(I'll try to be brief, and try to bring this back to "Gjert Ingebrigtsen shares the secret to his sons' success - high mileage") I guess accuracy and attribution doesn't matter for the bigger issues. Keeping with your wood analogy, I'm just saying don't mix the "IAAF woods" with "Arabian orchards". It UNNECESSARILY hurts the sport under the IAAF, not to mention your credibility. I wasn't discrediting the study findings, but your interpretation of the findings and applicability to Ingebrigtsens' success. For another example of interpretation, with respect to "1 in 2" still being the best ratio (ignoring better ratios like 2 in 5, or 11 in 25, or 109 in 250), despite your misquotes and misstatements -- the study authors, in closing, in the appendix (see 4.10), led us to a lower bound of less than "1 in 3", before writing the famous "unlikely that we overestimated", in that context, three paragraphs later. With respect to applicability, whether starting with "1 in 2", or "2 in 5", or "1 in 3", we should eliminate unrelated prevalence we know is high, like Russian athletes, and the WOMEN's 1500m (see 2012 Olympics), and race-walking. 122 of the 1202 (9.5%) WCH respondents answered the WCH survey in Russian. Only 8 respondents answered the survey in Norwegian. Adjusting remaining prevalence for these known factors, it becomes statistically MORE LIKELY that Ingrebrigtsen is CLEAN than DIRTY. 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. So it is worth discussing how HIGH MILEAGE might really be the secret to the Ingebrigtsens' success.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I am not interested in statistics for their own sake, as you are, but your insistence on discrediting the higher-level finding of the research while accepting the lower 43% response still leaves you in the same territory that I suggested at the outset: the proportion of doping amongst elites in that survey is closer to 1 in 2 than any other ratio. That is on-topic in considering whether the feats of any of the Ingebrigtsens are genuine because they easily fall within that ratio: they could be doping based on the figures obtained from the 2011 surveys. What isn't on topic is your continuing to disappear up your own backside with a fixation on source attribution and statistical interpretation. The surveys are bad news for the sport no matter how you seek to depict or minimise them. I'll add Asbergers to my previous observation.