Power13 wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
If his goal was to BQ and he knew it was going to be tough, it does not sense to pace it at 7:20 when he only needed 7:55. If I presented this argument to a non-runner they likely would consider this weak evidence. A runner would consider this pretty good evidence.
Quote:
Another example: his response to qualifying was extremely inconsistent with his narcissistic personality. Some would just shrug their shoulders and say, ehh, maybe he had a lot going on in his life. To me psychological response to achievement are habitual and instinctual and there is a significantly validity in pointing out the psychological inconsistency.This is just supposition and conjecture. It is not "evidence". "well, I think he should have acted like XXX". No one can say or extrapolate how someone should react to a given circumstance. If his run was legit (highly unlikely), he may simply have been exhausted and spent or overcome with emotion, etc.
Quote:
All of this is to say there is no such thing as objective evidence.Psychological markers can be mapped and codified to produce strong evidence. That you think it is nonsense is exactly my point. We cannot agree what objective evidence is. And this is why the Rossi's think they can get away with it and usually fail to do so.