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

TeamIngebrigtsenStalker wrote:

What I think, however, is that he’s not going to get much faster, because his training age is so old. He’s 18 on paper, but by the time he’s 23 he’ll have been doing this for 10 years. I’m not sure if there’s much of an upside on him, might peak in Tokyo and that’s that.

Yeah, because Bekele and Kipchoge suddenly became nobodies after having trained for 10 years.

Jackob's training might not have been pure aerobic base building, and his frame might be more suited to mid distance, but I do see a potential on various road distances for when the speed will start to be a problem. He already does fairly decent in XC for someone whose main event is the 15.

LoneStarXC wrote:

I agree. And, as I’ve posted before, Henrik Ingebrigtsen was flagged as “likely doping” on the Fancy Bears leak. The Fancy Bears are up to their old tricks again, and the new leaks are apparently going to be released soon, so it will be interesting to see if there’s dirt on Jakob Ingebrigtsen specifically.

Any hints from our ursine colleagues as to when this might transpire?

Xtreme xtremism wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

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

That is actually really well stated, and applies to 90% of the posts and posters here. People appear here with statements of nothing but their personal opinion, and pass it off as fact. Then they're upset when someone questions it. It's a bizarre scene. Is this type of interaction also presentbin other forums?

Leak away! wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

I agree. And, as I’ve posted before, Henrik Ingebrigtsen was flagged as “likely doping” on the Fancy Bears leak. The Fancy Bears are up to their old tricks again, and the new leaks are apparently going to be released soon, so it will be interesting to see if there’s dirt on Jakob Ingebrigtsen specifically.

Any hints from our ursine colleagues as to when this might transpire?

My guess is that FB is going to wait & see if Russia gets banned for Tokyo. If Russia gets reinstated then you'll never hear of what info they found.

KenyaMan wrote:

whoppeer wrote:

Lol so Eliud is 42 now. Hilarious.

Closer to 42 than 34 thats for sure. Running world class times in the marathon is clearly possible at an older age than traditional thought would let us believe.

He's 47

casual obsever wrote:

ignorant americans, as always wrote:

Ask any professional athlete, any of his competitors in the DL circuit if you think he's doping. I know what they'll answer.

Once you realize that (likely more than) 44% of all world championship athletes are doping, you know the answer too.

You seem to know about the latest studies. Did you see this one about genetic doping testing?

Sorry if this was discussed before, but I noticed they don't say 44%, but they say 18% endurance athletes blood doping and 29% world championship athletes, and 45% at the pan-Arab games, according to WADA studies.

Wouldn't the best number for Jakob be 18% as an endurance athlete?

1) 18% comes from blood doping only, and was the minimal estimate of Saugy et al. based on anomalous blood profiles.

2) 29% comes from the lowest estimate of dopers under two conservative assumptions (actually, 31% - standard deviation). In the same study, the authors explain why the raw result of 44% is likely an underestimation.

3) If you look at recent bans, you notice that for distance runners, blood and steroid doping are roughly comparable.

1 + 2 + 3: while all numbers carry some uncertainties, 40-60% seems to be a good estimate for all kinds of doping among top distance runners. Of course that will be more in some countries than in others, and in some events more than others.

No matter what the exact number is, basically everyone here agrees that a) doping is epidemic and b) not everyone dopes. Plus, since doping helps, you'll find more dopers at the top, imho.

casual obsever wrote:

1) 18% comes from blood doping only, and was the minimal estimate of Saugy et al. based on anomalous blood profiles.

While the authors acknowledge the possibility of some unknown blood doping strategies not altering blood parameters to suspicious direction, I think they specifically find the 18 % figure quite reliable.

The 18% are the Prevalence M1, which the authors defined as:

Prevalence M1, minimal estimates without any assumptions on the doping method.

1) Tiny correction. 18% was blood doping only, but it was not based on anomalous blood profiles. It used a quite different approach to the kind of analysis done by Ashenden/Parisotto, simply counting off-score values that exceeded population thresholds then dividing by the total. This study used a cumulative distribution of the population of "Abnormal Profile Blood Scores (ABPS)", compared to the expected distribution of a reference population.

casual obsever wrote:

1) 18% comes from blood doping only, and was the minimal estimate of Saugy et al. based on anomalous blood profiles.

2) 29% comes from the lowest estimate of dopers under two conservative assumptions (actually, 31% - standard deviation). In the same study, the authors explain why the raw result of 44% is likely an underestimation.

3) If you look at recent bans, you notice that for distance runners, blood and steroid doping are roughly comparable.

1 + 2 + 3: while all numbers carry some uncertainties, 40-60% seems to be a good estimate for all kinds of doping among top distance runners. Of course that will be more in some countries than in others, and in some events more than others.

No matter what the exact number is, basically everyone here agrees that a) doping is epidemic and b) not everyone dopes. Plus, since doping helps, you'll find more dopers at the top, imho.

The other estimate, M2, assuming micro-dosing, was 19%.

casual obsever wrote:

The 18% are the Prevalence M1, which the authors defined as:

Prevalence M1, minimal estimates without any assumptions on the doping method.

Quickly browsed through the issue and looked for your source, so I presume you are referring to the 2011 paper which indeed has also the figure of 18 % but which has some data from 2001 so it is debatable how relevant its implications are today.

The source for the 18 % figure in the link above is the recent paper detailing the 2011 and 2013 games ("Only last month, a study estimated that 18 per cent of endurance athletes were guilty of blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 World Athletics Championships") which has no "minimum estimate" claim as far as I remember.

Good point, thank you.

In any case, there was not a significant difference between the minimal M1 and M2 estimates, except (as they noted) when the sample size is really small. 18% (and also 15% for men and 22% for women), were just the summary figures for 2011, but not 2013, which were 15%, 17% and 12%, respectively -- much lower for the women, and slightly higher for the men. It's also fair to say that in-competition testing from 2011 and 2013 Championships would not detect out of season doping, so for this (and other) reasons, 18% should be interpreted with these limitations in mind. Having said that, the results from 2001-2009 (pre-2009, and in and out of competition), from 2011, and from 2013 were all similar, around 15-20%. Aragon, I'm curious about your thoughts, if any, on this topic: getting back to interpreting the Tuebingen study, which used the Unrelated Question Model (UQM) to guarantee anonymity, have you seen subsequent studies that compare that survey method (UQM) with other survey questionnaire techniques (e.g. SSC), casting doubt on UQM for sensitive questions, and its inability to estimate survey non-compliance? In a different study on a different population, they found "A large discrepancy was observed in prevalence estimates for PED using the UQM (58.4%) and SSC (19.8%)", suggesting that even the conservative lower bound estimate from the Tuebingen study might still be too high, being based on several subjective assumptions of likelihood that ignore the psychology of athletes, clean and dirty, being properly motivated to comply with survey questionnaires. In the Appendix of the Tuebingen study, they briefly mention Single Sample Count (SSC), and give the raw data in Table 6, promising "A more comprehensive discussion of the SSC methods for adjusting for noncompliance, together with the SSC-derived and noncompliance-corrected doping estimations from these fi eld tests, will be presented in a subsequent publication." As far as I know, it has not been published yet. I had asked, and remain curious, for "casual obsever's" thoughts on this same topic, but he has not responded to previous inquiries. Further References: Comparison of UQM Method with SSC, Social Projection, and Network Scale Up Methods "A potential inflating effect in estimation models: Cautionary evidence from comparing performance enhancing drug and herbal hormonal supplement use estimates", Ricky A. James, Tamás Nepusz, Declan P. Naughton, Andrea Petróczi, "Psychology of Sport and Exercise" 14 (2013) 84-96, doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.08.003 A deeper description of Single Sample Count: "Estimating the Prevalence of Socially Sensitive Behaviours: Attributing Guilty and Innocent Noncompliance with the Single Sample Count Method", Nepusz, T., Petróczi, A., Naughton, D., Epton, T., & Norman, P., "Psychological Methods", 19, 334-355, doi: 10.1037/a0034961

Aragon wrote:

Quickly browsed through the issue and looked for your source, so I presume you are referring to the 2011 paper which indeed has also the figure of 18 % but which has some data from 2001 so it is debatable how relevant its implications are today.

The source for the 18 % figure in the link above is the recent paper detailing the 2011 and 2013 games ("Only last month, a study estimated that 18 per cent of endurance athletes were guilty of blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 World Athletics Championships") which has no "minimum estimate" claim as far as I remember.

The actual paper, not the newspaper's summary of it, compared the 18% with the 44% as follows:

They then continue to argue that their method is also more reliable than Ulrich's, e.g. "confusion between medication misuse and real doping behaviour for athletes originating from 200 different countries might not be excluded with the analysis of surveys.".

Thanks for the answers. Looks like I woke the beast. Sorry.

Since Jakob is a male endurance athlete, it seems like there is no good number for all doping for just men for just endurance.

What do you think about genetic testing?

Genetic testing will come, and be helpful, but later and less helpful than Pitsiladis wants us to believe. At this point, he is advertising for his method to get more funding.

You do know that Henrik PRed in the 3k this season with a 7:36?

Hey Brojos/Mods can you please ban this racist please? Casual Observer constantly quotes a clearly racist 'scientific' paper that claims that according to their 'survey' 44% of athletes at the 2011 World Championships admitted to doping, and yet 53% did so at the Pan Arab Games. In other words, he's quoting a paper that claims Arabs are more likely to dope than non-Arabs. And it's not even simply 53% as compared to 44%. Obviously a percentage of the dopers at the World Championships will be the same (higher percentage) doping pool of Arab athletes. And if we assume that the East Africa similarly has a higher percentage (i.e. 53%) then it would indicate that the figure for non African athletes at the World Championships would be a lot lower than 44%. That's before you even took out the Russian athletes (and I don't think to my knowledge ANYBODY here claims it's rasheest to accuse Russia of having a doping problem). A schoolboy could take those stats (44% at World Championships, 53% at Pan Arab Games) and infer that the actual figure for non- Russian, non-African athletes would therefore be a lot lower than 44%, perhaps in the low 20% range (which is still of course a lot, however it doesn't warrant Casual Observski's assumption that EVERYBODY dopes, including the Ingebrigtsens).