7:17.55! Jakob Ingebrigtsen DESTROYS 3000m WR

I wondered how this got to 27 pages. Is it really just khamis and armstronglivs taking over the thread?

Training the Lydiard way was not inflexible. It would vary according to the needs of the athlete. Snell said it wasn't easy meeting their targets. (That included running a solo 800m time trial in Tokyo that was less than a second outside his own Olympic record). Herb Elliott also said his training was often to the point of exhaustion, or he saw no point to it.

We saw a thread about Grant Fisher's training which emphasised less mileage with less intensity. So training today and in the Lydiard/Cerutty era isn't "apples and oranges".

One further point. Doping enables heavier workloads in training and quicker recovery. That is one of its advantages and why some athletes can apparently train harder today.

It's entirely possible to beat doped athletes as a clean athlete, and it happens all the time. You assume that all the best, if they are clean, are at the same level.

We know that Jakob has been way ahead of e.g. Kerr since he was young. If Jakob continues to train and improve, why shouldn't he be able to be better as an adult as well? There are limits to how much one can improve by doping nowadays compared to the 90s.

Grammy awards are for music, not acting.

Again, if you think I lied about something before in another thread, you are surely mistaken. I do not believe the things you say you saw I said before. But maybe you have a specific quote you need me to explain how you misinterpreted.

I would say, and have said, that annual WADA "Testing Figures" and WADA "ADRV" Reports alone provide objective evidence that doping is prevalent and widespread, as well as the AIU website, USADA website, ADAK website, Sunday Times report of the leaked IAAF blood data, etc.

I'm not sure what you think you saw, but often prevalence is described in non-quantitative, emotional terms, like "rampant" or "widespread" or "throughout", which can mean 100 things to 100 people. None of these emotional terms bring anyone any closer to knowing if elite distance running prevalence is closer to 10% or 80%. Indeed, over time in various posts, your own darling has told me that official estimates range from 10% to 80%. I may challenge specific figures, but more generally I never deny the existence of doping among athletes, at the top, in the middle, or at the bottom, from countries and events around the world.

Whoever said you have this knack?

World Record holders don't need to believe in objective data from scientists, but in themselves, their coach, and their training. The objective data will be their times, providing positive feedback.

Once again, this unsubstantiated allegation that I am lying. Just two days ago, your fellow darling just told me "how do you expect objective data to stream in like I imagine live video pornography for an art so secretive and covet(sic) as doping?????????" 4 days ago, when I asked you about "likely effects", "Total" Fitness defended you: "Of course he can’t provide that evidence. Doping by its very nature is an underground, clandestine activity." And how many times have you told me something like "That is quite apart from the fact that there can be no definitive measure of a clandestine practice"?

If I am wrong, how about you sharing some of the "information about the role doping plays in elite distance running" and "information about doping in terms of what is being used, by whom and its likely effects" right here right now?

Please dwell on the information that clearly establishes that the effects of doping played an active role on some of the incredible performances we have seen in the last few years.

Or is the role simply a passive role of mere existence such that the most we can "understand" is "that doping is throughout sports" and "it can be widespread", with no way to evaluate the "likely effects"?

So who are the clean athletes beating doped athletes? Which ones do you know are doping? How do you know the clean athletes are in fact "clean"?

Clean athletes are only likely to beat doped athletes if they are at completely another level from the doped athletes. They are unlikely to meet, since most races at any higher level pull together athletes of a similar competitive level. My point is that if two athletes are of a similar level without doping then if one of them were to dope they would have a clear advantage. If would be like you racing a doped version of yourself. You would lose.

That there may be no definitive measure of a practice doesn't mean, as you have suggested, that we know little about it or that it doesn't even really exist. It is like a mountain that we encounter that we haven't been able to exactly measure. Only you would suggest it isn't a mountain that lies in your path because there's no "data' that tells you how big it is. That is like the practice of doping but your method is to never see it.

Your point is popular speculation.

Would you lose to a doped version of yourself? Maybe in sprints, short distance, and field events, especially if you are a woman.

Correction, it was you who suggested there can be no definitive measure -- one of your answers to my request for more information.

Recall my point was that "there is little information". You only prove me right again. Whenever I ask for more information, I hit a detour, or a dead-end, as you are unable to provide any such information. Just weird analogies with mountains.

Can you two please stop the back-and-forth and either get a room or go elsewhere rather than getting off on each other? For fek's sake, lads.

It's to see, in this thread. You just have to go back a few pages.

"Yes" or "No" from you means nothing, since you have no interest in the truth but only to remain the "winner".

This is how you lie. I say there isn't a definitive measure of the extent of doping so you claim that is saying we really know nothing about doping, which is the opposite of saying we can know a lot but not necessarily with exactitude. How big is the ocean, rekrunner? You really have made a fine art of stupidity.

The irony in that last sentence. I am not interested in winning against you - there is no triumph in being smarter than a dullard.

There's no sharing anything with rekrunner - unless it's his denial and his lies.

We know people ran 3.29 in the 1500, before the EPO era. With the same shoes and on the same track, they would beat almost all of the athletes you claim are doped today. They would manage this with much less, and poorer training.

You should think about the message you are sending to younger athletes. If anyone believes you, there will be fewer people willing to train twice a day for 10-15 years to try to become the world's best.

You are not smarter than that poster. There is enough evidence of that in this thread alone.

Exactly! This doping-obsessed man is telling young athletes they will never be champions or at the top unless they dope.

Who are the clean athletes that beat an admitted EPO doper like Zane Robertson? Well, as you are saying we can’t know who is clean, but does this mean, in your opinion, that every athlete with a better pb than Robertson has to be doped!? (His pbs: Marathon-2.08, half m-59.47, 10k -27.28, 5000m-13.13, 1500m-3.34). If so you must have changed your prior opinion about at least some elite athletes not taking drugs..? (As long as they aren’t top top elite)…

You take it as granted that a doping situation is that of two athletes on the same level one takes dope and thus becomes the better performer. But what if none of these two dope, but only the fifth clean best changes his mind and start doing dope and thus becomes f.x the second all time best -still beaten by a clean athlete, but absolute impossible in your eyes..? (An concrete example could be constructed -I say constructed, because I wouldn’t dream of accusing Lagat- based on the two test irregularities (Lagats A sample, Kiprops A and B) that have been here: El Guerrouj 3.26.0 clean, Jakob 3.26.73 clean, all the 3.27 guys clean. That would make two 3.26 athletes doped, who would f.x only be 3.28/3.29 clean, and 5 x 3.27 athletes clean -summed up to 7 sub 3.28 clean and 2 dirty =doping prevalence among the very top elite around 20%. So how do you know that this scenario/ prevalence is impossible? And for the sake of it: No problem for me to suggest that Lagat was clean, and change him with one of the others sub 3.28’s, or even adding one more of them to the dirty ones…. So how do you know what is right?