Yes we do have a significant sample size (see automorphic’s post)… And these samples show that Katir isn’t the outlier you keep on saying he is…
Yes the Ingebrigsten example is a good one (because I see no signs of doping in his progression, nor in Katir’s)… The Devil is in the details, and statistics (over progression and reasons) can never be detailed enough to judge any athlete at all -we simply don’t have the necessary facts detailed enough for each athlete…
Therefore you have to make your own weird short cuts in analysing the statistics: Since Jakob Ingebrigsten’s 9 sec progression ended at 3.31.18 you draw an artificial limit at 3.30.0 so you can exclude him as an outlier, choosing Katir’s 8 sec instead. But this is to manipulate the statistics the way it suits your own agenda! (We can all do that; that’s the reason statistics have to be treated with care, or else they will lead to conspiracy theories…)
Jakob I. ran 6 races under 3.31.7 before breaking 3.30 (you say), and that’s of course not strange at all, since a great improvement often is followed by smaller steps. -The same is to be said about Katir; his 3.28 is a kind of ( maybe intermediate) plateau surrounded by his 3,29 and 3.30s… (But even here your statistics could have been ruined if Jakob hadn’t eased up over the finish line in his 3.30.16 -shows how fragile statistics always are).
You really don't get it do you. And I am actually not sure what "stats" of the "sample size" you are looking at. It's pretty definitive that over the course of history that athletes with the ability to break through to this truly elite sub 3.30 club (more on that below since you disagree with a "limit") very rarely can do it irrespective of how good they are, unless they run in the low 3.30's prior.
You talk about this "artificial limit" - you mean "arbitrary limit" of 3.30 and yes it is one but we have to have one. We can just say for example that 4.00 or 3.50 is that limit and we look at all athletes in history to see what kind of jumps they made through those thresholds. Why? Well the most obvious one is the insane volume of "evidence" we would have to deal with but more importantly - and this is the point you don't see to grasp - that as we move away from the WR which is the current limit of peak human performance all "jumps" are not created equal. Dropping 8 seconds from 4.00 to 3.52 is not the same as from 3.36 to 3.28. Even going 3.40 to 3.32 is not the same as 3.36 to 3.28. If you can't grasp this then honestly you don't have the knowledge to have this discussion.
Why did I pick 3.30? Here is the rationale. For an elite 1500m runner, running 3.29.x is seen as the plateau of excellence. For many even incredible outlier talents it is the last of these performance plateaus to realistically aspire to because it is superior to a 3.50 mile, but far more attainable than what could be seen as the "final frontier" (outside of running the WR) which is the 3.45 mile (only 3 men in history even reached that). Only 38 men in history have run under 3.30 which is more than requisite to be seen as an elite plateau and it is still close enough to that pinnacle performance of the WR (3.26.00). It's not just a physiological barrier but even more so a psychological and emotional one - which is precisely why we see so many athletes run in the low 3.30's prior to breaking it - some of them (like Coe, Willis etc) have to pay their dues for many years at this level before doing so.
What I sense from you is a total lack of understanding how hard this is to do and how good of an athlete you need to be. You clearly see 3.30 in a similar vein to you see 3.40 - if an athlete can go from 3.46 to 3.38 in a season why can't an athlete go from 3.36 to 3.28? You don't understand this sport.
My points aren't really based on statistics - they purely support my stand on this but you also have latched onto this narrative about "manipulation and selection to prove a narrative". How original of you - just classic default tactics for someone out of ideas with no basis for their own POV.
This is quite simple - you either don't believe that there are any thresholds or plateaus of performance in this event (in which case this discussion is over because then I know you don't understand this event let alone the sport of competitive running) or you have a different idea of what is reasonable to draw the line at. I mean, you surely don't think a 3.33 runner coming out and running 3.25 would be seen as plausible right, so in this case why don't you tell me what you think is a reasonable time to improve 8 seconds in a 1500m from. Is it 3.40 to 3.32? 3.38 to 3.30? 3.33 to 3.25? The floor is yours.
Firstly : I agree that from 3.36.59 to 3.28.76 (7.83 sec) is a more decisive leap than 3.39.93 to 3.31.18 (8.75 sec) because Katir (3.28.76) being 2.42 sec closer to the WR than Ingebrigtsen (3.31.18). And 2.42 sec matters -it’s significant…. Saying that Jakob dropped 1 sec more than Katir, making the improvement a little more alike… Conclusion: Katir made the most significant improvement, but Jakob is close enough to make the following point: They both had a year with unexpected large improvement (more seconds than previous years) -Ingebrigtsen with the largest leap in seconds, Katir the largest in quality… And improvements must not only be measured against the WR, but also against your own starting point… Therefore Ingebrigtsen is as relevant as Katir with doping suspicions only based on statistics…
Of course it is harder to go sub 3.30 (Katir) than sub 3.32 (Ingebrigstsen) per ce, but this is off the point, because I will claim it likely hard for a 17 year old to hit 3.31.18 as for a grown man to reach 3.28.76! So your reasoning is flawed. And your 3.30 cannot be linked to a natural / unnatural limit for progression. Progression is progression anyhow. And 3.30 is hard to break unconnected to sort of progression. And you don’t seem to understand that both Katir’s and Ingebrigtsen’s progression easily could have been different (differences in injuries, illness, training, physiological development) -Jakob, f.ex, could have had this progression: 3.50 -3.44 -3.41 -3.36 -3.29 (high) -3.28 (low) in stead of what he had. 3.30 is no barrier you have to circle around a long time before going sub. The same about 3.29 - Jakob skipped this number then he went sub 3.30… -You are just making up numbers and outlier statistics as it suits you…! Because you suspect Katir and not Ingebrigtsen…
And you have to reread automorphic’s post -Katir is no one outlier..!
You really don't get it do you. And I am actually not sure what "stats" of the "sample size" you are looking at. It's pretty definitive that over the course of history that athletes with the ability to break through to this truly elite sub 3.30 club (more on that below since you disagree with a "limit") very rarely can do it irrespective of how good they are, unless they run in the low 3.30's prior.
You talk about this "artificial limit" - you mean "arbitrary limit" of 3.30 and yes it is one but we have to have one. We can just say for example that 4.00 or 3.50 is that limit and we look at all athletes in history to see what kind of jumps they made through those thresholds. Why? Well the most obvious one is the insane volume of "evidence" we would have to deal with but more importantly - and this is the point you don't see to grasp - that as we move away from the WR which is the current limit of peak human performance all "jumps" are not created equal. Dropping 8 seconds from 4.00 to 3.52 is not the same as from 3.36 to 3.28. Even going 3.40 to 3.32 is not the same as 3.36 to 3.28. If you can't grasp this then honestly you don't have the knowledge to have this discussion.
Why did I pick 3.30? Here is the rationale. For an elite 1500m runner, running 3.29.x is seen as the plateau of excellence. For many even incredible outlier talents it is the last of these performance plateaus to realistically aspire to because it is superior to a 3.50 mile, but far more attainable than what could be seen as the "final frontier" (outside of running the WR) which is the 3.45 mile (only 3 men in history even reached that). Only 38 men in history have run under 3.30 which is more than requisite to be seen as an elite plateau and it is still close enough to that pinnacle performance of the WR (3.26.00). It's not just a physiological barrier but even more so a psychological and emotional one - which is precisely why we see so many athletes run in the low 3.30's prior to breaking it - some of them (like Coe, Willis etc) have to pay their dues for many years at this level before doing so.
What I sense from you is a total lack of understanding how hard this is to do and how good of an athlete you need to be. You clearly see 3.30 in a similar vein to you see 3.40 - if an athlete can go from 3.46 to 3.38 in a season why can't an athlete go from 3.36 to 3.28? You don't understand this sport.
My points aren't really based on statistics - they purely support my stand on this but you also have latched onto this narrative about "manipulation and selection to prove a narrative". How original of you - just classic default tactics for someone out of ideas with no basis for their own POV.
This is quite simple - you either don't believe that there are any thresholds or plateaus of performance in this event (in which case this discussion is over because then I know you don't understand this event let alone the sport of competitive running) or you have a different idea of what is reasonable to draw the line at. I mean, you surely don't think a 3.33 runner coming out and running 3.25 would be seen as plausible right, so in this case why don't you tell me what you think is a reasonable time to improve 8 seconds in a 1500m from. Is it 3.40 to 3.32? 3.38 to 3.30? 3.33 to 3.25? The floor is yours.
Firstly : I agree that from 3.36.59 to 3.28.76 (7.83 sec) is a more decisive leap than 3.39.93 to 3.31.18 (8.75 sec) because Katir (3.28.76) being 2.42 sec closer to the WR than Ingebrigtsen (3.31.18). And 2.42 sec matters -it’s significant…. Saying that Jakob dropped 1 sec more than Katir, making the improvement a little more alike… Conclusion: Katir made the most significant improvement, but Jakob is close enough to make the following point: They both had a year with unexpected large improvement (more seconds than previous years) -Ingebrigtsen with the largest leap in seconds, Katir the largest in quality… And improvements must not only be measured against the WR, but also against your own starting point… Therefore Ingebrigtsen is as relevant as Katir with doping suspicions only based on statistics…
Of course it is harder to go sub 3.30 (Katir) than sub 3.32 (Ingebrigstsen) per ce, but this is off the point, because I will claim it likely hard for a 17 year old to hit 3.31.18 as for a grown man to reach 3.28.76! So your reasoning is flawed. And your 3.30 cannot be linked to a natural / unnatural limit for progression. Progression is progression anyhow. And 3.30 is hard to break unconnected to sort of progression. And you don’t seem to understand that both Katir’s and Ingebrigtsen’s progression easily could have been different (differences in injuries, illness, training, physiological development) -Jakob, f.ex, could have had this progression: 3.50 -3.44 -3.41 -3.36 -3.29 (high) -3.28 (low) in stead of what he had. 3.30 is no barrier you have to circle around a long time before going sub. The same about 3.29 - Jakob skipped this number then he went sub 3.30… -You are just making up numbers and outlier statistics as it suits you…! Because you suspect Katir and not Ingebrigtsen…
And you have to reread automorphic’s post -Katir is no one outlier..!
Yes, thank you. I agree with all your points. I don't know why SS is being so hostile because all of us (including SS) are thinking hard about this and (imo) making good points.
This is my favorite line from your post: "3.30 is hard to break unconnected to [some] sort of progression". I think it's what people miss a lot when they talk about suspicious progressions: it's impossible to drop a lot of time without, you know, dropping a lot of time.
And from everything we've learned about how doping works (allows dopers to train harder, depends on dose and the specific drugs they take, effects don't completely go away after they stop), I don't have a lot of faith in calling any progression a "doper's progression" versus a "clean athlete's progression, especially with all the confounding factors such as age, injuries, the pandemic (esp. in Katir's case), weather, and competition.
But for those who DO think that analyzing progressions is useful for determining who is doping, I invite you to try one of the following exercises:
Exercise 1: Make a formula, say for the 1500m, for what a suspicious progression consists of. It doesn't need to be highly rigorous, but testable enough that we can apply it to any elite 1500m man. For instance, you could say that suspicion level = 1 * seconds dropped (under 3:40) after age 22 + 0.5 * seconds dropped (under 3:40) before/during age 22. Or a progression is suspicious if and only if an athlete drops 6+ seconds in a year to end under 3:30. Or something completely different than this, but I want to be able to take your formula and apply it to any elite 1500m man I want.
Exercise 2: If that's too involved, look at the list I gave on page 5 of this thread, and pick the 5 LEAST suspicious progressions (if that's not possible, you're basically saying that everyone under 3:29 is doping, which is a defensible position, but not one that relies on analyzing athletes' progressions). Explain in as much detail as you can why those 5 are the least suspicious, only focusing on the progression itself, and not whatever else we know about the athlete. Again, be as detailed as you want, but I want to be able to extrapolate your ideas to other athletes.
The idea with either of these exercises is that we can have a semi-testable hypothesis of what a suspicious progression actually looks like. Then we'll compare with our intuition and/or direct evidence and decide whether it works well, needs tweaks, or doesn't work. I've made no secret that I think this will be very difficult to make work, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
If looking at athletes' progression doesn't end up telling us much about whether or not they are doping, this doesn't mean that every athlete is clean, but only that this specific approach to identifying likely dopers isn't useful.
You are just making up numbers and outlier statistics as it suits you…! Because you suspect Katir and not Ingebrigtsen…
And you have to reread automorphic’s post -Katir is no one outlier..!
This is the last I can possibly address you. There is a pretty clear discrepancy in both language/comprehension and basic understanding of the sport/intelligence. You need to argue with someone else.
1) I never "made up" numbers or outlier stats. I hypothesized logical performance plateaus in the mens 1500m with solid basis - part of which was being a professional athlete for a number of years. You've spluttered out a bunch of nonsense and haven't even bothered to offer your own POV. You're adding nothing to this at this point.
2) I suspect Katir and not Jakob? Is that a joke? I swear can someone else chime in on this please. Is this some weird bend towards an angle the Jakob is doping? Jakob made performance jumps to performance levels seen before - just rarely from an athlete of his age which is a marker of his talent rather than doping. Katir made performance jumps to level seen by like 4 others in history - all Kenyans that I might add had little to no performance history before (such as multiple seasons running between 3.40 and 3.36).
3) I read his post. He/she believes that going from 3.40 to 3.32 has the same fundamental difficulty as going from 3.36 to 3.28 which is what his/her numbers support. If he/she truly believes that he, like yourself, knows nothing about this event beyond the surface level. It's almost as if you two are the same person just supporting each others ignorance and lack of knowledge.
In response to a comment stating "No way Katir is clean," Katir replied:
"what hurts friend? while you criticize me that this is normal it is the nature of men when there is another man better than him they envy him, ask your wife if Katir is handsome or not 😼😼 surely your wife would be delighted to be with a winner not a loser."
Further down the thread, he claimed to have passed two drug tests yesterday.
Leaving aside the weather for the moment, they got pulled to their pbs by the insanely powered Katir. Are you the same Thoughtsleader guy who called me an idiot the other day because I pointed out the fact that Katir ran faster in Florence two years ago?
I called out you saying finishing 4th in a Diamond League was better than winning one simply based on the finishing time. Your argument is not helped by the field this year being significantly deeper/better than that one. It was a dumb argument to begin with given Katir’s indoor 3K which provided more proof he hasn’t gotten worse than he was in 2021 after an up and down 2022 (which had a better championship performance).
Another poster correctly pointed out McSweyn drove the pace and not Katir. Bizarre point by you anyway because 7:35 guys are much more impacted by conditions than whether a 7:27 guy running in second is good at running. This is all to say you have difficulty admitting to a losing argument. Maybe Katir is doped but him running 7:27 to beat Stewy in nice conditions is not much proof of much of anything as many athletes after have done the exact same thing or been capable of it.
The guy once DM'ed me on IG after I called him a doper. He went absolutely crazy in the DM. Only someone with something to hide would take up this fight with random people, an innocent person would let it slide. Not only is he one of the most obvious dopers of our times, he is also a total tool.
In response to a comment stating "No way Katir is clean," Katir replied:
"what hurts friend? while you criticize me that this is normal it is the nature of men when there is another man better than him they envy him, ask your wife if Katir is handsome or not 😼😼 surely your wife would be delighted to be with a winner not a loser."
Further down the thread, he claimed to have passed two drug tests yesterday.
I called out you saying finishing 4th in a Diamond League was better than winning one simply based on the finishing time. Your argument is not helped by the field this year being significantly deeper/better than that one. It was a dumb argument to begin with given Katir’s indoor 3K which provided more proof he hasn’t gotten worse than he was in 2021 after an up and down 2022 (which had a better championship performance).
Another poster correctly pointed out McSweyn drove the pace and not Katir. Bizarre point by you anyway because 7:35 guys are much more impacted by conditions than whether a 7:27 guy running in second is good at running. This is all to say you have difficulty admitting to a losing argument. Maybe Katir is doped but him running 7:27 to beat Stewy in nice conditions is not much proof of much of anything as many athletes after have done the exact same thing or been capable of it.
You called me dumb because I was comparing 'two different races' by times, when I was simply making a point that there is no evidence that Katir has progressed since he made a quantum leap jump at age 23. BTW, Jakob was not in the race the other day.
Yes, running 7:27 at a notoriously slow track, sandwiched between a 12:50 and 3:28, when your pbs just a year previously at 22 were 3:36/7:44/13:50, is freaking well obvious evidence of doping to most rational people. We get that you are one of these people who "don't care" who is doping, and just want to "enjoy the show". Most of us aren't like that, even given the number of bots and shills that distort the perspective here.
It appears that one of the wonderful mods deleted the classic 'Katir is the most obvious doper of all time' thread, maybe Rekrunner or Jama Aden.
But there was a stack of info in that thread, including about his shady manager, who has gone on record as stating that athletes caught doping should be given not just a second chance, but a third chance and a fourth chance (he actually used those words).
I called out you saying finishing 4th in a Diamond League was better than winning one simply based on the finishing time. Your argument is not helped by the field this year being significantly deeper/better than that one. It was a dumb argument to begin with given Katir’s indoor 3K which provided more proof he hasn’t gotten worse than he was in 2021 after an up and down 2022 (which had a better championship performance).
Another poster correctly pointed out McSweyn drove the pace and not Katir. Bizarre point by you anyway because 7:35 guys are much more impacted by conditions than whether a 7:27 guy running in second is good at running. This is all to say you have difficulty admitting to a losing argument. Maybe Katir is doped but him running 7:27 to beat Stewy in nice conditions is not much proof of much of anything as many athletes after have done the exact same thing or been capable of it.
You called me dumb because I was comparing 'two different races' by times, when I was simply making a point that there is no evidence that Katir has progressed since he made a quantum leap jump at age 23. BTW, Jakob was not in the race the other day.
Yes, running 7:27 at a notoriously slow track, sandwiched between a 12:50 and 3:28, when your pbs just a year previously at 22 were 3:36/7:44/13:50, is freaking well obvious evidence of doping to most rational people. We get that you are one of these people who "don't care" who is doping, and just want to "enjoy the show". Most of us aren't like that, even given the number of bots and shills that distort the perspective here.
Why are you lying in almost any post?
Was the weather terrible? Made Katir the pace? McSweyn has run 7:28 (is at 7:45 right now). Also dubious?
It appears that one of the wonderful mods deleted the classic 'Katir is the most obvious doper of all time' thread, maybe Rekrunner or Jama Aden.
But there was a stack of info in that thread, including about his shady manager, who has gone on record as stating that athletes caught doping should be given not just a second chance, but a third chance and a fourth chance (he actually used those words).
Just imagine if Rekrunner = Jama Aden?
I am certain there must be a link between them.
BTW, if you are the old Subway chap, you need to come back and post more!
Katir is the LEAST likely doper, because it's obvious he's always trying very hard. Most dopers make it look easy.
Is there a dope that can make you give 110% effort the whole way through? No, that's just something a few athletes can do but most can't. A mind thing.
Wiggo, your ability to consistently generate the worst possible take on every thread is genuinely something to behold. You're undefeated when it comes to saying the most uneducated thing on just about every topic.
On top of this, your resilience to keep fronting up, week after week, with absolutely no runs on the board is just remarkable. The place would not be the same without you. Kudos.
You are just making up numbers and outlier statistics as it suits you…! Because you suspect Katir and not Ingebrigtsen…
And you have to reread automorphic’s post -Katir is no one outlier..!
This is the last I can possibly address you. There is a pretty clear discrepancy in both language/comprehension and basic understanding of the sport/intelligence. You need to argue with someone else.
1) I never "made up" numbers or outlier stats. I hypothesized logical performance plateaus in the mens 1500m with solid basis - part of which was being a professional athlete for a number of years. You've spluttered out a bunch of nonsense and haven't even bothered to offer your own POV. You're adding nothing to this at this point.
2) I suspect Katir and not Jakob? Is that a joke? I swear can someone else chime in on this please. Is this some weird bend towards an angle the Jakob is doping? Jakob made performance jumps to performance levels seen before - just rarely from an athlete of his age which is a marker of his talent rather than doping. Katir made performance jumps to level seen by like 4 others in history - all Kenyans that I might add had little to no performance history before (such as multiple seasons running between 3.40 and 3.36).
3) I read his post. He/she believes that going from 3.40 to 3.32 has the same fundamental difficulty as going from 3.36 to 3.28 which is what his/her numbers support. If he/she truly believes that he, like yourself, knows nothing about this event beyond the surface level. It's almost as if you two are the same person just supporting each others ignorance and lack of knowledge.
The back and forward with you is over.
Come on -my intellect and language skills can’t be that bad (not saying that nobody doesn’t notice that English isn’t my first language..)… And come on: When you throw doping allegations you mustn’t be so butt hurt then somebody allows themselves some criticism and reasoning….
I do not assert that you are falsifying statistics -I merely think you make up some plateaus and thresholds (that you believe in), and misinterpret facts and trends… There’s nothing wrong with your intellect -your reasoning is coherent and you are somewhat knowledgeable. But you do not understand statistics and how easily they can lie, and nor how important it is to see the whole picture (the context that surrounds the facts / numbers / statistics)…
I could crush your Katir-outlier theory with a couple of examples from automorphic’s “base” (Silas Kiplagat and Ronald Kwemoi; both 10+ improvement to go sub 3.30 ) but you could of course just call them dopers… So therefore I will go back to the Ingebrigtsens, who you seem to think are statistically sound:
If Jakob in his Monaco race (as a seventeen years old) had run 3.29.98 -would you called him a doper then (because of breaking your limit)? I mean if he had run 1.2 sec faster? And what do you think of a context like this: I think young Ingebrigtsen could have run that fast -his race wasn’t perfect (he sprinted the last lap and even gained on his brother Filip on the home straight, and Filip did 3.30.01). And more: Jakob didn’t peak in Monaco at all (he obviously tried to peak in the U-20 Worlds some weeks earlier, and the European champs some weeks later). And if Gjert (father and coach) would prioritised having a 17 year old sub 3.30 son (at the expense of long term development), don’t you think some outlier speed work could have brought him there?
And I don’t even have to restrict myself to Jakob I. as a stellar example; I can go as short as to Filip. Filip Ingebrigtsen went to 3.32 from 3.42 the year before (2016 / 2015 -I could omit that he had a 3.38 in 2013, but that only shows how one can easily manipulate by omission..) and from 3.32,43 to 3.30.01 without touching low 3.32 -3.31 -or mid 3.30. And Filip was in even greater shape later that year (would have run 3.28 if not hurt, IMO). Was he doped? Is Katir? -Statistics don’t say a thing!
Last but not least: You have to look at the context both regarding Katir and J.Ingebrigtsen. And they are strikingly similar! Katir ran 3.37 two years before his great improvement, and 3.36 the year before. -Only one sec improvement tells us about a lot of unrealised potential… As in the case of Jakob: He runs 3.42 as a 15 year old and then only dip under 3.40 with a few hundreds of a second as 16 years old.
One problem with your data is that you only found a couple of similar examples over several years, while we know that over 30% dope at the global championship level. So, if there are only 5 exceptional progressions in the last 10 years from some 100 global championship 1500 m runners (over 40 per event, 5 events with lots of runners participating more than once), then yes, most likely all of 5 exceptions doped, plus 25 more - less suspicious - runners.
Exact number may vary of course, these are all estimates, but you get my drift.
There's nothing more boring than speculative threads about doping based on results. It's the either/or mindset of the fake scientist. It's fake science to say that you know that someone is doping based on their results. Period. You can say that someone is suspicious, but it's not like the body has one or two on-off switches labeled "Dope" or "no Dope," and it's not as if athletes and coaches aren't looking for legit (and semi-legit, but not illegal) ways to improve performance. There are also a zillion substances in the world, and most of them aren't banned. Furthermore there's no commonality that encompasses Usain Bolt on one side and Haile Gebrselassie on the other that says that human capacity is X.
I'm not gonna tell you that Katir or anyone else is or isn't clean (I find his response annoying), but I can tell you for freakin' sure that y'all usually don't know one way or another.
To be fair, this one is boring.
He's a Moroccan-Spanish who had a ridiculous breakthrough.
There's not even a question here. You're in cloud cuckoo land if you genuinely believe he could be clean.