Jakob Ingebrigtsen will easily win WCh 5000m

kartelite wrote:

Lance Armstrong was/is a sociopath. He would have doped to win a three-legged race at the county fair. It is a fair point that people from an impoverished background have more to gain/less to lose by doping - it makes it easier to rationalize in that case (not saying it's justifiable, just understandable that people with a gray moral compass would take one path in one set of circumstances, and another path in others).

By American standards Lance was from a fairly poor background. His mother was only 16 when he was born, he did not go to college. He was extremely driven and endurance sports were the only way for him to get ahead in his life. This is basically a perfect situation to give someone the motivation to dope.

Coevett wrote:

I've never said that I don't believe the Ingebrigtsens are clean, just the opposite. Blatant troll lies (to the troll that Rekrunner replied to).

The difference between myself and Rekrunner is I stick to evidence. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and claims like 'everybody dopes' or 'EPO doesn't work', are found wanting there.

We were both trolled.

Since you "stick to evidence", can you show me the evidence that I ever made extraordinary claims like "Everybody dopes" or "EPO doesn't work"? These are generally not my words, but usually come from those building a rekrunner strawman argument because they cannot knock down the real one.

I do not wish to re-argue any of the points below again, but want to illustrate with examples that my doping related arguments are largely evidence based.

Apologies in advance to Armstronglivs, for the length of the post, but I need these many words to illustrate the rich set of the body of evidence that helps form my views, after being accused indirectly of not sticking to evidence.

With respect to "Everybody dopes", I do not claim (nor believe) that literally "everybody" dopes. The one time I recall assuming "everybody dopes", triggering non-evidence based emotional outrage from you, I was assuming for arguments sake, the worst case position of others and immediately qualified it with "up to 57%", the worst PAG pre-analysis estimate found in the Tuebingen study (aka the evidence).

On the question of "who dopes", I already have repeatedly, but I will again defer and direct you to the evidence of doping by country breakdowns that can be found at the WADA, USADA, AIU, UKAD, etc. websites, two IAAF studies estimating blood doping prevelance, Attachment 3 of the Supplemental material of the Tuebingen study, and to summary reporting of the IAAF "leaked database" found in the Sunday Times.

With respect to "EPO doesn't work", my position is much more nuanced, and only becomes difficult to understand because so many have built strawman arguments to replace my own. I often argue, based on evidence, that:

(NB: "works" is ambiguous, as I don't doubt that EPO "works" in its primary purpose to increase red-blood cell counts, but for the sake of argument, let's assume you mean super-natural performance not possible clean)

1) observed short term performance gains from EPO are modest at best, with the evidence being a large body of controlled doping studies

2) the results of some doping studies is questionable, e.g. Kenyans running 1 minute slower after EPO treatment than predicted by their PBs in other events, with the evidence being PBs in other events, and standard prediction tables, not to mention standard criticisms, such as a lack of control or blinding, and suitability of results on amateurs to make predictions for elite athletes.

3) the value of anecdotes to "prove" effect is limited, as these observations are uncontrolled

4) observed performance progress (from all causes combined, doping and non-doping) in all distance events for the best non-Africans during the EPO-era, have been measurably less than modest, in terms of both quality and quantity, especially for the men, with the evidence being all-time performance lists. (This could conceivably support that non-Africans do not dope, but that would contradict the extensive list of evidence above.)

5) high altitude training also "works" by the same mechanism of increasing EPO and RBC and HCT and VO2max, with the evidence being controlled high altitude studies

But apart from this rich set of sources of evidence, I suppose I do hold some beliefs which are not evidence based.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

"believe". It's like we are discussing religion or mythology.

Then you are obviously not familiar with assessing evidence that is testimony in a court case. In many instances , the question will be whether the jury "believes" a witness. That has nothing to do with religion or mythology but credibility. You believe certain research because you find it credible, not because you performed it yourself. So others may believe differently from you - on the basis of different argument or evidence - although you do find that hard to understand.

The question of believing Ingebrigtsens are clean is not like witness testimony in a court case.

This is not a court, and there are no witnesses or witness testimony.

If it were a court, much of this forum would be stricken from the record as inadmissible.

The way "believe" is used here is to form conclusions, and pass them off as truths, while lacking the necessary evidence to support such conclusions.

It is more like we are discussing religion or mythology.

Talking as one who "forms conclusions and passes them off as truths" - that you do well.

No, this isn't a court of law, but the process of assessing the credibility of evidence is much the same in everyday life; judgments and opinions are formed according to the information we are given, if we haven't directly experienced the matter ourselves.

As you make no claim to have been a doped athlete or even to know doped athletes you are no different from anyone else who chooses to believe - or not - what someone else tells you about that subject (or indeed any other subject that isn't based on your own experience).

Of course, it is not beyond you to claim omniscience, and the ability to know with complete certainty the truth of matters you have no experience of. Yes - that must be it. You can be quite amusing, sometimes.

Haha, yes, priceless to see rekrunnr and coevett accusing each other correctly about not sticking to the evidence.

Those two trills are the most biased posters here by far.

Coevett wrote:

If Jakob wins gold in either event, he would have to considered an all-time great already.

No. Stop.

If he wins, the question I have is how big of an asterisk to we put on it? No Kejelcha. No Cheptegei. No Hagos. Only 1 Kenyan under 13:10 and only two Kenyans total I think. An none of the 3 Americans that have run 12:58-13:00 this year.

All he's got to do is beat a couple of guys who didn't medal at World jrs right? And Mo Ahmed?

That's why I just put some money down on Ahmed. Can we bronze Jerry Schumacher in the coaching Hall of Fame if he gets a non-NCAA champ to win Worlds gold?

John Wesley Harding wrote:

Does this mean Hagos won’t be running the 10k either?—or at least not at full health?

Hagos is good to do. The Ethiopian federation just didn't enter him. As I noted in our preview, after Rome, Hagos said he was going to focus on the 10k so it's possible he didn't want to run the 5000 but to me that's not a smart call as 10k is LOADED.

If Jakob does win it, it will be hilarious though that there is no 5000 on the DL circuit next year. What a joke. We have 100 posts talking about the 5000 on the LRC board but none on the DL.

Coevett wrote:

[The difference between myself and Rekrunner is I stick to evidence.

Funniest BS you’ll read all day.

Remember heats semi finals and Doha heat. Not a sure thing

My bad just heats and final but still the heat will be tough depending on the stadium air conditions

Norwegian

The stadium is like 24°C and 53% humidity aka. what you want.

The A/C in the call room might be an issue (too cold).

Coevett wrote:

give me a break wrote:

Getting Gold in one non-Olympic race makes someone an "all-time great", right?

You are off your meds, buddy.

At 19 it does, mate.

The world finals field and the olympics field consists of pretty much the SAME people every year. Why do people insist that an olympic gold is worth more than a world one?

I've got Jakob winning Bronze.

You do realize that JI was a phenomenon when he was as young as 11 years old? Do you find that to be sketchy as well?

doot doot wrote:

dinglebrain? wrote:

Umm, didn't Jakob already put down a 53 second lap vs Gebrihwet? Like a couple of months ago?

Yeah around there, but it wasn’t as fast as Gebrhiwet’s 53 so he didn’t get the win. It’s almost like he’s in a middle distance purgatory— hasn’t quite cracked 3:30 yet and couldn’t pull out a win with a 53 last lap in a 13:0X en route to a huge, impressive PR.

Lots of guys can rip 53 on the last lap of a 13:0X race. In fact it’s basically a requirement to be in medal contention.

Define..."lot's of guys." 12 guys have run faster than Jakob this year and a few of them will not be running the 5000m.

Aaleby wrote:

Ingebrigtsen's get tested up to 70 times during one year,

link?

OK have it your way then. Everyday life is more like we are discussing religion or mythology.

I see you also don't stick to the evidence.

No doorbell wrote:

Haha, yes, priceless to see rekrunnr and coevett accusing each other correctly about not sticking to the evidence.

Those two trills are the most biased posters here by far.