There's no way Jakob Ingebrigtsen has achieved his results naturally

this is fun wrote:

When you claim that he must not be doping because he's regressed compared to his brothers,

I never claimed that Henrik is not doping because he's slower. You can quote all of my posts. You are fallacious.

I asked a question about the pro-drugs side. The burden of proof is on the pro-drugs side.

You are simply a "neutral" troll that's trying to impede the discussion from moving forward. This might be a delaying tactic of some sort.

LoneStarXC wrote:

Remember, “likely doping”, as the name indicates, means that “it is likely that the Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and it is highly unlikely that it may be the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition”

Source for quote:

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/new-blood-database-alleges-extensive-doping-cross-country-skiing/

Thank you for the link.

It says, "If, after reviewing those explanations, the experts agree maintain that the pathology indicates ‘likely doping’, then an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) is issued."

It is my understanding that Henrik's "passport suspicious" status was never escalated to an anti-droping rule violation. It seems that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

facts and reason wrote:

this is fun wrote:

When you claim that he must not be doping because he's regressed compared to his brothers,

I never claimed that Henrik is not doping because he's slower. You can quote all of my posts. You are fallacious.

I asked a question about the pro-drugs side. The burden of proof is on the pro-drugs side.

You are simply a "neutral" troll that's trying to impede the discussion from moving forward. This might be a delaying tactic of some sort.

Well Jon, it's like this. Henrik is older and run into the ground. He's also not able to dope as much given the FB leak. Gotta be careful.

Dope works really well but it's hard to get the best out of it given the testing.

Make sense, dummkopf?

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

facts and reason wrote:

I never claimed that Henrik is not doping because he's slower. You can quote all of my posts. You are fallacious.

I asked a question about the pro-drugs side. The burden of proof is on the pro-drugs side.

You are simply a "neutral" troll that's trying to impede the discussion from moving forward. This might be a delaying tactic of some sort.

Well Jon, it's like this. Henrik is older and run into the ground. He's also not able to dope as much given the FB leak. Gotta be careful.

Dope works really well but it's hard to get the best out of it given the testing.

Make sense, dummkopf?

Seems this would make sense only to a dumbkoff

Xtreme xtremism wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Well Jon, it's like this. Henrik is older and run into the ground. He's also not able to dope as much given the FB leak. Gotta be careful.

Dope works really well but it's hard to get the best out of it given the testing.

Make sense, dummkopf?

Seems this would make sense only to a dumbkoff

You would think but Jon is a special sort.

facts and reason wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

Remember, “likely doping”, as the name indicates, means that “it is likely that the Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and it is highly unlikely that it may be the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition”

Source for quote:

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/new-blood-database-alleges-extensive-doping-cross-country-skiing/

Thank you for the link.

It says, "If, after reviewing those explanations, the experts agree maintain that the pathology indicates ‘likely doping’, then an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) is issued."

It is my understanding that Henrik's "passport suspicious" status was never escalated to an anti-droping rule violation. It seems that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

Did you see Kiptum’s blood test data? An ABP violation needs to be very blatant before an athlete is busted. Kiptum kept his HGB above 18.4 all the time and has crazy high off scores. If he missed the Dec 9 test, he would never have been popped. In other words, he was careless. It’s easier to bust a doper if the drugs can be detected directly in a urine sample, as was the case with Kiprop, who, BTW, was only flagged as “passport suspicious”. H. Ingebrigtsen, in comparison, was flagged as “likely doping” at one point.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Xtreme xtremism wrote:

Seems this would make sense only to a dumbkoff

You would think but Jon is a special sort.

Lol. Just as I feared. We have a certified dumbkofpf here.

Not sure why the facts guy even bothers to respond. It's like arguing with folks in the insane asylum

This is a sh** thread

Saw Jakob's name. Just wanna say I can't wait for whats in store for 2020!!

He's an untouchable talent. Going to go on a limb and guess he'll run 3:28 & 12:49. Maybe a 7:27 3000 as well!!

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Henrik is older and run into the ground. He's also not able to dope as much given the FB leak. Gotta be careful.

So you're saying Henrik is "scared" of the dope police, so he's using "less dope" now, and that explains how his performance suffered....

My observation that Henrik's performance doesn't seem to match the profile of a drug cheat according to letsrun members is considered "filled with holes" because "a runner that slows down is a drug cheat because runners naturally slow down already without drugs."

This is circular reasoning.

We can go to an expert for a definition. In The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers 5th edition, 2000, Stephen Reid writes, "Circular argument: A sentence or argument that restates rather than proves."

Instead of giving a plausible explanation, you went into a circle that adds nothing to the discussion.

The purpose of drugs is to make extraordinary performances beyond what is a natural occurrence. The pro-drug side frequently points to Lance Armstrong or Kiprop as examples of elite cheaters.

It is only a reasonable response to point out how Henrik's career hasn't followed the same trajectory.

Jonny O?

What's up bro?

I already gave an answer, Jon. When you continuously overload a receptor with an agonist it down regulates.

At one point the Norwegian distance skiers were overloading with beta agonists. It's part of the culture.

LoneStarXC wrote:

Did you see Kiptum’s blood test data? An ABP violation needs to be very blatant before an athlete is busted. Kiptum kept his HGB above 18.4 all the time and has crazy high off scores. If he missed the Dec 9 test, he would never have been popped. In other words, he was careless. It’s easier to bust a doper if the drugs can be detected directly in a urine sample, as was the case with Kiprop, who, BTW, was only flagged as “passport suspicious”. H. Ingebrigtsen, in comparison, was flagged as “likely doping” at one point.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9695290

The standard is set pretty high to ban an athlete for an ABP - at least 99% specificity - preferably 99.99% (1 in 10,000 undoped). Interestingly, in the Cyrus Rutto hearing before the Disciplinary Tribunal (paragraph 128), IAAF anti-doping expert Professor d'Onofrio stated that only "1 to 2 percent" of the ABPs referred to him "result in a unanimous expert panel finding of likely doping." And it takes 3 anti-doping experts to unanimously agree on a case - if two say likely doping but the third expert disagrees, then no ABP ban can be pursued.

128. "Throughout these proceedings, the Respondent has argued that the IAAF’s conclusions are premised on a relatively small sample size. But the ABP system permits for the finding of an ADR violation even with smaller sample sizes. In this case, two sets of results have been flagged by a panel of three independent experts, unanimously and operating on the basis of blind review, as indicative of doping at a confidence level of over 99%. These findings are rare: according to Professor d’Onofrio, perhaps 1 to 2 percent of all ABPs referred to him by the AIU ultimately result in a unanimous expert panel finding of likely doping."

Jon, you are the king of circular reasoning. In fact I thought for a while you had spun so tightly that you'd disappeared up your own arse. But here you are back again under a new name with the same old argument.

facts and reason wrote:

Kiprop won a gold medal in Beijing 2008.

He got smoked by Ramzi in the Beijing 1500m final. Came in 2nd.

Love watching these kid touchers complain about Jakobs otherworldly talent. They can't sleep they're so bothered by the fact that he's European.

It's called genetics wrote:

Secretariat was Horse of the Year at 2.

I believe the critically acclaimed film "Secretariat" starring BoJack Horseman deals with this issue at length.

Xtreme xtremism wrote:

Not sure why the facts guy even bothers to respond. It's like arguing with folks in the insane asylum

That's where he's posting from.