7:17.55! Jakob Ingebrigtsen DESTROYS 3000m WR

rekrunner wrote:

Khamis wrote:

Oh really you provided so much explanations on why nobody is doping which is essentially a defensive treatise on doping you fool!!!! You played down played down and played down all intention, suspicion and evidence of doping and sought to overturn even Alberto Salazar's obvious doping cartel!!!!! I remembered all that you did alright and it was the most sinister experience I ever had with an LRC folk on here!!!!!!!!!

What you said, and, the way you said it makes it all the more nauseating you feeling me Mr PD?????

On the other hand, I educated you that the evidence bar for doping needs to be upgraded from objective to subjective. I specifically decreed on LRC with my RF expertise that for certain human domains of existence and consciousness such as RF and also for doping, subjective evidence is of a higher value than objective ones as reasoning and persuading in a subjective manner would be more avant garde and advanced in order to catch up with the equally advance doping methods and pernicious effects of anthropogenic RF on human biology respectively!!!

Please Mr PD, your views and services are not welcomed on LRC, you are extremely backward and ancient in your methods at least, otherwise very corrupt as you seemed way too affected and contrived in your request, explanations and reasons!!!!! On the other hand, there are many on LRC who love and cherish me as you can see from the number of subscribers I have on my channel!!!!! I believe I have no less than a 100 strong subscribers and counting alright!!!!!

I hate AFFECTED-NESS. I want AUTHENTICITY!!!!!!

"Whataboutism" is a predictable non-response. It's a self-defense mechanism to shift the conversation away from your own failures.

I do not provide any explanations on why nobody is doping. On the contrary, like you and Armstronglivs, I think many athletes are doping, but for different reasons. I think it is because they, or their sponsors or supporters or entourage, believe in the power of doping, like you, while lacking objective data, like you.

I don't know what you believe "all I did", but I never sought to downplay or overturn Salazar's convictions, only to clarify that his convictions never involved or implicated the WADA banned doping of any NOP athletes in the history of NOP, ever. Tygart looked and left no stone unturned. Apparently WADA concurred, as a subsequent investigation at the IOC's explicit request produced nothing newsworthy, despite 7 years of investigative reporting, Fancy Bears leaks, and AAA and CAS adjudications.

I do not downplay "suspicion" so much as ignore it as irrelevant gossip among the uninformed.

I do not downplay evidence, if anyone actually provides it.

When you say things like "the evidence bar for doping needs to be upgraded from objective to subjective", this is not only nonsense, but inherently wrong. Subjective is in the mind of the beholder. Athletes need guidelines that are objectively predictable, and not subject to the whims of whatever tribunal is judging them, after the fact.

At this point, I still cannot determine whether you are even an RF-King rather than an RF-jester, as I only have your own self-accreditation to go by, and no objective data to tip the scale one way or the other. But even in the best case, being an RF-King does not grant you sufficient qualifications to authoritatively discuss elite performance. I hate to be the one bursting your bubble, but you are not the all seeing timelord you pretend to be.

I don't know what you mean by "too affected", nor why you think my requests for objective data stripped of your own subjective interpretation is not authentic.

I'm also puzzled by your repeated reference to subscribers and channels, in the context of an anonymous forum which does not enable personal channels and subscribers.

rekrunner wrote:

Khamis wrote:

Objective data of what? Anthropogenic RF? I already did with a few publications and you gaslighted them!!!! As for doping, that's subjective so I provided subjective data which is just as good as objective data and of course you also gaslighted them!!!!

Objective data of anything and everything you say. For example, objectively, why would you suspect Hocker and Fisher and not Ingebrigtsen and El G.

I gaslighted nothing.

Your data on anthropogenic RF fell far short of completing the connection to real world degradation of elite performance (which is objectively not degrading). You established that high exposure to RF and EMF can damage cells, something that was not asked and never in doubt. Every sixteen year old student learns the body has ways to repair or eliminate damaged cells. After all of your provided objective evidence, we are still left with a laundry list of questions about whether and which athletes are exposed to such high amounts of energy and waves, and whether elite performance (which is only getting faster with time) is suffering from any alleged premature damage.

"Subjective data" seems like an oxymoron, if not completely nonsensical, and in all cases, your subjective interpretations are of no real intellectual value to me. If you provided any, I automatically discard it as biased nonsense of zero intellectual value.

Khamis wrote:

Why would Jakob expose himself to such a degree of vulnerability if he was really weak minded?

My answer to your question is because even weak minded people are actively weighing his cost and benefits option and even weak minded people also err on the side of utilitarianism, a theory which promotes the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. Jakob ran the Budapest final when he was sick because he still stood to benefit in the end in whatever manner possible and it also would benefit the fans and spectators and world athletics and Seb Coe's tenure, you feeling me sir?????

It's a dynamic form of weak-mindedness that Jakob has, just as anthropogenic RF harms and injures human biology in a dynamic evolving start-stop manner, you feeling me sir????

But the general trend of this start-stop dynamic event is still a downward depreciating value. This means Jakob's being weak-minded could still demonstrate random spurts or bursts of relative 'courage' and 'strong-mindedness' relative to his weak-minded default spirit/mind, you feeling me sir??????? BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You see how well I conduct reason and persuasion compared to everybody else on LRC and explain it so well to you folks??? You should be like me and learn from me too!!! I want everybody to be as good as me alright!!!!! That's the only way to become a SAINT!!!!!!!

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

Khamis wrote:

Why would Jakob expose himself to such a degree of vulnerability if he was really weak minded?

My answer to your question is because even weak minded people are actively weighing his cost and benefits option and even weak minded people also err on the side of utilitarianism, a theory which promotes the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. Jakob ran the Budapest final when he was sick because he still stood to benefit in the end in whatever manner possible and it also would benefit the fans and spectators and world athletics and Seb Coe's tenure, you feeling me sir?????

It's a dynamic form of weak-mindedness that Jakob has, just as anthropogenic RF harms and injures human biology in a dynamic evolving start-stop manner, you feeling me sir????

But the general trend of this start-stop dynamic event is still a downward depreciating value. This means Jakob's being weak-minded could still demonstrate random spurts or bursts of relative 'courage' and 'strong-mindedness' relative to his weak-minded default spirit/mind, you feeling me sir??????? BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You see how well I conduct reason and persuasion compared to everybody else on LRC and explain it so well to you folks??? You should be like me and learn from me too!!! I want everybody to be as good as me alright!!!!! That's the only way to become a SAINT!!!!!!!

I liked your answer here, because you at least acknowledge some courage in Jakob in between, and maybe that’s the most any of us can ask for…

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But not faster. That is his ceiling. He shows it when anyone is on his shoulder in the home straight.

You say it is the time of high school boys, but he also ran it at an age when he would have not been long out of high school.

Is it his ceiling? There are several reasons to doubt that.

800m is not a distance he competes in very often, and his PB is from 4 years ago now.

There are other factors to consider. Was this 800m in June 2020 run with the benefit of super spikes? How old was the track?

It was also a race in a heat he won, against his brother, 2 seconds ahead of third place. Most athletes race to win, doing the minimum it takes to beat their competitor in a tactical race, rather than running their lifetime ceiling in a time trial type effort everytime.

But in all cases, it is nonsense to compare the 800m times of a 1500-5000m endurance type runner to the 800m times of 800m-1500m specialists.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Koltrast wrote:

Is Cheruiyot not of similar ability to Jakob, Kerr, Nuguse and Hocker? An Olympic silver medal, a Worlds gold and silver medal, 3:28 PB? Why did Jakob finish ahead of him in Tokyo with his 3 second slower 800m PB? Why did Tim finish 11th in Paris?

You give the example of one race. Why not the 2019 WC, where Cheruiyot destroyed Ingebrigtsen? Cheryuiot has lost form in recent years but came very close to beating him recently in Europe, in which Ingebrigtsen was only able to fend him off with a face-plant. But Cheruiyot is not the runner of 2019, so he is no longer of the same or similar level of ability as Ingebrigtsen.

But if you want to use the Paris final as an example, Ingebrigtsen was beaten by 3 runners who have more speed than he does. He can only beat such athletes if his endurance enables him to achieve an unbridgeable gap in the last 100m. That is what his freakish (read - likely doped) endurance can enable. But he was unable to do that in Paris.

Khamis wrote:

On the contrary you revealed yourself to be a liar as during a debate with Coevett and Armstrong discussing the russian or kenyan dopers in some other thread previously you explicitly mentioned "there is no objective data to support that the athletes are doping, nor are their improvements due to doping, which can only naturally imply that doping isn't as widespread as you think'.

And now you suddenly move the goalpost to say 'I think many athletes are doping'????? LOL, who are you trying to deceive here Mr PD King?????? I have photographic memory alright!!!

Do you see how intentionally disingenuous your statements are????? As an educated man like you secretly camouflaging contradictory statements of differing propensity in differing threads hoping people like me, Coevett and Armstrong cannot track down your statements in differing threads because we don't have enough photographic memory combined?????

Please just get off LRC forever and go work for Lance Armstrong alright!!!!! Cheats and immoral perverts are not welcomed on this board, let this be a strong warning to all LRC folks and athletes!!!!!! I'm serious about it!!!!!!!

Next, how do you expect objective data to stream in like I imagine live video pornography for an art so secretive and covet as doping?????????

And my next question then would be, how do you then repudiate me, Coevett and Armstrong of any wrongdoing if you know that doping and dopers being secretive and covet would naturally minimize or indeed shut up completely any objective data as far as possible?

It's a Catch-22 situation. How do you impute falsehood in me, Coevett and Armstrong when you need the 3 of us to be true for you to be proven true???? You need us more than we need your objective fallacy you feeling me Mr PD King?????

"Subjective is in the mind of the beholder. Athletes need guidelines that are objectively predictable, and not subject to the whims of whatever tribunal is judging them, after the fact."

Yeah right? So human being has a mind right???? Subjectivity rules isn't it you fool???? Even the creation of 'objective rules and laws' also stemmed from the said subjective minds hence subjective all the same isn't it???? You can't seem to reason like I do, I'm not sure why, either you are too daft or I am???? Which is which now Mr PD????

If the weather cannot be objectively predictable to a 100% accuracy, then it works the same for all other human activities in the biosphere you feeling me???? It will go the same for those you thought 'objectively predictable with objective data' which means these can be subjected to ever growing confoundment even at the last minute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yes I'm actually being very serious that subjectivity is actually an upgrade from objectivity!!!!! The moment you take a leap of faith is usually when you knock on the door of success or any truth in life!!!!!!!! Are you COVID vaccinated??? If you are, oh yes you do in fact need to take a leap of faith to risk death with taking the covid vaccines alright!!!!! Because there is zero legitimately passed and certifiable objective data that covid vaccines are safe or not harmful!!!!!!!! Our founder Robert took the vaccine so he too needed to use a leap of faith in Joe Biden's administration to do so alright!!!!!!! So don't demean 'subjectivity' or 'leap of faith' like it's some cyanide poison!!!!!!!!! I also really hate to be bursting your PD bubble and you should officially stop pretending to ask me for RF related info about elite performance when you lack wherewithal to make sense of it anyway!!!

"Too affected' means affectedness, you feeling me Mr PD???? It means you are too feigning, too pretentious like a Pharisee!!!!!

Khamis wrote:

Objectively why would I be suspecting Hockerdope and Fisherdope of doping and not Jakob and El G????

Are you daft or what Mr PD??? This is a subjective domain requiring subjective analysis of data however oxymoronic you find it to be. It's not nonsense, you just don't have the wherewithal to handle 'oxymoronic' information!!!!!

I will tell you how so subjectively easily I deem Hockerdope and Fisherdope to be strong dopers!!!!!

First of all, it only takes 1 space-time to completely collapse the bubble of 'clean' in Hocker and Fisher. Only 1, mind you!!!!!!! This is not a jury or judge's panel where I need a 4-3 scoring decision like in boxing or MMA. This is a 1 strike and out kinda format you feeling me. Catching doping requires a 1 strike and you are out format alright?????

Hocker's 1 space-time strikeout came at US olympic trials when he overhaul a 3 second deficit to Nuguse at Prefontaine mile to go in front of him and beat him, including the manner in which he desecrated the latter!!!!! Never seen in 3 years, last seen such manner was in 2021 and never again!!!!!!!! If it doesn't come again in 2022, 2023 after at least 2 dozen races in between, it also doesn't come all of a sudden in mid 2024 at some US olympic trials. I use my discretion and experience here just as Australian swimming coach Hawke used his discretion to call out Pan Zhanle for doing drugs to swim a shocking 100m freestyle WR in 46.4. Discretion is subjective but can be superior to objective data. What does objective data of Pan Zhanle doping even mean??? That's truly oxymoronic!!!!!!!!

For Fisherdope, this one was real obvious and comical. Dude was wild af taking a flight back up to 1600m Utah and messed up his physiology, thicken his blood and all and enter into pressurized plane cabins filled with COVID viruses and flu bacteria and came back down to 0m after 5 days????????? And he was stupid enough to tell the media he did that?????? And even stupid enough to say he was trying to 'get some rest or sleep' by doing such dumb af things?????? Well turns out this guy isn't dumb, far from it, he is actually smarter than AIU and WADA, get the drift Mr PD?????? He is doping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dude can win an Oscar for best doping playacting!!!!! Topped with blockbuster plane rides!!!!!!

"Every 16 year old knows body can repair damaged cells........"

Come on Mr PD, of course they know that as head knowledge, or otherwise very superficially alright?????? They wouldn't know it the way David Carpenter, Paul Hersch or Martin Pall would right Mr PD???????? Otherwise what's the difference between a 16 year old and these real RF experts??????

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You say it is the time of high school boys, but he also ran it at an age when he would have not been long out of high school.

Is it his ceiling? There are several reasons to doubt that.

800m is not a distance he competes in very often, and his PB is from 4 years ago now.

There are other factors to consider. Was this 800m in June 2020 run with the benefit of super spikes? How old was the track?

It was also a race in a heat he won, against his brother, 2 seconds ahead of third place. Most athletes race to win, doing the minimum it takes to beat their competitor in a tactical race, rather than running their lifetime ceiling in a time trial type effort everytime.

But in all cases, it is nonsense to compare the 800m times of a 1500-5000m endurance type runner to the 800m times of 800m-1500m specialists.

They are both 1500 runners. The event typically requires a given level of speed, as well as endurance. He doesn't show that speed, either in his mediocre efforts over the 800 or his relative lack of kick.

In the early '70's Jim Ryun speculated that a dramatic improvement of times in the event would require an athlete has world-class 400 speed they could build on. He didn't foresee that athletes far slower than him would find another route, by doping to the gills to increase their endurance. That is the sport now.