I like that. Narve "hasn't been caught doping" - so he isn't doping. Like all those other athletes who haven't been caught but dope to the gills. But from 3.36 to 3.29 in a year at age 24 in a dirty sport you could put money on it that he is.
You chose those words: "You never concede anyone caught doping did so intentionally".
you may attack,and he may attack,you go at each other,and he always beats you.thats my observation of it all.i think youd be lost without him,and that you actually like each other.someone to spar with..he makes this site a lot more interesting.
My observation is you cannot use the shift key, the space bar, the period, the apostrophe, etc. correctly, making your posts most unreadable.
Whether he beats me or not, he always fails to support his expressed beliefs with substantive facts, opting instead to beat me with personal insults. I guess that is interesting in its own way.
You obviously don't, you dense moron. I started this thread.
Like I said, you beat yourself.
Hardly, since I was never in competition with you. But if you think Narve's progression was "Ramziesque" then you are effectively saying what I have throughout this thread. Changed your mind - or just a bit confused about what you really think?
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I like that. Narve "hasn't been caught doping" - so he isn't doping. Like all those other athletes who haven't been caught but dope to the gills. But from 3.36 to 3.29 in a year at age 24 in a dirty sport you could put money on it that he is.
You chose those words: "You never concede anyone caught doping did so intentionally".
The problem with Occam’s razor is that it is a two edges sword -you can cut the gordic knot with it, but also your own throat….
You tell us about some confidential athlete survey (one of three doping, and perhaps much more) -if you mean the one by Rolf Ulrich and co it is now available (it’s about 2011 /12 and therefore too old; and highly controversial in my eyes. It’s not that a certain % of the athletes admit doping in this survey; not at all…)
There have been several surveys of athletes but the most noted were those involving World Championships and Pan Arab Games about a decade ago. Doping hasn't ceased or even been reduced since then - as the stream of positives in recent times in Kenya has shown. The results of those surveys showed unequivocally that vastly more athletes dope than are caught, although the studies have resulted in different interpretations of what that figure will be. Mostly it has been between 1 in 3 and possibly more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes.
But such studies only confirm what has been known for years - since the Marion Jones era - that athletes could dope and get away with it and also that drug use had become rife at the top of sports around the world.
However by your choosing to question the validity of those studies - which is only an issue for doping deniers on these boards - it is conspicuous that you have no arguments against the rest of the points I made.
Your observations aren't quite correct.I can use any key i wish to,but i just can't be bothered using them.If you find my posts most unreadable,well,too bad so sad.
Is it anyone (other than the very few usual suspects) that actually enjoys these discussions? One person saying "I think he is doping" the other one saying "I don't think he is doping", then there is these comparisons of times etc, which are extremely pointless for a number of reasons: No athletes are sanctioned for doping on a basis of their progress. No conclusion can be made, it is like sitting in your cellar and discussing whether the sky is cloudy or not. Has he been found guilty in doping? That is all we know for certain. No one gets any wiser following this discussion, rather the opposite - it takes the focus away from productive interesting discussions.
I wish the mods would strike harder, as its the same over and over again. It must be the 1000th time exactly the same discussion is had, and it f*cking sucks. I'm not a member of this forum to be enlightened about who Armstronglivs thinks are a doper or not, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I am tired of reading his opinion in every thread in here. I want to discuss athletics, running, race results, runners. Baselass speculations is nowhere to be found on that list. Have an athlete given a positive sample or have a whereabouts violation? Great, lets discuss it! Other than that, please, spare us.
I get it. Let's ignore the elephant in the room when discussing races, times and achievements.
Here is my #2 take on the elephant in the room -doping:
You keep on telling me I’m not that knowledgeable about doping, and well; I would lie if I denied my poor insight here, but still I want shut up totally, because I see some advantages in naivety: 1. I will turn the spotlight on a very common attitude to doping (the one based on the naive approach) -this approach can then be criticised or defended, and the results will be meaningful for a lot of us…. 2. I will use naivety against over confidence (in the doping claims) to come closer to a more truthful uncertainty…
I address my doping arguments to you, but in this part of the post this is a little paradoxically, because I side with you in some general arguments (against posters like Coevett and Salvitore who seem to think few westerners dope, but many elite Africans):
1. I think the argumentation about f.ex Norwegians being clean (because of culture and better testing regime) is flawed: The Ingebrigtsens, Narve Gilje Nordås, Karsten Warholm can all definitely be doped -the better testing regime being out leveled by better cheating… And I don’t think at all that greater cultural stigma in Norway prevents doping, nor that financial incentives are without some meaning… And desperation and greediness know no (country) borders at all…
2. I think all the African elite athletes can dope; also here cheating strategies (and in some areas poor testing) can outsmart the testing. The same for every other country in the world…
But so to the main arguments (that I believe in) against high doping prevalence:
1. I think blood pass / testing, and retesting of “old” blood samples are extremely important. -In my view a lot of athletes will not chance on doping all the time they can be popped years later (minus the ones who are really desperate/ uneducated in these matters, or confident their cheating never will leave traces at all, or that retesting never will be upscaled to a firm threat…)
2. I think most athletes on an elite level will regard doping as too much of a hazard given the current testing/ blood pass… (Maybe with some minuses for the poorest tested countries). But I also think the sub elite masses are more prone to doping, than before, as we have seen in Kenya…
Therefore I believe doping has decreased distinctly among the elite athletes since 2011 /12 -both in Africa and the West. But I don’t know -only my gut feeling and believes, based on indications and reasoning… So I don’t think the Norwegians are doped, nor the African elite athletes..
Here is what I don’t base my non doping assumptions on: There’s no apparent tightly swung medical apparatus f.ex around the Ingebrigtsens or Warholm… Cause there might of course be a hidden… And I’m trying not to give too much to the fact that there are very little doping cases in Norway, or that one often cannot see if a athlete is “looking doped” -cause what we cannot see obviously say nothing about what there is…
Of course there may be westerners who are desperate enough to dope (as in Zane Robertson) or elite Africans, but I think the amount of desperation among the elite isn’t large enough to give (your) massive doping…
And I think simplistic psychological factors are important: f.ex that Jakob Ingebrigtsen seems to be extremely interested in seeing what he can do the natural way (without doping). But of course I can be wrong -one can never fully understand another person based on his “superficial” behaviour and words…
So what about El G, Geb, Bekele, Komen, Lagat, Morceli, Kipchoge -the greats from a period with very little testing (and quite high anticipatied doping % -indications in blood passes and surveys) -well we just don’t know, because opportunities is not the same as doing it… And when Jakob I. f.ex struggles to break 3.26.00 (even with better shoes, track ++): It doesn’t mean that El Guerrouj was doped -he can just have been a better talent in the 1500m than Jakob, and the latter better in the 5000m than the former…
And to your main argument: The superhuman performances. -Well, I don’t see them as superhuman. Even Jakob’s 2 miles WR seems to come from a natural progression, even from time periods there doping was very unlikely….
These are my naïve reflections - but I might of course be very wrong.. Just write what I think without too much agenda I hope…
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
I get it. Let's ignore the elephant in the room when discussing races, times and achievements.
Here is my #2 take on the elephant in the room -doping:
You keep on telling me I’m not that knowledgeable about doping, and well; I would lie if I denied my poor insight here, but still I want shut up totally, because I see some advantages in naivety: 1. I will turn the spotlight on a very common attitude to doping (the one based on the naive approach) -this approach can then be criticised or defended, and the results will be meaningful for a lot of us…. 2. I will use naivety against over confidence (in the doping claims) to come closer to a more truthful uncertainty…
I address my doping arguments to you, but in this part of the post this is a little paradoxically, because I side with you in some general arguments (against posters like Coevett and Salvitore who seem to think few westerners dope, but many elite Africans):
1. I think the argumentation about f.ex Norwegians being clean (because of culture and better testing regime) is flawed: The Ingebrigtsens, Narve Gilje Nordås, Karsten Warholm can all definitely be doped -the better testing regime being out leveled by better cheating… And I don’t think at all that greater cultural stigma in Norway prevents doping, nor that financial incentives are without some meaning… And desperation and greediness know no (country) borders at all…
2. I think all the African elite athletes can dope; also here cheating strategies (and in some areas poor testing) can outsmart the testing. The same for every other country in the world…
But so to the main arguments (that I believe in) against high doping prevalence:
1. I think blood pass / testing, and retesting of “old” blood samples are extremely important. -In my view a lot of athletes will not chance on doping all the time they can be popped years later (minus the ones who are really desperate/ uneducated in these matters, or confident their cheating never will leave traces at all, or that retesting never will be upscaled to a firm threat…)
2. I think most athletes on an elite level will regard doping as too much of a hazard given the current testing/ blood pass… (Maybe with some minuses for the poorest tested countries). But I also think the sub elite masses are more prone to doping, than before, as we have seen in Kenya…
Therefore I believe doping has decreased distinctly among the elite athletes since 2011 /12 -both in Africa and the West. But I don’t know -only my gut feeling and believes, based on indications and reasoning… So I don’t think the Norwegians are doped, nor the African elite athletes..
Here is what I don’t base my non doping assumptions on: There’s no apparent tightly swung medical apparatus f.ex around the Ingebrigtsens or Warholm… Cause there might of course be a hidden… And I’m trying not to give too much to the fact that there are very little doping cases in Norway, or that one often cannot see if a athlete is “looking doped” -cause what we cannot see obviously say nothing about what there is…
Of course there may be westerners who are desperate enough to dope (as in Zane Robertson) or elite Africans, but I think the amount of desperation among the elite isn’t large enough to give (your) massive doping…
And I think simplistic psychological factors are important: f.ex that Jakob Ingebrigtsen seems to be extremely interested in seeing what he can do the natural way (without doping). But of course I can be wrong -one can never fully understand another person based on his “superficial” behaviour and words…
So what about El G, Geb, Bekele, Komen, Lagat, Morceli, Kipchoge -the greats from a period with very little testing (and quite high anticipatied doping % -indications in blood passes and surveys) -well we just don’t know, because opportunities is not the same as doing it… And when Jakob I. f.ex struggles to break 3.26.00 (even with better shoes, track ++): It doesn’t mean that El Guerrouj was doped -he can just have been a better talent in the 1500m than Jakob, and the latter better in the 5000m than the former…
And to your main argument: The superhuman performances. -Well, I don’t see them as superhuman. Even Jakob’s 2 miles WR seems to come from a natural progression, even from time periods there doping was very unlikely….
These are my naïve reflections - but I might of course be very wrong.. Just write what I think without too much agenda I hope…
A reply to myself: In the third line (from the top) the word “want” should be replaced with “won’t” -just my bad English skills….
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I get it. Let's ignore the elephant in the room when discussing races, times and achievements.
Here is my #2 take on the elephant in the room -doping:
You keep on telling me I’m not that knowledgeable about doping, and well; I would lie if I denied my poor insight here, but still I want shut up totally, because I see some advantages in naivety: 1. I will turn the spotlight on a very common attitude to doping (the one based on the naive approach) -this approach can then be criticised or defended, and the results will be meaningful for a lot of us…. 2. I will use naivety against over confidence (in the doping claims) to come closer to a more truthful uncertainty…
I address my doping arguments to you, but in this part of the post this is a little paradoxically, because I side with you in some general arguments (against posters like Coevett and Salvitore who seem to think few westerners dope, but many elite Africans):
1. I think the argumentation about f.ex Norwegians being clean (because of culture and better testing regime) is flawed: The Ingebrigtsens, Narve Gilje Nordås, Karsten Warholm can all definitely be doped -the better testing regime being out leveled by better cheating… And I don’t think at all that greater cultural stigma in Norway prevents doping, nor that financial incentives are without some meaning… And desperation and greediness know no (country) borders at all…
2. I think all the African elite athletes can dope; also here cheating strategies (and in some areas poor testing) can outsmart the testing. The same for every other country in the world…
But so to the main arguments (that I believe in) against high doping prevalence:
1. I think blood pass / testing, and retesting of “old” blood samples are extremely important. -In my view a lot of athletes will not chance on doping all the time they can be popped years later (minus the ones who are really desperate/ uneducated in these matters, or confident their cheating never will leave traces at all, or that retesting never will be upscaled to a firm threat…)
2. I think most athletes on an elite level will regard doping as too much of a hazard given the current testing/ blood pass… (Maybe with some minuses for the poorest tested countries). But I also think the sub elite masses are more prone to doping, than before, as we have seen in Kenya…
Therefore I believe doping has decreased distinctly among the elite athletes since 2011 /12 -both in Africa and the West. But I don’t know -only my gut feeling and believes, based on indications and reasoning… So I don’t think the Norwegians are doped, nor the African elite athletes..
Here is what I don’t base my non doping assumptions on: There’s no apparent tightly swung medical apparatus f.ex around the Ingebrigtsens or Warholm… Cause there might of course be a hidden… And I’m trying not to give too much to the fact that there are very little doping cases in Norway, or that one often cannot see if a athlete is “looking doped” -cause what we cannot see obviously say nothing about what there is…
Of course there may be westerners who are desperate enough to dope (as in Zane Robertson) or elite Africans, but I think the amount of desperation among the elite isn’t large enough to give (your) massive doping…
And I think simplistic psychological factors are important: f.ex that Jakob Ingebrigtsen seems to be extremely interested in seeing what he can do the natural way (without doping). But of course I can be wrong -one can never fully understand another person based on his “superficial” behaviour and words…
So what about El G, Geb, Bekele, Komen, Lagat, Morceli, Kipchoge -the greats from a period with very little testing (and quite high anticipatied doping % -indications in blood passes and surveys) -well we just don’t know, because opportunities is not the same as doing it… And when Jakob I. f.ex struggles to break 3.26.00 (even with better shoes, track ++): It doesn’t mean that El Guerrouj was doped -he can just have been a better talent in the 1500m than Jakob, and the latter better in the 5000m than the former…
And to your main argument: The superhuman performances. -Well, I don’t see them as superhuman. Even Jakob’s 2 miles WR seems to come from a natural progression, even from time periods there doping was very unlikely….
These are my naïve reflections - but I might of course be very wrong.. Just write what I think without too much agenda I hope…
The main problem with your argument is your unsupported belief that antidoping deters athletes. It doesn't. They simply become better at it. As David Howman says, "doping is always more sophisticated than antidoping". It continues to develop as much as any other part of the science of sport. It is at the cutting edge of sport, which enables the performances today that great athletes in the past couldn't have dreamed of. Only 1% of doping tests return a positive and yet confidential athlete surveys, among other things, have shown that the numbers doping far exceed the numbers caught. In some sports the prevalence is expertly estimated by those who know those sports at more than 80%. It is everywhere and in all sports. Very very few dopers are caught. With the benefits that doping can confer - the greater opportunities to succeed, with all that that entails - the incentives to dope are as great as ever.
Here is my #2 take on the elephant in the room -doping:
You keep on telling me I’m not that knowledgeable about doping, and well; I would lie if I denied my poor insight here, but still I want shut up totally, because I see some advantages in naivety: 1. I will turn the spotlight on a very common attitude to doping (the one based on the naive approach) -this approach can then be criticised or defended, and the results will be meaningful for a lot of us…. 2. I will use naivety against over confidence (in the doping claims) to come closer to a more truthful uncertainty…
I address my doping arguments to you, but in this part of the post this is a little paradoxically, because I side with you in some general arguments (against posters like Coevett and Salvitore who seem to think few westerners dope, but many elite Africans):
1. I think the argumentation about f.ex Norwegians being clean (because of culture and better testing regime) is flawed: The Ingebrigtsens, Narve Gilje Nordås, Karsten Warholm can all definitely be doped -the better testing regime being out leveled by better cheating… And I don’t think at all that greater cultural stigma in Norway prevents doping, nor that financial incentives are without some meaning… And desperation and greediness know no (country) borders at all…
2. I think all the African elite athletes can dope; also here cheating strategies (and in some areas poor testing) can outsmart the testing. The same for every other country in the world…
But so to the main arguments (that I believe in) against high doping prevalence:
1. I think blood pass / testing, and retesting of “old” blood samples are extremely important. -In my view a lot of athletes will not chance on doping all the time they can be popped years later (minus the ones who are really desperate/ uneducated in these matters, or confident their cheating never will leave traces at all, or that retesting never will be upscaled to a firm threat…)
2. I think most athletes on an elite level will regard doping as too much of a hazard given the current testing/ blood pass… (Maybe with some minuses for the poorest tested countries). But I also think the sub elite masses are more prone to doping, than before, as we have seen in Kenya…
Therefore I believe doping has decreased distinctly among the elite athletes since 2011 /12 -both in Africa and the West. But I don’t know -only my gut feeling and believes, based on indications and reasoning… So I don’t think the Norwegians are doped, nor the African elite athletes..
Here is what I don’t base my non doping assumptions on: There’s no apparent tightly swung medical apparatus f.ex around the Ingebrigtsens or Warholm… Cause there might of course be a hidden… And I’m trying not to give too much to the fact that there are very little doping cases in Norway, or that one often cannot see if a athlete is “looking doped” -cause what we cannot see obviously say nothing about what there is…
Of course there may be westerners who are desperate enough to dope (as in Zane Robertson) or elite Africans, but I think the amount of desperation among the elite isn’t large enough to give (your) massive doping…
And I think simplistic psychological factors are important: f.ex that Jakob Ingebrigtsen seems to be extremely interested in seeing what he can do the natural way (without doping). But of course I can be wrong -one can never fully understand another person based on his “superficial” behaviour and words…
So what about El G, Geb, Bekele, Komen, Lagat, Morceli, Kipchoge -the greats from a period with very little testing (and quite high anticipatied doping % -indications in blood passes and surveys) -well we just don’t know, because opportunities is not the same as doing it… And when Jakob I. f.ex struggles to break 3.26.00 (even with better shoes, track ++): It doesn’t mean that El Guerrouj was doped -he can just have been a better talent in the 1500m than Jakob, and the latter better in the 5000m than the former…
And to your main argument: The superhuman performances. -Well, I don’t see them as superhuman. Even Jakob’s 2 miles WR seems to come from a natural progression, even from time periods there doping was very unlikely….
These are my naïve reflections - but I might of course be very wrong.. Just write what I think without too much agenda I hope…
The main problem with your argument is your unsupported belief that antidoping deters athletes. It doesn't. They simply become better at it. As David Howman says, "doping is always more sophisticated than antidoping". It continues to develop as much as any other part of the science of sport. It is at the cutting edge of sport, which enables the performances today that great athletes in the past couldn't have dreamed of. Only 1% of doping tests return a positive and yet confidential athlete surveys, among other things, have shown that the numbers doping far exceed the numbers caught. In some sports the prevalence is expertly estimated by those who know those sports at more than 80%. It is everywhere and in all sports. Very very few dopers are caught. With the benefits that doping can confer - the greater opportunities to succeed, with all that that entails - the incentives to dope are as great as ever.
I read what the scientists wrote about blood pass around 2011 / 12, and they made a good case for a significant higher % of suspicious athletes than popped in tests. So in this I think you are right… These scientists also suspected doping methods they couldn’t detect -again some points to you. And it is also logical that athletes and doctors have developed more advanced methods for doping / avoiding being caught in recent years…
The main problem with your argument is your unsupported belief that antidoping deters athletes. It doesn't. They simply become better at it. As David Howman says, "doping is always more sophisticated than antidoping". It continues to develop as much as any other part of the science of sport. It is at the cutting edge of sport, which enables the performances today that great athletes in the past couldn't have dreamed of. Only 1% of doping tests return a positive and yet confidential athlete surveys, among other things, have shown that the numbers doping far exceed the numbers caught. In some sports the prevalence is expertly estimated by those who know those sports at more than 80%. It is everywhere and in all sports. Very very few dopers are caught. With the benefits that doping can confer - the greater opportunities to succeed, with all that that entails - the incentives to dope are as great as ever.
I read what the scientists wrote about blood pass around 2011 / 12, and they made a good case for a significant higher % of suspicious athletes than popped in tests. So in this I think you are right… These scientists also suspected doping methods they couldn’t detect -again some points to you. And it is also logical that athletes and doctors have developed more advanced methods for doping / avoiding being caught in recent years…
It is easier to develop new drugs, which is a constantly ongoing process in the pharmaceutical industry and medicine, than find new and better training methods, which are virtually no different from what they were fifty years ago.
What shows unequivocally that doping has not declined is firstly the ban required to be imposed on Russia and secondly the stream of ongoing doping busts in Kenya.
As for the so-called "super-spikes" - track shoes are essentially a sole, an upper and spikes; there's not much that can be "innovated", because they basically work on the principle less is more.
Nordas back to 3:37.45 shape. Interested to see how this year plays out for him.
@narvgn on instagram wrote:
I guess you can say 1500m-shape is not conserved for 6 straight months.. No injuries and sickness to blame; we've been running non-stop, twice a day, since october 1. The simple fact is that, unfortunately great threshold-shape doesn't correlate with fast 1500's. But we're not giving up that easily, so hopefully something to build on, on the way to 3000m in Madrid. 23.02
