I can't single any poster out, it's a bigger message at play here. So when I say "you all", if the shoe fits, wear it.
But you all are the reason we have problems with transparency to begin with. You're making it worthless, by deciding it's worthless. For what ever reason (or the exact reason that it doesn't show what you want it to), you decide it's not anything. And then you'll go over to the Radcliffe thread and complain that she thinks it isn't worth it to release data.
If you want to have a conversation about it's validity, then have a conversation about it's validity. Talk about the publication, the author, the comparison to models. Or, if you want to talk about what the data means, then talk about that.
But anything less is just hostility that creates the environment we are stuck in now: omerta, anti-transparency, and the holier-than-thou attitude by those in the sport.
But you all are the reason we have problems with transparency to begin with. You're making it worthless, by deciding it's worthless. For what ever reason (or the exact reason that it doesn't show what you want it to), you decide it's not anything. And then you'll go over to the Radcliffe thread and complain that she thinks it isn't worth it to release data.
If you want to have a conversation about it's validity, then have a conversation about it's validity. Talk about the publication, the author, the comparison to models. Or, if you want to talk about what the data means, then talk about that.
But anything less is just hostility that creates the environment we are stuck in now: omerta, anti-transparency, and the holier-than-thou attitude by those in the sport.