a) If this progression makes you think he's doping, I don't think anyone is safe from that assumption.
b) 2022 is the only year of his life (since starting running) where he did not set a 1500m best.
a) His progression can’t be compared to others because he’s been training like a pro since he was a young boy.
b) Your chart illustrates my point. He was stuck at 3:28 for three years. That appears to have been the limit of his natural ability. Then after his humiliating defeat at the hands of Jake Wightman in 2022, he suspiciously dropped down to 3:27 the following year and ran that crazy two mile time. He was like a completely different runner. Very sus.
Similar to Jessica Hull who stagnated at around 3:28 then in the span of little under a year shaved off 5-7 seconds, at 27 years old, then went on to break the 2000m world record. Nothing sus about such 'improvement'.
Most judgements involving conclusions of fact are based on the balance of probabilities. According to that test Jakob is doping, as are most other top athletes.
The soup here (Jakob doping or not) is far too thin to base any judgment of probabilities on. You can claim some indications of doping, but they are un substantially and fluffy, and I can claim indications of being clean: likely fluffy and unprovable… And this we can say about almost every athlete -probabilities don’t apply here. We need something more substantial, and that we can only get through testing and investigation when it comes to the individual athlete. In countries based on justice and civil rights everyone has a right to be considered innocent unless proven something else. And judging a balance of probabilities is just impossible without substantial facts, IMO…
I think one day I'll go through and compile all the "Jakob will never run faster than [insert PB/world age record/NR/WR that he just ran 10 minutes ago]" threads. The only reason I don't do it now is it'll be out of date in a few years because of all these threads that'll be made once he moves to the 5k/10k/half/maybe even marathon.
Don't forget all the JAKOB IS DONE posts. I honestly think all this is done as clickbait. It makes no sense.
A ton of the doping allegations on these boards rely solely on time progressions, which is incredibly simplistic (to say the least).
Exactly. The young doping dunces base it solely on time progression. With older dunces it's time progression as the simpleton reference point, but based on refusal to believe that new guys are significantly faster and better than their favorites of many decades ago.
Most judgements involving conclusions of fact are based on the balance of probabilities. According to that test Jakob is doping, as are most other top athletes.
The soup here (Jakob doping or not) is far too thin to base any judgment of probabilities on. You can claim some indications of doping, but they are un substantially and fluffy, and I can claim indications of being clean: likely fluffy and unprovable… And this we can say about almost every athlete -probabilities don’t apply here. We need something more substantial, and that we can only get through testing and investigation when it comes to the individual athlete. In countries based on justice and civil rights everyone has a right to be considered innocent unless proven something else. And judging a balance of probabilities is just impossible without substantial facts, IMO…
The balance of probabilities is what CAS relied on to convict Houlihan. It is used in most exercises involving assessments of fact. We do it every day. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a test only applied in criminal cases. That isn't relevant here. We are discussing what we think is more likely than not, which is whether a given athlete is doping, not whether a court would find someone guilty of a crime.
A ton of the doping allegations on these boards rely solely on time progressions, which is incredibly simplistic (to say the least).
Exactly. The young doping dunces base it solely on time progression. With older dunces it's time progression as the simpleton reference point, but based on refusal to believe that new guys are significantly faster and better than their favorites of many decades ago.
It isn't based solely on times progression but the whole picture of doping in a doped sport and what it takes to excel in that environment. You wouldn't base your judgement of whether someone was doping in the T d F based solely on their progression when almost the entire peloton was doping.
The balance of probabilities is what CAS relied on to convict Houlihan. It is used in most exercises involving assessments of fact. We do it every day. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a test only applied in criminal cases. That isn't relevant here. We are discussing what we think is more likely than not, which is whether a given athlete is doping, not whether a court would find someone guilty of a crime.
I don’t disagree here. But even in the Houlihan case (that you and I view differently) there were facts (test results and investigation) that misses when it comes to Jakob…
All about doping is really uncertain and subjective and debated (aside of most test results and investigation). I, f.ex, may have an opinion on doping prevalence and if a certain athlete is clean or dirty. But even if I reference to scientists (that I of course have cherry picked -we all do that) it comes down to this subjectivity and bias: My judgment is highly coloured by my (narrow, not necessarily representative, not unbiased) background and personal experiences (f.ex coming from a track club with no history of doping -not even doping rumours or slender). And even if I think I consistently use a sound logic in my reasoning I clearly cherry pick even there -so much to choose from in the vast science of logic. And last, but not least our personalities: I for instance is almost neurotically concerned with fairness , afraid of murder of justice, and very skeptical to all organisations and authority, but not necessarily so skeptically against a single individual… These personality traits clearly influence my judgment and feelings -potentially to judge “a balance of probability” wrongly… We therefore need factuality and evidence -the nearer the process in a criminal case the better.
And here’s my point: You are (principally) the same as me: Stirred by your background, feelings, personality, cherry picking of logic and probability. Therefore we need some humility and caution (I say this as a big mouth myself, that at least sometimes can moderate and nuance my self if given some time)…