Adarq.org

I'm hoping you've just strained your multifidus (at the base of the spine, near the coccyx, and almost running parallel with the spinal column). I remember that getting very tight on me when I was doing a lot of power cleans. Good luck!

Unfortunately the max speed of the treadmill at the gym is 23km/h.
I was going to gradually work up to 36km/h see how it feels but that's not possible anymore, will have to see if I can find another place to use just for treadmill or buy my own if financially possible.

You know, there's no speed limit on a track....

some respect? he straight-up admitted to having sex with an incapacitated woman without her consent or even any reason to think she might consent under other circumstances. the fact that he doesn't seem to understand what he did doesn't absolve him or make it any better, it just means he's a fucking idiot in addition to being a rapist.

100%. I remember seeing an interview with rookie D-Rose and thinking that he was as thick as a brick. Not the type of guy you'd want to lavish with fame and millions of dollars at an early age.

to me the formula is simple:

If you want it bad enough, you can achieve it with a wide variety of training.. but, you have to really want it - which means you are truly obsessed with it, which means you think about it often, push yourself often, and push yourself hard. You can make mistakes, but you have to learn from them. You absolutely cannot take frequent time off.

personally i'd like to see him just take the approach of:

"fuck it. i'm just going to get strong as fuck. put some serious meat on my quads/legs/glutes. jump hard as fuck. dunk hard as fuck. sprint occasionally. eat good. get enough sleep. not overthink anything. not overanalyze anything. and just train like an animal."

 

*applause*

Scooby should ask himself: "Based on my training history, how complex can I make my training program before it becomes too hard to sustain for long periods of time?"

Great 3km time. Where does that put you for a predicted 5km?

Quote from: acole14 on September 23, 2018, 09:45:10 am

Quote from: Mutumbo000 on September 23, 2018, 07:43:51 am

Video blocked from WMG on "copyright grounds".

130x5 FS is good though!

Lol. It picked up the song being played over the gym speakers. As if the music isn't awful enough on its own, now it's blocking my videos  . I erased the audio, it should be fixed soon.

Oh and I should have said 130kgs x 5 for back squat, not front. I wish I could hit 130 x 5 FS. I've just been doing 3x10 at 70-80kgs, that's plenty for my wrists atm.

damn those SVJ's are looking GOOD.

yea your text was misleading, made sense when i watched the vid tho..

i really loved front squats as well, just made my upper back feel to achy once i started getting good with them. probably should have stuck with them though (at the time). definitely felt a good boost in my quad power when FSQ'n.

Thanks mate! Haha yeah, I hate making those mistakes. Very late when I posted that.

Yeah, when I was training with aths squad, we did front squatting over winter. That, plus a lot of paused squat jumps, had me jumping really well even with no especially heavy weights lifted (max ~80-85 kgs x 10 from memory).

Front squatting has really helped a lot (no surprise I guess). I got 130kgs x 5 last session. Been getting a few more jumps in as well, still hard. I just wait until the smaller room at the gym is free and try and hit the roof  . Bits of a session from yesterday:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hsg_aziJYk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hsg_aziJYk</a>

But in this case the umpire cannot say that it was a clear violation and that serena was receiving coaching instructions, but it is not clear, you don't see a clear cut violation from serena receiving instructions from her coach and it is not 100% clear that the communication between them was coaching instructions, even if it was, let's say, instructions in the form of a sign language, the umpire is not aware of this and so cannot declare a violation based on gut feeling rather it should be based on facts, clear cut violation.

Watch this. He is clearly indicating something, and given we're all just speculating, it looks as if he's making eye contact with someone and nodding at the end as if the message has been communicated. I doubt he's just staring into space, nodding and making random movements like that. It's ludicrous to say that if it was coded sign language, it's irrelevant as the umpire can't know what it means. What else would it be about? The umpire can absolutely make that call, because the International Tennis Federation (which upheld this violation) validated his ability to judge these situation when they picked him to officiate the match.

The divisive issue here is whether it should a 'soft' warning or a code violation. Unfortunately, that is the umpire's discretion. There's no obligation to provide 'soft' warnings before any code violation. So they may call it straightaway if they deem fit (and this umpire is a stickler). It's also important to note that after this incident, Serena did change her style of play and win a few points (I didn't see this myself but have read it here (a few comments down) and here). So, perhaps he sees this change of play and decides that this is a clear violation and has to call it . There's a lot we don't know about the actual circumstances, because some parts aren't documented (the fact that the coach admitted to coaching is interesting but not relevant at the time). What I'm trying to establish here, is you can't say it was grossly unfair to make that call. Also, it carried no penalty and did not have to decide the match the way it did. It's a tough call in a final, but it's not up to the umpire to predict whether a call will alter the subsequent flow of the match, or the temperament of the players (they might suspect so, but that's context-dependent and shouldn't be part of the assessment).

so what he should have done was give warning to serena and her coach as well as a clarification to the opposing player and her coach as not to communicate with their coaches in any way and if there are any further communication between player and coach in whatever form then they will be penalised for violating that rule (don't know what the name of the rule is, coaching violation?) so that they know in advanced what not to do and cannot argue if it happens again.

Maybe if it was a newly introduced rule, sure. Is it the umpire's job to warn a player for every potential code violation though, as if they've never played the game? According to Martina Navratilova, it's a well-known rule that is called. Martina also says it is common to give a warning, and I can see the argument. But if they think the coaching has influenced the score (as the umpire may have concluded here), perhaps they decide a straight violation is warranted if both parties clearly know and understand the rule. It speaks more to inconsistency of applying this stupid rule, which is why I just think that sort of coaching should just be allowed, and I would be stunned if it isn't heavily revised after this.

But when you have certain people, and I have seen this with umpires is that they do not handle criticism very well especially when it comes from players they are over seeing and therefore get offended when they are told you are wrong, then instead of thinking maybe I was harsh, they would go into the 'I am right and you are wrong and nothing you can say will change that' mentality and when race is involved it just makes the situation all the more worse because of supposed superiority of the umpire over the player like LBSS posted.

That situation you described is definitely plausible. But I when I was watching the match, they replayed the discussion between a few games and I couldn't believe how long Serena was berating the umpire for without getting pinged (there was even a break in the dialogue where she said "Don't talk to me", he looked away and seemed to be leaving it, then she launches in again). I thought he handled the criticism well at the time. First it was 'liar' (which normally would get a violation right there based on the clause of implying dishonesty or partiality), he let that go, then borderline threats along the lines of "I can make sure you don't umpire my games again", then 'thief' - this is the last straw and she gets another violation (not a discretionary full game penalty btw: an accrual of three violations gives away a game). I can't see any other reading of the situation apart from that Serena forced another violation from the umpire. I think if the umpire doesn't make that call there, he gets a lot of flack from the officiating organisation for letting a player do that for so long with no penalty.

So, first should be warning if the violation is not 100% clear so as to provide a support to any future arguments of any further doubtful similar situations.

A violation like that will never be 100% clear. But it could definitely impact the game straight away, so the umpire has to be on top of it and in certain situations, it's clear enough to be a straight violation - that's what the umpire decided. I think I'm fighting a losing battle here, but I really just don't get why the umpire is to blame because of lack of a warning for the on-court coaching call.

IMHO serena has more than earned the right to lose her temper when she feels like she's being treated unfairly. 

Losing temper in a match = yes. She has been treated awfully by the media and some umpires in the past, and there's definitely possible gender discrimination occurring in tennis and other sports in terms of relative standards of acceptable behaviour (the catsuit banning and Alize Cornet incident, for example). I respect her a lot for coming back so strong after pregnancy and using her influence for activism, which not every megastar athlete does or is obliged to.

Unreasonably sustaining temper, to the point of spoiling the other player's Grand Slam win (and it being the third time it's happened) = that's where I draw the line. Serena's a great player, comfortably amongst the pantheon of all-time tennis players with the Big Three and Steffi Graf. I understand the mitigating factors, I only wish she could have drawn on her experience to control her emotions just a bit better given this was the third time.