Jakob Ingebrigtsen runs European record 12:48.45!!!!

think first wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

Why not? People are very different.

All these Morocco - Qataris coached by Jama Aden and very likely taking peds still run 3:33 and not 3:26. Doping makes you better, but not necessarily the best. I'm 100% sure that Athing Mu is clean as a whistle and she is one of the best in the world. Same goes for Jakob Ingebrigtsen.

Me too. I am 100% sure Jakob is clean and I can't wait for him to become the first Scandinavian male distance medalist since Vanio (busted for steroids) and Viren (reindeer milk)

Armstronglivs wrote:

All top athletes are very similar in talent - even if some are better than others.

Profoundly wrong; a total misunderstanding of genetics and talent selection.

People here talk about doping but they never care about conditions of runners who play some time a full opposite of doping which is the degrading their performances.

Here is an example

https://kawowo.com/2021/05/24/jacob-kiplimo-decries-insufficient-support-from-government/

So why do you see runners from Africa doing immigration to western countries or rich countries of the Golf?

Norse gods wrote:

think first wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

Why not? People are very different.

All these Morocco - Qataris coached by Jama Aden and very likely taking peds still run 3:33 and not 3:26. Doping makes you better, but not necessarily the best. I'm 100% sure that Athing Mu is clean as a whistle and she is one of the best in the world. Same goes for Jakob Ingebrigtsen.

Me too. I am 100% sure Jakob is clean and I can't wait for him to become the first Scandinavian male distance medalist since Vanio (busted for steroids) and Viren (reindeer milk)

None of those are Scandinavian, but then again you probably couldn't find Finland on a map.

nnnnnnn wrote:

Norse gods wrote:

Me too. I am 100% sure Jakob is clean and I can't wait for him to become the first Scandinavian male distance medalist since Vanio (busted for steroids) and Viren (reindeer milk)

None of those are Scandinavian, but then again you probably couldn't find Finland on a map.

His point still stands; he just has to replace Scandinavian with Nordic.

"We could talk about the effects of steroids and other male hormones for women's 800m, but your Russian women athletes statistic doesn't compare apples to apples, as the slower group did not contain the faster, banned runners."(quote)

Wrong as usual. What "slower group"? The 2.01 runner - a whistleblower - was a 1.56 runner doped, which made her one of the fastest. She was a championship medallist, like the other banned athletes. You are out of your depth.

KaareV wrote:

So you think talent precludes doping at a later age. Naive. All elite athletes are talented.

Amazing logic. You ought to get the money back from your teacher in logic. It goes like this: If you're not talented you can't be a elite athlete. And if you are talented you can be. Armstronnglivs, how is it possible to falsify your statement?[/quote]

You are quite confused about an obvious point. Top athletes are talented. If you aren't talented you can't be a top athlete - and indeed it applies to any field of human excellence. No one of average ability excels at anything. It isn't an argument of logic but empirical observation.

abraham chebii wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

All top athletes are very similar in talent - even if some are better than others.

Profoundly wrong; a total misunderstanding of genetics and talent selection.

Some people have a higher level of intelligence than others - although this may not be your experience - and this has a genetic basis. The same applies to physical and athletic abilities. Elite athletes are a tiny fraction of the human population. They are not made of average native ability but are by their nature a rarity amongst the population. Usually this talent reveals itself at a relatively early age - as with most genetically based abilities.

Armstronglivs wrote:

abraham chebii wrote:

Profoundly wrong; a total misunderstanding of genetics and talent selection.

Some people have a higher level of intelligence than others - although this may not be your experience - and this has a genetic basis. The same applies to physical and athletic abilities. Elite athletes are a tiny fraction of the human population. They are not made of average native ability but are by their nature a rarity amongst the population. Usually this talent reveals itself at a relatively early age - as with most genetically based abilities.

This doesn't remotely defend your claim that all top athletes are very similar talent.

While it's plausible (or even common) that there may be a group of athletes simultaneously at the top with similar talent levels, it is certainly not the case that all top athletes are very similar in talent.

For one thing, look at how often there is a clear world number one in a given event; far more often than if all elite athletes were a homogenous rabble bumping up against the limits of human performance. For another, consider the normal distribution; it makes perfect sense to expect physical outliers at the extremes of performance.

When I say that top athletes have a similar level of talent, that is to say they typically fall within a closely grouped bracket where the margins between them may be measured in 100ths of seconds (in the sprints), tenths of seconds in middle distance and only a few seconds in distance events. For example, the differences of ability between 9.8 runners and 10-flat runners in the 100m are very small - but reflected dramatically on the podium. The same would apply to 1.42 as against 1.44 runners in the 800.

To say they are of similar native ability is not to say they are of equal talent or the same level of ability. But amongst their peers the differences are usually small. What can widen the gaps between them are their dedication, coaching, quality of training, and management of injury. And doping.

Passant wrote:

So why do you see runners from Africa doing immigration to western countries or rich countries of the Golf?

That's another question not relevant to what I wrote, But since they have showed ability to run fast they can earn a lot of money. BTW, there are a lot of talented runners.

Armstronglivs wrote:

KaareV wrote:

So you think talent precludes doping at a later age. Naive. All elite athletes are talented.

Amazing logic. You ought to get the money back from your teacher in logic. It goes like this: If you're not talented you can't be a elite athlete. And if you are talented you can be. Armstronnglivs, how is it possible to falsify your statement?

You are quite confused about an obvious point. Top athletes are talented. If you aren't talented you can't be a top athlete - and indeed it applies to any field of human excellence. No one of average ability excels at anything. It isn't an argument of logic but empirical observation.[/quote]

You proved my point again. How on earth can that be an empirical observation? You just repeat your statement, which is by any standars not logical. But you don't understand it. A runner, some days ago, at the 4th of June said after running 5000 at 13.16, said: I was totally talentless.

Why Jakob has a disadvantage in the general persuit for records and good times:

"The organizers pay the best performers to perform. Bonuses are paid out at records. And this also affects the sports program.

Take the race in Florence for example. Those who think that everyone is equal on the starting line are wrong. Different running programs can be decisive for how fast the different athletes perform. Some will have steady speed with progression. Others want high speed from the start to split the field.

And therefore the speed that is set is often decisive for who will perform well.

But it is not the organizer who decides how fast it should be run.

In Florence, it was the runners belonging to the companies Global Sports and Global Athletics who got to decide the speed of the hares. Jakob Ingebrigtsen thus had to neatly align himself with the competitors when the race plan he was to be nailed.

And this is a consequence of the fact that the pursuit of records and good times in athletics has become more important than winning the competition itself. Not only for events, and organizers - but paradoxically also for the performers. For the salary of the athletes is paid in advance - regardless of the result in the race they are paid to participate in.

This of course gives a certain degree of class separation off the field as well."

https://www.tv2.no/mening-og-analyse/14055287/

Armstronglivs, I want to be on the same page pre-Tokyo so you do not have any excuses and we can discuss actual performances, as they are, doped or un-doped. Please note which athletes in the Top 10 are doped and which ones are clean so we understand your perspective upfront -

Men's 800m

1 1:43.82 Oliver DUSTIN 29 NOV 2000 GBR

2 1:43.84 Elias NGENY 04 MAY 1996 KEN

3 1:43.91 Wyclife KINYAMAL 02 JUL 1997 KEN

4 1:43.95 Collins KIPRUTO 12 APR 1994 KEN

5 1:44.14 Max BURGIN 20 MAY 2002 GBR

6 1:44.40 Jesus Tonatiu LOPEZ 02 AUG 1997 MEX

7 1:44.42 Cornelius TUWEI 24 MAY 1993 KEN

8 1:44.44 Gabriel TUAL 09 APR 1998 FRA

9 1:44.45 Ferguson Cheruiyot ROTICH 30 NOV 1989 KEN

10 1:44.53 Benjamin ROBERT 04 JAN 1998 FRA

Men's 1500m

1 3:30.48 Timothy CHERUIYOT 20 NOV 1995 KEN

2 3:31.55 Josh KERR 08 OCT 1997 GBR

3 3:31.57 Stewart MCSWEYN 01 JUN 1995 AUS

4 3:31.90 Teddese LEMI 20 JAN 1999 ETH

5 3:31.95 Soufiane EL BAKKALI 07 JAN 1996 MAR

6 3:32.41 Adam Ali MUSAB 17 APR 1995 QAT

7 3:32.52 Samuel TEFERA 23 OCT 1999 ETH

8 3:32.68 Abel KIPSANG 22 NOV 1996 KEN

9 3:32.80 Samuel ABATE 09 MAR 1999 ETH

10 3:33.06 Ismael DEBJANI 25 SEP 1990 BEL

Men's 5000m

1 12:48.45 Jakob INGEBRIGTSEN 19 SEP 2000 NOR

2 12:49.02 Hagos GEBRHIWET 11 MAY 1994 ETH

3 12:50.12 Mohammed AHMED 05 JAN 1991 CAN

4 12:50.79 Mohamed KATIR 17 FEB 1998 ESP

5 12:51.93 Justyn KNIGHT 19 JUL 1996 CAN

6 12:53.28 Getnet WALE 16 JUL 2000 ETH

7 12:54.22 Nibret MELAK 09 OCT 1999 ETH

8 12:54.69 Joshua CHEPTEGEI 12 SEP 1996 UGA

9 12:57.71 Birhanu BALEW 27 FEB 1996 BRN

10 12:58.28 Milkesa MENGESHA 16 APR 2000 ETH

Men's 10,000m

1 26:33.93 Jacob KIPLIMO 14 NOV 2000 UGA

2 26:49.51 Selemon BAREGA 20 JAN 2000 ETH

3 26:49.73 Yomif KEJELCHA 01 AUG 1997 ETH

4 26:50.37 Berihu AREGAWI 28 FEB 2001 ETH

5 26:57.16 Hagos GEBRHIWET 11 MAY 1994 ETH

6 26:58.30 Tadese WORKU 20 JAN 2002 ETH

7 27:03.94 Daniel MATAIKO 1998 KEN

8 27:07.49 Birhanu BALEW 27 FEB 1996 BRN

9 27:10.41 Marc SCOTT 21 DEC 1993 GBR

10 27:11.01 Rhonex KIPRUTO 12 OCT 1999 KEN

Women's 800m

1 1:56.67 Werkwuha GETACHEW 1995 ETH

2 1:57.73 Athing MU 08 JUN 2002 USA

3 1:58.16 Habitam ALEMU 09 JUL 1997 ETH

4 1:58.26 Faith KIPYEGON 10 JAN 1994 KEN

5 1:58.27 Jemma REEKIE 06 MAR 1998 GBR

6 1:58.46 Laura MUIR 09 MAY 1993 GBR

7 1:58.52 Alexandra BELL 04 NOV 1992 GBR

8 1:58.62 Melissa BISHOP-NRIAGU 05 AUG 1988 CAN

9 1:58.65 Renelle LAMOTE 26 DEC 1993 FRA

10 1:58.70 Gabriela DEBUES-STAFFORD 13 SEP 1995 CAN

Women's 1500m

1 3:53.63 Sifan HASSAN 01 JAN 1993 NED

2 3:53.91 Faith KIPYEGON 10 JAN 1994 KEN

3 3:55.59 Laura MUIR 09 MAY 1993 GBR

4 3:57.33 Freweyni HAILU 12 FEB 2001 ETH

5 3:58.36 Elinor PURRIER 20 FEB 1995 USA

6 3:58.93 Diribe WELTEJI 13 MAY 2002 ETH

7 3:59.67 Linden HALL 20 JUN 1991 AUS

8 4:00.35 Lemlem HAILU 25 MAY 2001 ETH

9 4:00.46 Gabriela DEBUES-STAFFORD 13 SEP 1995 CAN

10 4:00.73 Shannon OSIKA 15 JUN 1993 USA

Women's 5000m

1 14:13.32 Gudaf TSEGAY 23 JAN 1997 ETH

2 14:14.09 Ejgayehu TAYE 10 FEB 2000 ETH

3 14:15.24 Senbere TEFERI 03 MAY 1995 ETH

4 14:29.63 Fantu WORKU 29 MAR 1999 ETH

5 14:35.34 Sifan HASSAN 01 JAN 1993 NED

6 14:36.89 Meskerem MAMO 13 APR 1999 ETH

7 14:44.51 Fantaye BELAYNEH 2000 ETH

8 14:45.19 Hawi FEYSA 01 FEB 1999 ETH

9 14:46.20 Mizan ALEM 22 JAN 2002 ETH

10 14:51.42 Josette NORRIS 15 DEC 1995 USA

Women's 10,000m

1 29:01.03 Letesenbet GIDEY 20 MAR 1998 ETH

2 29:06.82 Sifan HASSAN 01 JAN 1993 NED

3 29:39.42 Gudaf TSEGAY 23 JAN 1997 ETH

4 29:50.77 Kalkidan GEZAHEGNE 08 MAY 1991 BRN

5 30:06.01 Tsigie GEBRESELAMA 30 SEP 2000 ETH

6 30:19.29 Tsehay GEMECHU 12 DEC 1998 ETH

7 30:20.77 Yalemzerf YEHUALAW 03 AUG 1999 ETH

8 30:37.24 Irine Jepchumba KIMAIS 10 OCT 1998 KEN

9 30:37.31 Daisy CHEROTICH 30 JUN 1997 KEN

10 30:45.81 Sheila Chepkirui KIPROTICH 27 DEC 1990 KEN

Armstronglivs wrote:

"We could talk about the effects of steroids and other male hormones for women's 800m, but your Russian women athletes statistic doesn't compare apples to apples, as the slower group did not contain the faster, banned runners."(quote)

Wrong as usual. What "slower group"? The 2.01 runner - a whistleblower - was a 1.56 runner doped, which made her one of the fastest. She was a championship medallist, like the other banned athletes. You are out of your depth.

+1

If you had to bet your life that the list was at least half of either dirty or clean, which would you pick? I'm going with the greater than 50% "dirty" as per our current anti-doping rules.

Since that is a majority, then it is fair in my viewpoint to say they are all suspicious. We could try to draw a line based on perceived testing inequalities, or super fast times, but that isn't exactly fair either. So they are all suspiscious.

That said, enjoy the show for what it is.

Oh Please wrote:

If you had to bet your life that the list was at least half of either dirty or clean, which would you pick? I'm going with the greater than 50% "dirty" as per our current anti-doping rules.

Since that is a majority, then it is fair in my viewpoint to say they are all suspicious. We could try to draw a line based on perceived testing inequalities, or super fast times, but that isn't exactly fair either. So they are all suspiscious.

That said, enjoy the show for what it is.

+1

Note that the 43.6% prevalence estimate (argued not be an underestimate by the scientists) of doped world championship athletes included the whole field, for example over 40 runners over 5000, not just the finals. So if you look at the top 10, you might find 60 - 80% dopers (unless you want to argue that doping doesn't help in running faster times/training harder/recovering better etc.).

Or go with the Tucker suspicion scale from 3 to 10:

Start with a 3 for any runner, then add points for reasons for suspicion such as medal win, suspicious progression, (likely) doping team mate, banned coach, banned doctor, lack of testing, ...

Jakob actually would end up around a 5 I suppose, compared to WvN's 5, Paula's 7, Mo's 9.5 and Galen's 10.

Armstronglivs wrote:

What can widen the gaps between them are their dedication, coaching, quality of training, and management of injury. And doping.

JFC what an asinine contribution. Athlete preparation affects athlete performance - bravo, a brilliant insight.