Donavan Brazier 1:42:70!!!!

Can all of you shut up about Amos and focus on what the thread is about, Brazier’s incredible run. Thanks

On Brazier, that's one of the best finishes I've seen, ever. He made up about 20 metres over the last 200, which is a huge margin in an international 800, and absolutely chewed through the field. They were standing still. He powered through the last 30 metres and his form at the line was great. To finish like that in a fast race is really something.

On the women's side this year, Muir's 57 final lap in her last 1500 was an impressive finish, as was Hassan in setting her mile wr, but both of them were well in front 200 out. Brazier, however, was Steve Austin; he cut the field down like he was the Six Million Dollar Man on overdrive.

Armstronglivs wrote:

but what about wrote:

I'd contend that lack of improvement would support no drug use. Unless you're saying, he was drugging as a teen, stopped, and now is only getting back to that level because he's clean now, but not then?

1.41 at 18 is doped, and in his case I believe that at 25 it still is.

That is 100% your opinion, nothing else.

Ghtf wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

1.41 at 18 is doped, and in his case I believe that at 25 it still is.

That is 100% your opinion, nothing else.

And that statement is 100% opinion and nothing else.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Ghtf wrote:

That is 100% your opinion, nothing else.

And that statement is 100% opinion and nothing else.

No, it is the truth. Your "1.41 at 18 is doped..." is just and only what you believe. What the other poster has stated: "That is 100% ..." is a fact.

logical fail wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And that statement is 100% opinion and nothing else.

No, it is the truth. Your "1.41 at 18 is doped..." is just and only what you believe. What the other poster has stated: "That is 100% ..." is a fact.

The converse opinion that it isn't doped is itself a belief - with not much to support it other than blind faith in the efficacy of testing (Christian Coleman, anyone? Lance?Marion?) Nothing can prove a performance is clean when doping can escape detection - and it generally does. With official estimates of doping in elite sports across the board in the region of 30-60% of athletes the chances that any top performance is doped remains high. But cling to your dreams, by all means.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The converse opinion that it isn't doped is itself a belief - with not much to support it other than blind faith in the efficacy of testing (Christian Coleman, anyone? Lance?Marion?)

Who has said it isn't doped?

logical fail wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The converse opinion that it isn't doped is itself a belief - with not much to support it other than blind faith in the efficacy of testing (Christian Coleman, anyone? Lance?Marion?)

Who has said it isn't doped?

A concession. Thank you. So that means you accept it is possible Amos is a juicer.

Armstronglivs wrote:

logical fail wrote:

Who has said it isn't doped?

A concession. Thank you. So that means you accept it is possible Amos is a juicer.

With this answer you have now shown clearly that you are stupid and that a serious discussion with you is not possible. For sure do I "accept" that it's possible Amos is a juicer. Any body could be a juicer - how do you want to show someone isn't a juicer? It's impossible.

Armstronglivs wrote:

seasoned ranker wrote:

So no, you don't understand what it means. Got it.

That something hasn't happened doesn't mean it is inevitable that it will. Clearly, you haven't grasped that point yet. Case in point. I doubt you will. Yet you still haven't corrected the typo in your handle.

When one says, "Jack has done A yet Jack hasn't done B", the yet implies that A is helpful towards B.

Hope that helps.

Armstronglivs wrote:

seasoned ranker wrote:

I don't really disagree with anything you said.

He just undermined your prior argument. Records - pr's - don't require a 6'-plus rabbit to the tape. Rudisha didn't need one. Neither did Coe or Kipketer.

What argument do you think he undermined?

He is supporting my argument that 2012 was an outlier event that caused outlier PRs from the people who got to run behind and chase Rudisha. Coe would benefit, Kipketer would benefit, Amos benefited and would benefit from it again. The argument that this undermines is your hilariously bad take that one doesn't "need to be chasing anyone to run any harder or faster". It puts that to rest.

logical fail wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A concession. Thank you. So that means you accept it is possible Amos is a juicer.

With this answer you have now shown clearly that you are stupid and that a serious discussion with you is not possible. For sure do I "accept" that it's possible Amos is a juicer. Any body could be a juicer - how do you want to show someone isn't a juicer? It's impossible.

Good luck explaining basic logic to this guy. It appears hopeless.

logical fail wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The converse opinion that it isn't doped is itself a belief - with not much to support it other than blind faith in the efficacy of testing (Christian Coleman, anyone? Lance?Marion?)

Who has said it isn't doped?

This guy is an idiot. He can't understand basic argument. It's basically not worth anyone's time

Armstrong: if you say 'Amos is doped' that's an opinion until proven true. The day your opinions are automatically assumed as fact is the day the world ends.

If I say 'thats your opinion' then my statement is not an opinion. It is a fact. It doesn't imply the opposite condition (Amos is clean) nor does it support your original opinion (Amos is doped). It is just a statement which truthfully states that it is your opinion that Amos is doped, and there is no evidence to support your opinion.

Evidence being a positive drug test.

Now I know you are Coevett because your grasp of logic is abysmal.

End of discussion.

ex-runner wrote:

logical fail wrote:

Who has said it isn't doped?

This guy is an idiot. He can't understand basic argument. It's basically not worth anyone's time

Armstrong: if you say 'Amos is doped' that's an opinion until proven true. The day your opinions are automatically assumed as fact is the day the world ends.

If I say 'thats your opinion' then my statement is not an opinion. It is a fact. It doesn't imply the opposite condition (Amos is clean) nor does it support your original opinion (Amos is doped). It is just a statement which truthfully states that it is your opinion that Amos is doped, and there is no evidence to support your opinion.

Evidence being a positive drug test.

Now I know you are Coevett because your grasp of logic is abysmal.

End of discussion.

...or an ABP violation (e.g., Kiptum), a refusal to submit a sample (e.g., Kendagor) & involvement in a doping scandal (e.g., Operation's Puerto, Galgo, Skype or state-sponsored doping).

FTFY

So many plodders here who think that their word games can resolve the question of whether a runner dopes. But it does enable them to stay inside their little protective bubble: "if I can't (or won't) see it, it isn't happening". Then they add to it their contorted theorising that the runner in question has really somehow run faster than he actually has - because he would have if he had had the right pacing, not been injured or been staying up late at night playing disc jockeys. Vintage Ventolin - and equally fanciful.

When everyone else tells you that you are talking in circles and can’t form a cogent argument, it’s you, not them. Saw it with you in the Serena thread as well. You’re helpless.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So many plodders here who think that their word games can resolve the question of whether a runner dopes. But it does enable them to stay inside their little protective bubble: "if I can't (or won't) see it, it isn't happening". Then they add to it their contorted theorising that the runner in question has really somehow run faster than he actually has - because he would have if he had had the right pacing, not been injured or been staying up late at night playing disc jockeys. Vintage Ventolin - and equally fanciful.

Great to see you are still doing well, Neil. And I thought you have passed away long ago.

But I thought they had choosen brighter people to do such trips.

seasoned ranker wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

He just undermined your prior argument. Records - pr's - don't require a 6'-plus rabbit to the tape. Rudisha didn't need one. Neither did Coe or Kipketer.

What argument do you think he undermined?

He is supporting my argument that 2012 was an outlier event that caused outlier PRs from the people who got to run behind and chase Rudisha. Coe would benefit, Kipketer would benefit, Amos benefited and would benefit from it again. The argument that this undermines is your hilariously bad take that one doesn't "need to be chasing anyone to run any harder or faster". It puts that to rest.

Unfortunately for your argument, the runner who set the world record in the London race did so entirely from the front and was not led by anyone at any stage of the race. In your strange version of reality that shouldn't have been possible. Rudisha wasn't "chasing anyone", yet ran his fastest ever time. Indeed, by your reasoning no world record or even pr should be possible without the requirement "to chase anyone to run any faster or harder". Yet we see that running from the front for much of the race has often been a feature of such performances - Coe and Kipketer demonstrating this with their own record performances. But from your argument it appears that Amos can only run his best when chasing Rudisha.

How many races in his prime did Rudisha have someone bigger than him that set a wise pace to chase for 800m?

Where did I argue a record couldn’t be run without a pacer?

You. Are. Dense. People have taken notice.