What Grok thinks the likelihood of top runners doping is

"Forum speculation of Kessler's veins". Ah, yes, the smoking gun: At times seeing a bicep vein on a lean elite 800/1500 male runner who also rock climbs and hits yhe weight room. Leave the 15% because anyone could be possibly doping, but that post on Kessler is too ridiculous to even type.

GPT is specifically trained on Reddit.

When you use this stuff, you're basically talking to the most annoying millennials in existence.

Grok doesn't know about El G and Bekele's silent bans!

Thought 20% for Nugues is too high. Best form, perfect body type, wants only to be a Dentist so wouldn't risk doping.

What does Gronk think about doping in elite athletics?

this AI is bullshet.

Grok is not properly trained on all of the necessary domain data needed to make a better assessment. I doubt there is a publicly available LLM model that really is

Grok doesn’t “think” anything.

Grok is a large language model trained on existing internet slop, giving you a predictive answer based on markov chains. None of this means anything, and your post is boring. The fact that you think Grok’s waffle is interesting suggests you don’t understand what you are interacting with. Please don’t start taking like, life advice from LLMs.

Habz: more than one hundred percent

this guy was a 340 runner in his natural peak years

and on the all time list at 32.

and from dope land

Any African on the list is likely 100% sure to be doping. Just the way things really are. KB was obviously a super reaponder in the EPO era.

This isn’t even from Grok. 🤣

This whole thread is based on some asinine statistical theory if you ask me. How can there be percentage variations in possible cheating? Isn't it the case that somebody is either using performance enhancing drugs or isn't? Shouldn't that mean that the percentages are either 100% or 0%. The only way to know for sure is to test someone, and then of course you have the possibility of false positives. Just skimming through the explanations, they are all explanations based on poor reasoning. For example:

Nader 10%. Basically, the argument is a linear progression, no positive tests, a tactical win, no outlier time. This is philosophically naive. It's a simple absence of evidence argument for a low cheating chance. It's well known that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Nader could still be doped and just getting away with it. The 10% means nothing.

El Guerrouj 85%. So, no positives, but widespread suspicion? Reports of undetectable blood doping? From where and whom? So unproven rumors qualify as evidence all of a sudden? Consistency suggests micro-dosing? According to what data and even what logic? The reasons given are laughably bad and inconsistent. It's either black or white. There is no positive evidence that El G doped, so if he did he just got away with it. We don't know one way or the other and at this point it's unproveable. We have to live with uncertainty sometimes.

There's several listed where the reason is something like "ties to suspicious coach" or ties to rumors of some kind of national doping rings. This is as illogical as suggesting something like some Italian Americans are in the Mafia, so therefore we should be suspicious that all Italian Americans are. It's laughably and almost childishly stupid.

There's too many other problems with the OPs Grok post to write about or that I want to spend too much time writing about, but I am finding that suspicion of doping is oftentimes inconsistent and contradictory when you look at all of the potential common reasons in a list.

Some common contradictions:

Age. The athlete is either too young or too old to be clean. Contradiction

Consistency. Too many years at the top or they just ran a fast time out of no where. Contradiction.

Ethnicity, nationality, race, etc. I have seen literally every country be blamed as a scapegoat for why an athlete of a particular country may be doping. Common ones are Americans, Kenyans, Ethiopians, Russians and Moroccans, but as I've said, I've seen every country on earth with a successful distance runner blamed for having some kind of in clandestine, underground, state sponsored doping program. There is no doubt an unconscious and sometimes flagrantly conscious racist mentality is behind this. Inconsistency and loads of contradictions.

Family genes. His or her parent were great, but there were rumors the parent doped, so he or she must be doping to. Or instead, the parent was no very fast, so therefore the athlete must be doping because he or she doesn't have the talent genes. Massive contradiction.

Training. He doesn't train hard so he's doping. Oh, but wait, he trains way too hard to be clean. He must therefore be doping to be able to train THAT hard. Contradiction.

There's many more, but the above should suffice. I'm just trying to show that the only way to really show that someone is doping is with a positive test and even that can have a minor fail rate. All other reasons are usually purely anecdotal, inconsistent, conjectural, assumptive, and inconclusive. Yeah, I was suspicious about Ruth C after her 2:09 but some people really did think she was clean and gave excuses like her prior marathons going out at the same crazy pace, but just not being able to hold it until that "magical" race in Chicago. I had a 50/50 chance of being right, and just by luck it seems like I happen to be right. I could have easily been wrong. I'm sorry but people are way overconfident in assessing if an athlete is doping. The most rational approach I can think of is to just admit that you don't know and that the smart thing to do is to just let time play out to see if they ever test positive. There's no other way.

So, no non-African has ever doped?

LJ, let's look at this from a different angle. You would admit that at the prep level you do see athletes who are not very good at first sometimes make a giant performance leap right? What are the reasons? Usually they are something like, improvements in training quality and volume, staying healthy without injury, perhaps better equipment, even psychological effects like a new coach, city, environment, team, relationship, religion, or focus. If this is the case, then why can't the same reasons be used for an elite athlete? It would seem to me that your assumption that Habz is doping just because of a sudden improvement is based on a logical fallacy. You are focusing on one possibility of improvement while ignoring countless others. It doesn't mean he's not doping, but you sound overconfident.

Grok doesn't "think" anything and its output about speculative topics is roughly the equivalent of consulting a magic 8-ball.

Nuguse has the worst form of any top 1500 runner and is very awkward. You gay dudes really stick up for each other. I’ll give you that.

He didn’t say that.

But these days, there’s little reason to believe any African is clean. Over 400 Kenyans alone being suspended is a sign of a problem. A huge problem.

Afrophiles always try to twist things. In before cries of “ray-ciss” are fired off.

Gee, no racism there then.

You were right! It only took a few minutes. The poster above immediately dives into racism to deflect. LOL

Actuarial judgments perform no better than chance. That's what this is: a chance that any athlete is doping made into science for legitimacy.