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

"More than one quarter of gay men hide their sexuality from anonymous surveys."

More than 25% have lied under your precious anonymous survey. You have failed to prove that an anonymous survey has a special power to give the accurate truth. You simply repeat the word "anonymous" as if this is supposed to convince us.

Your argument is bunk.

"It’s a shame, because prof. Bezouška was considered a brilliant biochemist, one of the founders of proteomics in the Czech Republic, an excellent speaker and a devoted worker. Publication activity prof. Bezouška was high – more than 100 articles in peer-reviewed international journals. No doubt there was contained a significant amount of high-quality experimental work, unfortunately in some cases contained with high probability and non-recurrent and unprintable data."

A scientist can publish more than 100 studies for many years and go unnoticed with falsified data. You fail on your 2nd point.

I find it funny that you accept without question the anonymous survey about doping, but you will not even touch my link about surveys from scientists who admit they've falsified data.

"There are also cases when respondents guess the hypothesis of the study and provide biased responses that 1) confirm the researcher's conjecture; 2) make them look good; or, 3) make them appear more distressed to receive promised services."

If you are willing to put your own personal belief onto the figure of 57% from a survey of humans, then this is called faith.

If you don't know the definition of "faith", then I can provide one.

faith: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

An example: "This restores one's faith in politicians."

You seem to be confusing "religious faith" with "non-religious faith". You have plenty of the 2nd if you believe that scientists are infallible and that 95%+ of the respondents were truthful.

You've failed on all 3 of your points.

I'll accept the findings of peer-reviewed research that stacks up, but I have no faith in anything that you say. Show me where the credibility of the survey has been undercut by peer review. If you can't, you are simply full of hot air. Which you are. You are an idiot if you think that because some in certain circumstances will falsify information all will do that - that does not follow - or that you can disregard independent assessment that establishes whether claims are true or false. In fact, you can't even assert that taking things on faith can result in error unless it were possible to undertake independent review, to establish error. For you to therefore claim that an acceptance of reviewed research is merely accepting its findings on faith is both ironic and contradictory, since that is exactly what you are doing in presenting research in support of your own pseudo-scientific posturing about "faith". Unless you undertook your own independent research in this area you are, by your own logic, taking its claims on faith. Go back to school.

You have no idea. Your last attempt is better. Now it's consistent with the facts and sources. I just don't see the value of combining championship level IAAF athletes with amateur Arabian weightlifters, boxers, and wrestlers. Are you knowingly trying to be misleading? Were you unknowingly misled? If you think 31.4% versus 57% doesn't change the real problem, why are you fighting so hard to exaggerate the real finding?

Armstronglivs wrote:

It must be quite a strain for you to be the self-appointed Keeper of the Record here, and correcting the mistakes of others, no matter how immaterial. Well, now you can correct this. The two events surveyed in 2011 (that included IAAF athletes) indicated doping of 57% and 43% of respectively, so that taken together they produced a mean figure of 1 in 2 athletes. I await your endless waffle in trying to explain that away, since you know you always have to be right.

Sorry this thread was ruined starting with the 4th post, long before I joined it. I initially tried to correct some glaring inconsistencies, but I see that my contributions now are like throwing fuel on the fire. I am also sorry that the Ingebrigtsen's success is tainted with baseless accusations. Over and out.

Over and over and over again wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Sorry -- I guess not.

This what they do (and what rekrunner recently vehemently denied)- they ruin threads. We have to wade through 3 pages of teen girls fighting to read any semblance of applicable thread material. Blech.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You might ask how does anyone get away with it - because most do. The IAAF has estimated that 1 in 2 championship athletes is doping. Very few are caught.

This is the list of participating countries in the survey. As you can see, English is not the 1st language for many of them.

Now take a look at the beginning of the survey. They allowed only 3 different languages: English, French, and Arabic.

This is a flawed survey. Some athletes may only know just a basic amount of English to get by on international locations.

There are a series of questions before the athlete is even asked whether he or she has doped. This takes up time unnecessarily and introduces room for error. At this point, the athlete may get confused about dates and relatives. Some Kenyans who were born in rural areas may have inaccurate birth dates.

The scientists did not put any questions about the type of doping. They didn't ask specifically about steroids, stimulants, EPO, insulin, etc. It's possible a non-native English speaker innocently thought a caffeine drink, decongestant for a cold, or altitude tent was some type of enhancement that was used in the past 12 months that was covered by the singular question.

Instead of saying "yes" or "no", an athlete can accidentally press the wrong button on the ipad. The athlete may have been tired and drained because of all the training and competing. This is another avenue for error.

For those of you who put non-religious faith into human responses, I've shown problems in the scientists' methodology. Doping is a serious issue, and I want to see cheaters get caught. But I cannot put my faith into this survey.

To be fair to the study authors:

"(For the WCH survey) athletes could chose among 21 languages instead of three (for the PAG survey)

(i.e., English, French, Spanish, Russian, Mandarin, Arabic, Czech, German, Estonian, Greek, Croatian, Swahili, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovenian, Slovakian, Turkish, Japanese and Korean)," (see section 2.1)

The authors spent a fair deal of time discussing things like "misunderstanding the question" (see section 4.9), and "finger errors" (see section 4.8), among a large list of different non-compliance scenarios. While not zero, they felt the bias from these errors would be small.

No one should walk away from the study thinking that the survey results is the true prevalence. The main part of the study is the development of various models of non-compliance, and how we can arrive at the true prevalence, if only we knew the level of non-compliance for all of the different scenarios.

Norwegian dude wrote:

zxcvcxzv wrote:

Stop hijacking the thread. This is about the Ingebrigtsens. I noticed from the article that Filip had in fact moved out to Oslo, which he had raised on his birthday in the last season of the show, and he was doing just some sessions with his brothers.

Well, the fact that he was a dominant Euro xc winner makes it far less worrisome, but the fact that he was well beaten behind his brother in the race with Tefera made me wonder a bit whether he were just slowly adapting to shorter distance again or behind in his training.

Filip was sick in Dusseldorf and was bedridden for 4 days afterwards. He just recovered for Euros in Glasgow. He is in tremendous shape. Probably around the same level as Jakob.

Yes I was extremely impressed by Filip in the European cross country champs. He beat many sub 28 guys, for a miler. His 5,000m credentials are well behind both his brothers.

This topic is a little tangential to the thread.

However, HBO Real Sports is doing an episode on Norwegian youth sports in April. Looking for the reason as to why such a small country collects a disproportionate amount of medals in international sports.

Translation here:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2F100Sport%2Fidrettspolitikk%2FTV-giganten-HBO-lager-reportasje-om-norsk-idrett-To-ting-vakte-interessen-deres-270630b.html

I do correctly understand that you consistently seek to minimise the problem of doping in running, and especially so for certain countries. That is an apologist. It is also only an assumption without factual basis when you posit that amateur sports of the range that participated in the Pan-Arab Games would necessarily be doping more than elite athletes on the track, so as to give rise to the figure cited in the survey of 57%. The converse is just as likely to be true, and indeed other research as well as anecdotal account suggests the incidence of doping is likely to be higher in professional sports. But none of this suits the view you seek to advance, so you must exert every effort to discredit it. I am surprised you haven't also sought to correct the Guardian, which reported the research while citing the figure that so offends you.

It is risible that you seek to apportion blame elsewhere for swamping the thread with discussion of the doping survey when it has been largely your own unrelenting efforts that have prolonged that debate. If your concern was merely the correction of "two words" then that could have been achieved with commensurate economy, but simplicity is apparently beyond you. The reason for that is that you have a passionate aversion to anything that doesn't match your own understanding and you cannot rest until it has been overwhelmed by the turgid selectively-argued diatribe that is your calling card, and the offender compelled to admit error - even when you are wrong. You are wrong about doping, for so many reasons, but are beyond fruitful dialogue because yours is the only opinion that matters in your own mind. It is not often that one is presented with the personality-type of grand narcissism but you have successfully leapt out of the pages of the textbook. Well done.

@facts and reason

I haven't seen it argued that the respondents to an anti-doping survey didn't understand what they were being asked. Or that they wouldn't have known the difference between caffeine and illegal performance-enhancing drugs - dopers are really like naive children. Or perhaps their apologists are. You should write to the IAAF and tell them, because they were unsuccessfully racking their brains for years to try to discredit the survey before it was released. As you so sagely observe, the answer was right in front of them.

Clay wrote:

This topic is a little tangential to the thread.

However, HBO Real Sports is doing an episode on Norwegian youth sports in April. Looking for the reason as to why such a small country collects a disproportionate amount of medals in international sports.

Translation here:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2F100Sport%2Fidrettspolitikk%2FTV-giganten-HBO-lager-reportasje-om-norsk-idrett-To-ting-vakte-interessen-deres-270630b.html

That was interesting. And for all saying, "oh but Gjert does not like the Norwegian system", well, that is very much Gjert, opposing to everything, but the fact is that he has had very good cooperation with the Olympiatoppen and he and his children are very much part of the Norwegian system and success story.

It seems that you do not correctly understand. When talking about "the problem of doping in running", we do not also mean "the problem of doping in Arab countries" or "the problem of doping in boxing, wrestling , and weightlifting". When a study says raw survey results are 43.6% for track and field, I only seek to eliminate exaggeration of these results. It is not the figure 57% that offends me, but the suggestion that this figure was an observed result of track and field championship level athletes. "1 in 2" and "57%" was only made possible by including results of non-world championship athletes from Arab Nations in 27 other sports outside of track and field. (See Table 3 for a complete list). I do not apologize for the 43.6% in track and field, but the imaginary extra 6.4% to 13.4% implicated by polluting the sample with non-representative data. I do this also for certain countries and certain athletes and certain coaches -- condemning doping convictions with basis, while also condemning doping accusations without basis. It is fact that the raw survey results were 43.6% for the 2011 IAAF World Championship and 57% for the 2011 Pan Arab Games across 28 sports. These are the factual bases for my "posit". I'm uninterested in your anecdotes. If other research exists, just give the reference. As you so elegantly put it, I'll accept the findings of peer-reviewed research that stacks up, but I have no faith in anything that you say.

@rekrunner

So, if one can summarise the little that is apparently meaningful out of all of your posts, you object to the survey being described as an IAAF survey, though it included IAAF athletes, and you reject the finding of 57% doping because it included Arab wrestlers, among others, and you happen to know (without even the benefit of anecdote, it appears) that Arabs dope more than anyone else (especially the much-maligned Kenyans) and none more than Arab wrestlers and weight lifters .

What amuses me is that you think your opinions are the product of superior intellectual rigour, rather than an elaborate cloak for bias.

I have said this many times: 90% of the posters on LRC are retarded idiots. It seems to be fcking impossible to start a serious discussion without them quickly degenerating. Small wonder that almost all well known runners and coaches have fled a long time ago - and the inbred twins running this site doesn´t do anything to stop this. On the contrary: they even have the bad taste to call themselves "journalists".

well...

+1

SprintTriathlon wrote:

well...

+1

+2

Armstronglivs, rekrunner, get a room.

Anyway, does any of you Norwegian guys have any info on the real mileage the brothers are doing?

"Why develop a young runner with quality, when you can pound the life out of him?"

Mostly 12-15. Not as high as he says

In fact, I expressed my objection from the start with commensurate economy and simplicity:

There are several easy ways to fix your claim, to match the real source. Shooting the messenger is not one of them.

Regarding your summary:

- I did not object to "survey" because you did not say "survey"; you said "estimate"

- I did not talk about authorship, but if you want to know who authored "1 in 2", it was Roger Pielke Jr.

- The "survey" was not 1 survey, but 2 surveys, appearing in 1 study

- One survey was conducted at an IAAF event, with championship athletes. The raw survey result was 43.6%.

- The other survey was conducted at a non-IAAF event, making it irrelevant in an IAAF discussion

- 57% is the result of the non-IAAF event, making it irrelevant in an IAAF discussion

- "1 in 2" is the round average of the IAAF event, and the non-IAAF event, making it irrelevant in an IAAF discussion

- I know about the higher prevalence of Arab athletes in 28 sports, versus championship athletes in track and field, because of the published results of the 2 different surveys in the study

- I have no insight in doping prevalence of Kenyans