Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

Armstronglivs wrote:

BS. If it aids training then it can aid elite athletes, like Cheptegei. If it can't generally be detected, as few athletes fail tests while many more dope, then it is highly possible that he and his peers dope in training. "Modern training" cannot be separated from doping. Hence, it isnt possible to know how much of any given performance is the result of training and how much is due to doping. Cheptegei remains suspicious for those reasons alone, quite apart from any others.

Is this the best you can do? Rhetorical question.

Yes, it is possible. Yes, we don't know it's not.

All of the opposites are also possible. We don't know it's not.

What is highly possible and what is highly unlikely? Hard to say without facts.

Arguments of ignorance can take us everywhere, when we know very little.

How do we escape this trap of faith and fallacy?

We need more facts, more controlled observations, and strong correlations, if not proof of causation.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hence, it isnt possible to know how much of any given performance is the result of training and how much is due to doping.

Hundreds of posts before he finally accepts the obvious.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Modern training" cannot be separated from doping. Hence, it isnt possible to know how much of any given performance is the result of training and how much is due to doping. Cheptegei remains suspicious for those reasons alone, quite apart from any others.

When you claim "modern training" cannot be separated from doping you are accusing every single coach who uses post-Lydiard training methods of doping their athletes and every athlete of today who achieves amazing times of being doped.

Let's take the example of one of your heroes, a truly amazing athlete, Peter Snell.

Snell ran 1:44.3 on grass. A good grass track is extremely fast so let's say that he would have been just slightly faster on a modern track and with modern spikes - 1:44.0

I don't think anyone doubts that in a perfectly paced race, with pacemakers, on that day Snell could have run 1:43.0 on a modern track.

Now add all the knowledge gathered during the last almost 60 years, in terms of nutrition, recovery, strength training, speed work, mileage ( = "modern training") and a longer career with other runners at a similar level to push him to his limit in races.

Do you have any doubt that Snell could have run under 1:42?

I don't.

Now when you accuse anyone running nowadays of doping because they run extremely fast times you are being completely unfair.

There are athletes who dope and there are athletes who are supremely talented, true genetic freaks.

Let's take that example again, let's say Snell could have run 1:41.9

1:41.91 = 1270 points as per the IAAF tables.

1270 points = 26:33 for 10,000 m (what Kiplimo, whom you accuse of doping, has run recently)

1270 points = 12:43 for 5,000 m - you accuse every single runner who has run that time or faster of being a doper.

Are you saying that Snell was an ET? Snell doped? No. And I don't think he did either.

Then why can't other athletes run at least as fast (equivalent) as he would have with modern training, and a handful of outliers run even faster?

In my limited experience as a coach I have worked with a boy who at the age of 19 ran a 1:54 800 m on 1.5 months of 4 days of easy running, on hill session and one track session.

And this was in a small community.

Now imagine the much superior talent that exists all over the world!

There are dopers, and there are clean, extremely talented athletes, like Snell was.

5558 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hence, it isnt possible to know how much of any given performance is the result of training and how much is due to doping.

Hundreds of posts before he finally accepts the obvious.

Haha. Armstronglivs, I'm still waiting for your evidence. 26 pages now.

Did you have too much alcohol to drink down in New Zealand last night?

There will never be enough to satisfy a doping denier such as yourself.

5558 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hence, it isnt possible to know how much of any given performance is the result of training and how much is due to doping.

Hundreds of posts before he finally accepts the obvious.

You mean the "obvious" conclusion that doping is part of modern training? Well done. It has taken you hundreds of posts.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Is this the best you can do? Rhetorical question.

Yes, it is possible. Yes, we don't know it's not.

All of the opposites are also possible. We don't know it's not.

What is highly possible and what is highly unlikely? Hard to say without facts.

Arguments of ignorance can take us everywhere, when we know very little.

How do we escape this trap of faith and fallacy?

We need more facts, more controlled observations, and strong correlations, if not proof of causation.

There will never be enough to satisfy a doping denier such as yourself.

But zero isn't really that much, don't you think?

Armstronglivs wrote:

5558 wrote:

Hundreds of posts before he finally accepts the obvious.

You mean the "obvious" conclusion that doping is part of modern training? Well done. It has taken you hundreds of posts.

I have not done hundreds of posts and I knew before that many athletes dope. But for some specific athlet it's difficult to say yes or no.

My point is that in the modern era it is no longer possible to tell the difference. A Snell today could not be confidently assumed to be clean. In the early 1960's doping was nothing like it has become today and had not begun to feature in distance running events. There are official estimates today that range from 1 in 10 championship athletes to at least 1 in 2 if not higher. Very very few are caught - only the "dumb and the careless" (WADA).

I can look at an athlete's performances and say I don't believe what I am seeing. I may be right or I may be wrong - but my chances are likely to be 50%. That's all yours are, too, if you think any top athlete today is clean. It is a sad reflection of where we are with elite and professional sport.

"When you claim "modern training" cannot be separated from doping you are accusing every single coach who uses post-Lydiard training methods of doping their athletes and every athlete of today who achieves amazing times of being doped." (quote)

No, I am not. I am saying we cannot know whether an achievement is based on talent and training alone or whether doping has played a part.

5558 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There will never be enough to satisfy a doping denier such as yourself.

But zero isn't really that much, don't you think?

It is always zero to a denier.

5558 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You mean the "obvious" conclusion that doping is part of modern training? Well done. It has taken you hundreds of posts.

I have not done hundreds of posts and I knew before that many athletes dope. But for some specific athlet it's difficult to say yes or no.

I didnt say you have done hundreds of posts. But I am sure you have read them.

For any specific athlete it may be difficult to say whether or not you might think they are doping - but some are more suspicious than others, if you know what you are seeing. In the end, it is a matter of opinion - in the same way the belief any athlete is clean is only an opinion. Absent a confirmed doping violation, there is no proof either way. But few are caught. The prevalence of doping means no sportsman/woman is above suspicion. It is always possible now.

Armstronglivs wrote:

5558 wrote:

I have not done hundreds of posts and I knew before that many athletes dope. But for some specific athlet it's difficult to say yes or no.

I didnt say you have done hundreds of posts. But I am sure you have read them.

For any specific athlete it may be difficult to say whether or not you might think they are doping - but some are more suspicious than others, if you know what you are seeing. In the end, it is a matter of opinion - in the same way the belief any athlete is clean is only an opinion. Absent a confirmed doping violation, there is no proof either way. But few are caught. The prevalence of doping means no sportsman/woman is above suspicion. It is always possible now.

I have not read hundreds of posts in this thread.

These are not opinions. Clean or not is not a matter of opinion but facts. Don't you know what an opinion is?

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can look at an athlete's performances and say I don't believe what I am seeing. I may be right or I may be wrong - but my chances are likely to be 50%.

That's your evidence?!

You flip a coin and see if it's heads or tails? That's your 50%?

Is this what the New Zealand education system is teaching?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Is this the best you can do? Rhetorical question.

Yes, it is possible. Yes, we don't know it's not.

All of the opposites are also possible. We don't know it's not.

What is highly possible and what is highly unlikely? Hard to say without facts.

Arguments of ignorance can take us everywhere, when we know very little.

How do we escape this trap of faith and fallacy?

We need more facts, more controlled observations, and strong correlations, if not proof of causation.

There will never be enough to satisfy a doping denier such as yourself.

Au contraire, there is enough evidence to satisfy me in the case of women on steroids and testosterone in selected middle distance events.

Calling me false names, and making up lies, will not produce the necessary facts, observations, and correlations that would help support your many unproven ideas about how you believe the world to be.

5558 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I didnt say you have done hundreds of posts. But I am sure you have read them.

For any specific athlete it may be difficult to say whether or not you might think they are doping - but some are more suspicious than others, if you know what you are seeing. In the end, it is a matter of opinion - in the same way the belief any athlete is clean is only an opinion. Absent a confirmed doping violation, there is no proof either way. But few are caught. The prevalence of doping means no sportsman/woman is above suspicion. It is always possible now.

I have not read hundreds of posts in this thread.

These are not opinions. Clean or not is not a matter of opinion but facts. Don't you know what an opinion is?

Clean is not a fact. It is only an opinion because you dont - cannot - know who is clean and who isnt. There is a 50/50 chance they aren't.

facts and reason wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can look at an athlete's performances and say I don't believe what I am seeing. I may be right or I may be wrong - but my chances are likely to be 50%.

That's your evidence?!

You flip a coin and see if it's heads or tails? That's your 50%?

Is this what the New Zealand education system is teaching?

That isn't my "evidence", but you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong when you claim an athlete is clean. That is the estimated incidence of doping at championship level.

Statistical probability isn't part of your training. Surprising for someone who has called himself a "mathematician with a statistical bent". Very bent.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There will never be enough to satisfy a doping denier such as yourself.

Au contraire, there is enough evidence to satisfy me in the case of women on steroids and testosterone in selected middle distance events.

Calling me false names, and making up lies, will not produce the necessary facts, observations, and correlations that would help support your many unproven ideas about how you believe the world to be.

Of course. Your old trope that doping only works on Russian women and with a single drug like testosterone - despite that fact there is a whole pharmacy being used today and in every athletic discipline. But it never works for elite African distance runners, who continue to dope to the gills against your advice.

It is difficult to think of a false name when confronted of denialism of those proportions. You have made high art of stupidity.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Au contraire, there is enough evidence to satisfy me in the case of women on steroids and testosterone in selected middle distance events.

Calling me false names, and making up lies, will not produce the necessary facts, observations, and correlations that would help support your many unproven ideas about how you believe the world to be.

Of course. Your old trope that doping only works on Russian women and with a single drug like testosterone - despite that fact there is a whole pharmacy being used today and in every athletic discipline. But it never works for elite African distance runners, who continue to dope to the gills against your advice.

We were talking about:

"We need more facts, more controlled observations, and strong correlations, if not proof of causation."

and:

"There will never be enough to satisfy a doping denier such as yourself."

You should see now that you were completely wrong on two counts: I am not a doping denier, and I can be satisfied with evidence.

What I haven't seen from you are facts, observations, correlations, and causation -- only faith and fallacy and burden shifting, combined with arrogance, mockery and immature insults.

facts and reason wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is all due to "modern training".

25 pages in, and I'm still waiting for evidence that Cheptegei cheated.

Do you have anything?

Um he changed countries entirely when they built a drug testing lab in Kenya!