coevett ever explicitly condemn individual dopers? In the last two "another Kenyan busted" thread, he just provided a link, the names of the athletes, and their doping offense, without expressing any condemnation. A quick google search on the keywords "Coevett" and "condemn" produced nothing obvious in the last five years.
My recollection is that he launches attacks on all Kenyans, or attacks me, or calls his critics doping apologists, or attacks genetics, or accuses athletes of doping who were not found to be doping, or makes a joke about bad apples, or changes the subject.
But in all cases, (I have to update my statement) my condemnation extends to all athletes who intentionally and knowingly uses banned substances and methods, with the intent to gain an advantage, regardless of Coevett's explicit or implicit condemnation. This goes without saying.
You condemn intentional doping but never see it. Just as you never see performance benefits from doping.
I see all that has been shown to date.
Sorry - no. There are intentional dopers out there - and especially amongst the hordes of Kenyans - but you never see them. So you don't see anything of what has been shown. That even applies to convicted dopers. Was Shelby Houlihan a doper?
Sorry - no. There are intentional dopers out there - and especially amongst the hordes of Kenyans - but you never see them. So you don't see anything of what has been shown. That even applies to convicted dopers. Was Shelby Houlihan a doper?
If someone shows an intentional a doper, I see it.
I saw that the AIU and the CAS presumed Houlihan intentionally doped.
Sorry - no. There are intentional dopers out there - and especially amongst the hordes of Kenyans - but you never see them. So you don't see anything of what has been shown. That even applies to convicted dopers. Was Shelby Houlihan a doper?
If someone shows an intentional a doper, I see it.
I saw that the AIU and the CAS presumed Houlihan intentionally doped.
I know what the AIU and CAS said. They started with a presumption of intentional doping, which she was unable to rebut, so the Court made it a finding that she intentionally doped. So, was she a doper?
Alex Hutchinson is a doping promoter, by promoting the false idea that doping helps runners to run faster, which is a stupid idea.
The human body thrives on homeostasis, i.e. "the self-regulating process by which biological systems maintain stability while adjusting to optimal conditions for survival."
Toxic chemical drugs are not natural and are not food, and they are primarily toxic, which means humans needs to get rid of them in order to get back to being in homeostasis.
Drugs are not good for people, and they do NOT help anyone to run faster than they already do by natural means.
Looks like you really don't "got me". If you've looked at the history of the sport, why are you unaware of the improved coaching?
Cross country in the 1980s showed the depth of the talent pool in both Kenya and Ethiopia, for the seniors and juniors, unlikely to be from EPO or blood transfusions.
There were systems in place, which improved when a few coaches started working with Kenya and Ethiopia.
The disagreement is that you think the large drops in times in the 1990s and afterwards, were related to doping (something that should have been easily replicated outside of Africa), while I think the large drops were due to improved training for a group of highly motivated, and highly talented athletes, something that also did not exist in the 1980s to the same degree.
There is no contradiction to say they were already good before EPO, showing depth of talent, and potential, and that they got better with more effective and consistent training that allowed them to realize their full potential.
The Kenyans did not dominate cross country from the early 1980s. The two greatest cross country runners of the 80's were Paul Kipcoech and John Ngugi. Kipcoech died in an El Doret hospital at age 32 from an 'illness' that had mysteriously forced him to retire in 85. Ngugi, who did dominate in the late 80's, refused to take an out-of-competition drug test in 1993 received a four-year suspension.
In short, you're a racist doping apologist rekrunner and full of $hi t.
Kenyan dominance has been built from peds from the start, from Kenio in 68 to the cross country 'domination' of the 80's and to Kiprop and today.
Kipcoech
Kenio
- Kipkoech retired two years before becoming World Champion
- 86 is in late 80's
- El Doret - wonderful! Is she the younger sister of Juan Torena?
Alex Hutchinson is a doping promoter, by promoting the false idea that doping helps runners to run faster, which is a stupid idea.
The human body thrives on homeostasis, i.e. "the self-regulating process by which biological systems maintain stability while adjusting to optimal conditions for survival."
Toxic chemical drugs are not natural and are not food, and they are primarily toxic, which means humans needs to get rid of them in order to get back to being in homeostasis.
Drugs are not good for people, and they do NOT help anyone to run faster than they already do by natural means.
Well steroids allow the athlete to handle more stress. Then they increase the stress and the body adjusts accordingly. Fairly simple concept right.
For instance, the body produces EPO so regardless that doesn't change "Homeostasis" even though everything you said is just plain wrong.
I love how we have decades of study proving performance enhancing drugs enhance performance, then an anonymous LetsRun poster says wrong because I said so.
Why cant the mods even do the bare minimum and remove blatant misinformation.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
I fvcking hate this person and needed to compain more.
So you cannot come up with a single example where "you joined Coevett in condemning a doper". That's what I thought.
I guess you are going to think whatever you want.
I wonder, does Coevett ever explicitly condemn individual dopers? In the last two "another Kenyan busted" thread, he just provided a link, the names of the athletes, and their doping offense, without expressing any condemnation. A quick google search on the keywords "Coevett" and "condemn" produced nothing obvious in the last five years.
My recollection is that he launches attacks on all Kenyans, or attacks me, or calls his critics doping apologists, or attacks genetics, or accuses athletes of doping who were not found to be doping, or makes a joke about bad apples, or changes the subject.
But in all cases, (I have to update my statement) my condemnation extends to all athletes who intentionally and knowingly uses banned substances and methods, with the intent to gain an advantage, regardless of Coevett's explicit or implicit condemnation. This goes without saying.
If someone shows an intentional a doper, I see it.
I saw that the AIU and the CAS presumed Houlihan intentionally doped.
I know what the AIU and CAS said. They started with a presumption of intentional doping, which she was unable to rebut, so the Court made it a finding that she intentionally doped. So, was she a doper?
Actually, what I saw in the arbitration panel's written decision was "must be deemed".
But the question isn't what someone else found, but what has been shown, because you questioned what I "see". Seeing is something you do with your eyes, and requires something visible to be shown to the beholder of the eye. Unless you have something new to show, I have seen everything that has been shown. That which has not been shown, cannot be seen, short of supernatural clairvoyance and the all-seeing Eye of Providence.
Likewise, the explicitly stated grounds for the arbitration panel's deemed finding was something that they couldn't see clearly enough, and is therefore only grounded in presumption. Both the arbitration finding, and the negated finding, remain invisible.
I wonder, does Coevett ever explicitly condemn individual dopers? In the last two "another Kenyan busted" thread, he just provided a link, the names of the athletes, and their doping offense, without expressing any condemnation. A quick google search on the keywords "Coevett" and "condemn" produced nothing obvious in the last five years.
My recollection is that he launches attacks on all Kenyans, or attacks me, or calls his critics doping apologists, or attacks genetics, or accuses athletes of doping who were not found to be doping, or makes a joke about bad apples, or changes the subject.
But in all cases, (I have to update my statement) my condemnation extends to all athletes who intentionally and knowingly uses banned substances and methods, with the intent to gain an advantage, regardless of Coevett's explicit or implicit condemnation. This goes without saying.
Who gives a sh!t
Fair question.
Apparently "LoLling" cared enough to respond to a 5-year old statement. Who would dig through the letsrun archives and make the effort to respond if they didn't care?
I am constantly addressed in countless threads by dozens and dozens of anonymous nobodies who seem to very much "give a sh!t" what this particularly nobody thinks.
It makes me wonder about their psychology, their intellectual insecurity, and their fears, but as you asked, who cares what I wonder about?
Alex Hutchinson is a doping promoter, by promoting the false idea that doping helps runners to run faster, which is a stupid idea.
The human body thrives on homeostasis, i.e. "the self-regulating process by which biological systems maintain stability while adjusting to optimal conditions for survival."
Toxic chemical drugs are not natural and are not food, and they are primarily toxic, which means humans needs to get rid of them in order to get back to being in homeostasis.
Drugs are not good for people, and they do NOT help anyone to run faster than they already do by natural means.
I agree that there are a lot of false ideas in circulation, partly given more weight from scientists turned journalists. With hindsight, everyone can now see that this entire thread was based on a series of nonsense.
These Kenyan EPO performance time trials were a small part of larger research on "gene expression" from recombinant EPO. So far so good.
The Kenyan time trials took a group of nearly elite Kenyans, some with an estimated 8:00 capability for 3000m, based on previous performances. They conducted a series of time trials before and after EPO. In the pre-EPO time trial these Kenyans ran around 9:23 (roughly marathon pace). The the post-EPO time trial for weeks later, they ran 8:57 (roughly half-marathon pace), and again 9:04.
All of these time trials are about 1 minute too slow for the estimated capability of these Kenyans. The researchers also measured RPE of the Kenyans which confirms that the Kenyans did not race these time trials, but tempo'd them.
Furthermore, the EPO administration was not double-blinded, and none of the time-trials were conducted with a control group, and the Kenyans were not 3000m specialists.
This confirmation that "EPO works" that supposedly "calls out CANOVA" is based on a group of scientists getting a group of Kenyans to run their half-marathon pace for 9 minutes.
Real confirmation would look something like first training these Kenyans to run 8:00 time-trials, and then using double-blind EPO administration to get them to run 7:40, and compare that improvement to a control group.
You are assuming that oxygen uptake determines our potential. I'm saying something very different, that normal oxygen uptake is essential for basic health and that the best athletes don't have or need superior oxygen delivery, just norml oxygen delivery. They are fast because they are super efficient biomechanically. Running is a skill that takes huge amount of training to develop from a baby to an adult.
It's really not hard to work out, but for some reason a lot of exercise physiologists have an alternative agenda. Drug research excites them. It's not healthy for the sport if they have a confirmation bias. I have already pointed out these concerns to Yiannis Pitsiladis, but this is not really his true fielf of study, he's a geneticist.
Then why isn’t there a high number of elite runners with vo2max of 55?
I know what the AIU and CAS said. They started with a presumption of intentional doping, which she was unable to rebut, so the Court made it a finding that she intentionally doped. So, was she a doper?
Actually, what I saw in the arbitration panel's written decision was "must be deemed".
But the question isn't what someone else found, but what has been shown, because you questioned what I "see". Seeing is something you do with your eyes, and requires something visible to be shown to the beholder of the eye. Unless you have something new to show, I have seen everything that has been shown. That which has not been shown, cannot be seen, short of supernatural clairvoyance and the all-seeing Eye of Providence.
Likewise, the explicitly stated grounds for the arbitration panel's deemed finding was something that they couldn't see clearly enough, and is therefore only grounded in presumption. Both the arbitration finding, and the negated finding, remain invisible.
With your stupid quibbling about what "seeing" means you show your usual seeking refuge in semantic drivel. You are a dumb literallist. "Seeing" is also understanding - but not in your case - as the brain has to process the sensory information it receives. That is why the astute "see" more than the ignorant - or those in denial, like yourself.
Your continue to lie about what CAS decided. The finding of the Court - and it was a finding of fact - was based on the standard it explicitly applied, of the balance of probabilities.
Because you have no idea how a Court works you don't understand that Houlihan wasn't found guilty on the basis of a presumption alone. If that were so there would have been no case, no need for evidence, no opportunity to present a defence and no decision required by the Court. Your argument effectively treats the presumption as nothing more than a parking ticket, that incurs an automatic penalty. Such witless drivel is the inevitable consequences of lying to yourself.
With your stupid quibbling about what "seeing" means you show your usual seeking refuge in semantic drivel. You are a dumb literallist. "Seeing" is also understanding - but not in your case - as the brain has to process the sensory information it receives. That is why the astute "see" more than the ignorant - or those in denial, like yourself.
Your continue to lie about what CAS decided. The finding of the Court - and it was a finding of fact - was based on the standard it explicitly applied, of the balance of probabilities.
Because you have no idea how a Court works you don't understand that Houlihan wasn't found guilty on the basis of a presumption alone. If that were so there would have been no case, no need for evidence, no opportunity to present a defence and no decision required by the Court. Your argument effectively treats the presumption as nothing more than a parking ticket, that incurs an automatic penalty. Such witless drivel is the inevitable consequences of lying to yourself.
Whether "see" is literal or figurative, it completely fails for the same reasons. There was nothing shown for me to see or understand.
I understand you are describing a defective process designed for quick and cheap resolutions by eliminating the requirement for such showings, rather than a process designed for establishing robust truths.
You fail to understand I am not subject to these defective processes and standards that are unable to establish truths.
I also understand how logic works. No matter how much you wordsmith it with an undeserved arrogance, concluding the assumption is not logic, but a fallacy.