Gjert Ingebrigtsen shares the secret to his sons' success - high mileage - and claims "they don’t have any natural speed."

rekrunner wrote:

I wasn't discrediting the study findings

Right. You were discrediting the authors, and misrepresenting their findings. Again, again, and again.

One could say "started to stagnate".

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Bringing it back to mileage, we know, historically, in the 1990s, after Coe's international success assumed to be due to LOW MILEAGE with HIGH INTENSITY, the Western world performances started to stagnate.

No they did not - see Kipketer, Baumann, Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Farah, Solinsky, Rupp, Wanders, Moen, etc. etc.

Their performances just improved less than during the crazy Cold War doping era.

As for the Ingebrigtsens' statistical likelyhood, consider both their performances and the fact that Henrik was leaked to have had three suspicious tests in early 2016, after which - well that was already discussed in the thread. And yes, he was the only Norwegian on the leaked IAAF Likely Doping list, like Farah was the only Brit.

Au contraire, I only disagreed with some interpretations of the findings, by non-authors. As someone who respects math, I think the authors did a good job identifying and developing many models of non-compliance, and seems like they did a fairly reasonable job preparing and conducting the surveys, in 21 languages, measuring response times, changing the order of questions to measure different effects, etc. The authors told me, and you, where to find the major findings and results of their sensitivity analysis, and I've consistently reported their major findings.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I wasn't discrediting the study findings

Right. You were discrediting the authors, and misrepresenting their findings. Again, again, and again.

rekrunner wrote:

Au contraire, I only disagreed with some interpretations of the findings, by non-authors.

As someone who respects math, I think the authors did a good job identifying and developing many models of non-compliance, and seems like they did a fairly reasonable job preparing and conducting the surveys, in 21 languages, measuring response times, changing the order of questions to measure different effects, etc.

The authors told me, and you, where to find the major findings and results of their sensitivity analysis, and I've consistently reported their major findings.

casual obsever wrote:

Right. You were discrediting the authors, and misrepresenting their findings. Again, again, and again.

All that, but the earth is still flat. I don't think I've ever read more expertly argued opinion that avoids unpalatable truths. I'm sure you know enough to design an aeroplane. But we do know that it wouldn't fly.

Flat earth is another analogy which falls flat.

Armstronglivs wrote:

All that, but the earth is still flat. I don't think I've ever read more expertly argued opinion that avoids unpalatable truths. I'm sure you know enough to design an aeroplane. But we do know that it wouldn't fly.

I'll be sure to mention to our 1:55 guy that he has "no natural speed". Hopefully he doesn't quit the team.

Cause the earth is flat.

rekrunner wrote:

Flat earth is another analogy which falls flat.

Armstronglivs wrote:

All that, but the earth is still flat. I don't think I've ever read more expertly argued opinion that avoids unpalatable truths. I'm sure you know enough to design an aeroplane. But we do know that it wouldn't fly.

Xoman wrote:

zxcvzxcv wrote:

They play it up for tv, no doubt, but the fact is that Gjert is the only thing Norwegian distance running has had going for it since Bakken.

They got some young runners coming up with great potential. Eilén Brenne ran a 600m in 1:30 at age 15. Running in Norway is much better than in other EU countries of similar size.

Yeah...why is that? I thought the tradition & passion in Norway was cross-country skiing for endurance athletes and nothing else? If any Scandinavian country would be into distance running, I would think it would be Finland with it's history of pretty darn good runners back in the 70s & 80s. ?

rekrunner wrote:

Your "blades of grass" analogy is a strawman.

Armstronglivs wrote:

All that just to conclude that the Ingebrigtsens won't be doping, because, to your analysis, the trees in the forest are really just a few blades of grass. I'm sure you could argue that, statistically, the earth is flat.

Figures of speech are not your strong point. The analogy is not a "strawman", because it doesn't attribute to you an argument you haven't made; it describes your tendency to minimise the significance of the data you have analysed. So in trying to correct my use of metaphor you are both pedantic and wrong - just as you are with your interpretation of the statistics. That kind of sums you up.

Not surprised that went way over your head. You attributed a "few blades of grass" to my analysis. I did not argue about blades of grass, but about density of trees, with Russian parts of the forest more dense than others. I also did not conclude "won't be doping", but "more likely to be clean". You are constantly attributing arguments to me that I did not argue. I didn't "minimize the significance of the data" but pointed out how you were inflating the data.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Figures of speech are not your strong point. The analogy is not a "strawman", because it doesn't attribute to you an argument you haven't made; it describes your tendency to minimise the significance of the data you have analysed. So in trying to correct my use of metaphor you are both pedantic and wrong - just as you are with your interpretation of the statistics. That kind of sums you up.

BS. You are more slippery than a bar of soap in trying to avoid acknowledging the research showed doping levels of around 1 in 2 participating athletes. That's what it did with its statistics of 43% and 57% for the two major events surveyed, regardless of how you seek to reinterpret the figures to reduce them. And while claiming to base your arguments on correct statistical interpretation you also don't acknowledge that statistics cannot be the final word, because doping is not routinely disclosed by dopers - it is illegal. So the actual incidence could well be higher than the surveys, as much as you, in your own speculative fashion, insist it is likely to be lower. No one would die in a ditch to minimise the figures unless they couldn't accept what the figures say. And that's what you do, again and again. Partiality masquerading as intellectual rigour. The dopers must be pleased to have you on their side.

You're wasting your time arguing with rekrunner. The debates with him/her over doping have been going on ad nauseam for years. There are so many threads on doping where pages & pages of arguments go back and forth with rekrunner and many of the regular posters here. Get "mindweak" to chime in on some of those threads and it becomes real donnybrook that is endless.

I thought the remarks on how this thread got hijacked into a doping discussion were valid. I don't know if Ingebrigtsen is doping or not - and how would any of us really know for sure? The youngster hasn't tested positive for anything, been associated with a doping doctor/coach nor do any of us have access to his ABP data. And Norway doesn't have a prevalence of doping positives/ABP sanctions like Russian (and some of the other former Soviet block nations), Morroco, Middle-Eastern nations, etc.

But if you really enjoy arguing with rekrunner - start a new thread on the subject matter that you've been fighting about and I'm sure he will be more than willing to oblige.

Donnybrook. That's a good word. No - we can't know for sure whether Jakob is doping, or his brothers, but no elite performances can be confidently proclaimed clean today, for some of the reasons argued earlier in the thread. You are right of course about the tedious circularity of some of that. But, without boring you further, I don't have any confidence now in any precocious accomplishment in elite sport. And that includes an entire family who are world-beaters. Too much of a good thing. Lydiard invented distance training in the 60's; it isn't a good enough explanation for the latter-day success of the Ingebrigtsens; it's not the new 'big thing'.

Jealous Wussy Alert wrote:

Here is a thought - have you ever considered. Why didn’t WADA object when Coe and Bubka decided to destroy all samples 8 years old and older. Why did Coe and Bubka decide to destroy all those samples in the first place, which include their own samples from the 1980s?

Is this true? Outrageous. Really angry about this.

Jgt11 wrote:

Jakob has only run 51 400 and 1:49 800, and even Fillip,the speediest of the Ingebritsons(the one best suited to the mile in a world champs/tactical race), only has 1:47 pr.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Bringing it back to mileage, we know, historically, in the 1990s, after Coe's international success assumed to be due to LOW MILEAGE with HIGH INTENSITY, the Western world performances started to stagnate.

No they did not - see Kipketer, Baumann, Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Farah, Solinsky, Rupp, Wanders, Moen, etc. etc.

Their performances just improved less than during the crazy Cold War doping era.

As for the Ingebrigtsens' statistical likelyhood, consider both their performances and the fact that Henrik was leaked to have had three suspicious tests in early 2016, after which - well that was already discussed in the thread. And yes, he was the only Norwegian on the leaked IAAF Likely Doping list, like Farah was the only Brit.

Around the time Peter Coe was promoting S Coe's high intensity/low mileage program, USA high school 3200m performances suffered. USA never had a period in which USA stopped producing sub-1:44 800m men. Kenya's sub-1:44 & sub-3:32 800/1500 men just increased exponentially which made it appear USA went backwards in 800m. Many USA high school coaches train(ed) their entire team on intensity/low mileage. The 3200m suffers but the 800m performances are as solid as ever.

You continue to make many wrong statements, suggesting you still do not understand where we differ. There is actually a great deal I acknowledge, and indeed acknowledged: - I acknowledge the research, and what it suggests about doping prevalence at the IAAF 2011 WCH, and more generally IAAF elite athletes. - I acknowledge that the study authors discussed under-reporting doping (i.e. "doping is not routinely disclosed by dopers - it is illegal") and accept their discussion without issue. - I acknowledge that neither I, nor you, nor "casual obsever", nor the study authors, know the true magnitude of such under-reporting. - I acknowledge that the study results are not the final word. Despite figures like 43.6%, 57%, and "1 in 2", the authors did not determine, find, show, nor conclude, the true doping prevalence at any event. - I am in complete agreement with the authors' extensive discussion of the summary and evaluation of the effects of noncompliance (section 4.10 in the Appendix). - I acknowledge the possibility that the true doping prevalence is higher than the results of the sensitivity analysis the authors described. - I don't minimize any figures, but give exactly the figures found in the study. - I accept what the figures say, in the context they were generated, and reject what they do not say, and reject what they cannot say about other independent contexts. - I acknowledge and accept the authors conclusion of the study: "Doping appears remarkably widespread among elite athletes, and remains largely unchecked despite current biological testing. The survey technique presented here will allow future investigators to generate continued reference estimates of the prevalence of doping." Finally, I am not on the side of dopers -- this is a frequent and rather obvious and unintelligent misdirection and deflection triggered by a complete inability to rebut my arguments directly. I believe any and all anti-doping violations should be punished according to the extents allowed by anti-doping rules.

Thanks for bringing it back to high mileage. I just noticed, that responding to "in the 1990s", "casual obsever" brings up examples like: "Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Farah, Solinsky, Rupp, Wanders, Moen, etc., etc." Of course, in the 2000s, high mileage started coming back thanks in small part to sites like "letsrun" featuring the training of John Kellogg, based on many Lydiard concepts and also the benefits of high altitude training, turning "wejo" into a national contender after he "sucked in college".

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

Xoman wrote:

They got some young runners coming up with great potential. Eilén Brenne ran a 600m in 1:30 at age 15. Running in Norway is much better than in other EU countries of similar size.

Yeah...why is that? I thought the tradition & passion in Norway was cross-country skiing for endurance athletes and nothing else? If any Scandinavian country would be into distance running, I would think it would be Finland with it's history of pretty darn good runners back in the 70s & 80s. ?

Norway: In the -70- and -80ties recordholders and World Champions Grete Waitz and Ingrid Kristiansen in the -90ties Olympic Champion Vebjørn Rodal (Atlanta, 800 m).