It's on!! Dreams become reality: Bekele vs. Kipchoge at London!!

Armstronglivs wrote:

You don't understand what the concept of "knowledge" means. It requires that to "know" anything all the relevant information that is available be taken into account. You do not do that. You take a single item of arbitrarily-selected information to come to your clearly preferred conclusion and disregard anything else that might lead you to a different view. It is utterly not your oft-claimed "scientific" approach. Your hypothesis is not tested but is taken as its own self- evident conclusion. Accordingly, you start from the premise that only a confirmed doping violation establishes that doping is occurring and hence the only doper is the convicted doper; a circular and fallacious argument , and easily proven wrong.

We know that a very small percentage of athletes incur doping violations - 1-2% - and yet we also know that many more dope who are not caught; official estimates are in the region of at least 15-40%, and some estimates are even higher. That means we cannot conclude that confirmed doping violations are an accurate indication of doping throughout any sport - and thus both your premise and your conclusion of what you "know" are wrong.

The safest conclusion based on the information about doping that is available is that any elite performance could be doped and the chances of it being so may be as high as 1 in 2. A confirmed violation is only of procedural relevance, in determining what sanctions might apply to the athlete concerned; it is an inadequate measure of evaluating any wider question such as what might be known as the fastest doped marathon performance; as I have demonstrated there is a very high chance that it may include the very fastest times, and an individual violation confers no greater certainty of knowledge in answering that question.

Your head is full of data but nowhere can you construct a cogent argument based on all the information that is available. The reason is simple; an argument could lead you to conclusions you are unable to accept.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You don't understand what the concept of "knowledge" means. It requires that to "know" anything all the relevant information that is available be taken into account. You do not do that. You take a single item of arbitrarily-selected information to come to your clearly preferred conclusion and disregard anything else that might lead you to a different view. It is utterly not your oft-claimed "scientific" approach. Your hypothesis is not tested but is taken as its own self- evident conclusion. Accordingly, you start from the premise that only a confirmed doping violation establishes that doping is occurring and hence the only doper is the convicted doper; a circular and fallacious argument , and easily proven wrong.

We know that a very small percentage of athletes incur doping violations - 1-2% - and yet we also know that many more dope who are not caught; official estimates are in the region of at least 15-40%, and some estimates are even higher. That means we cannot conclude that confirmed doping violations are an accurate indication of doping throughout any sport - and thus both your premise and your conclusion of what you "know" are wrong.

The safest conclusion based on the information about doping that is available is that any elite performance could be doped and the chances of it being so may be as high as 1 in 2. A confirmed violation is only of procedural relevance, in determining what sanctions might apply to the athlete concerned; it is an inadequate measure of evaluating any wider question such as what might be known as the fastest doped marathon performance; as I have demonstrated there is a very high chance that it may include the very fastest times, and an individual violation confers no greater certainty of knowledge in answering that question.

Your head is full of data but nowhere can you construct a cogent argument based on all the information that is available. The reason is simple; an argument could lead you to conclusions you are unable to accept.

I know how to separate knowledge from a lack of knowledge and from belief.

I realize there likely many doped performances among the very fastest. One cogent argument is, that we know they exist, but we don't really know how many, say for men in the marathon, and, with a few exceptions, we don't know which fast performances are the doped ones.

Using your figures, if we estimate 15-40% prevalence, but only catch 1-2%, I would characterize the difference as something we don't know. This 14-38% is distributed amongst the remaining 98-99% in a distribution that we do not know.

If we think the chance of a doped performance is 1 in 2, then it also follows that a chance of a non-doped performance is also 1 in 2. I keep in this mind when you ask, "how is it possible". It is possible because, if doping prevalence is 50%, then there is still a 50-50 chance that the faster performances are clean.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You don't understand what the concept of "knowledge" means. It requires that to "know" anything all the relevant information that is available be taken into account. You do not do that. You take a single item of arbitrarily-selected information to come to your clearly preferred conclusion and disregard anything else that might lead you to a different view. It is utterly not your oft-claimed "scientific" approach. Your hypothesis is not tested but is taken as its own self- evident conclusion. Accordingly, you start from the premise that only a confirmed doping violation establishes that doping is occurring and hence the only doper is the convicted doper; a circular and fallacious argument , and easily proven wrong.

We know that a very small percentage of athletes incur doping violations - 1-2% - and yet we also know that many more dope who are not caught; official estimates are in the region of at least 15-40%, and some estimates are even higher. That means we cannot conclude that confirmed doping violations are an accurate indication of doping throughout any sport - and thus both your premise and your conclusion of what you "know" are wrong.

The safest conclusion based on the information about doping that is available is that any elite performance could be doped and the chances of it being so may be as high as 1 in 2. A confirmed violation is only of procedural relevance, in determining what sanctions might apply to the athlete concerned; it is an inadequate measure of evaluating any wider question such as what might be known as the fastest doped marathon performance; as I have demonstrated there is a very high chance that it may include the very fastest times, and an individual violation confers no greater certainty of knowledge in answering that question.

Your head is full of data but nowhere can you construct a cogent argument based on all the information that is available. The reason is simple; an argument could lead you to conclusions you are unable to accept.

I know how to separate knowledge from a lack of knowledge and from belief.

I realize there likely many doped performances among the very fastest. One cogent argument is, that we know they exist, but we don't really know how many, say for men in the marathon, and, with a few exceptions, we don't know which fast performances are the doped ones.

Using your figures, if we estimate 15-40% prevalence, but only catch 1-2%, I would characterize the difference as something we don't know. This 14-38% is distributed amongst the remaining 98-99% in a distribution that we do not know.

If we think the chance of a doped performance is 1 in 2, then it also follows that a chance of a non-doped performance is also 1 in 2. I keep in this mind when you ask, "how is it possible". It is possible because, if doping prevalence is 50%, then there is still a 50-50 chance that the faster performances are clean.

rekrunner wrote:

let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

I can see your point with the "50-50" chance possibility. However, wouldn't that percentage vary depending upon the nation? Russia, with it's state-sponsored doping program, would probably be closer to 99% based on the data that's been disclosed. Ukraine & Belarus, former Soviet-block nations and both on the IAAF's "most at risk for doping" list, also may be considerably higher than 50-50. And wouldn't you think Kenya, also on the IAAF's list, would be higher than 50-50?

According to studies on blood data from the IAAF, prevalence does seem to vary from country to country, from as little as 0%, up to 98%.

Inclusion on the IAAF list seems to be a function of both doping, and a lack of anti-doping, that would otherwise catch or deter doping -- therefore the requirement for proving athletes were tested.

If the Sunday Times data, based on biological blood values, is a reliable indication of overall prevalence:

- Kenyan doping prevalence, as a percentage of tested athletes, is lower than the total average

- Doping prevalence in the marathon is the lowest of all distance events

Since I only asked about the fastest known doped performances, looking at it by country, and by event, highlights how useless a global prevelance estimate over all events (distance, sprints, and field and walking) and gender (men and women) is, for a question involving the men's marathon:

- Russia leads the statistics by far in percentage and absolutely, yet I can only count 9 men in the marathon running faster than 2:10:30, the fastest running 2:09:07

Armstronglivs wrote:

Kipsang, Kiptum and Jeptoo - the list can go on - shows that doping extends to some of the best marathon runners from Kenya. If we have learned anything from the doping scandals of the last half century it is that doping extends to the top - in any sport. Champions, medallists and even world record holders will dope.

WADA has identified there is a culture of doping in Kenyan running. We see doping busts on a weekly basis - it has even reached the point of near satire, when there are news reports of a runner jumping out of a window to avoid testers. Kenya at least appears to be trying to do something about its doping problem, which is maybe why the numbers busted there are increasing. We can't say the same for a number of other African countries, where anti-doping hardly exists. Doping undoubtedly occurs in Western countries but is likely to be carried out with greater sophistication- and hence far fewer busts.

The doping problem in Kenya is clearly reflected in distance running; marathon runners are distance runners - they will be amongst the offenders. Doping is believed by the athletes using it to confer advantage - studies reinforce that perception; it defies credulity to not accept that the fastest times in - in any running event - have not been or aren't being achieved through doping. To do so requires the naive belief that athletes are willing to lose to doped competitors, or that of two equally talented athletes the clean athlete will beat their doped competitor. Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones and now the growing list of top Kenyan competitors gives the lie to that.

let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

A lot of the Russian male endurance talent pursued race walking over the decades which is extremely popular in the Slavic nations (in fact, the RW coaches make twice as much as the running coaches). The idea was that Russian men could be more dominant and a world powerhouse in RW as opposed to distance running where it would be difficult to the pursue the goal of world dominance against the likes of the East Africans (no surprises there).

And that's exactly what the Russian men accomplished in RW. Names such as Bakulin, Nizhegorodov, Morozov, etc. setting WRs and winning Olympic gold became the heros of the Russian people. Now they had something to celebrate & Putin could boost about the Russian domination in an Olympics sport. But much like their other sports, it all came crashing down with the state-sponsored doping crisis resulting in bans, stripping of medals & annulment of times. Read up on the legendary but infamous RW coach, Viktor Chegin, who received a lifetime ban for doping violations.

And doping prevalence in the marathon can be high depending again on the nation. Case in point with a country that has a strong culture of doping; Morocco. Take a look at their fastest marathoners over the years. If Al Mahjoub Dazza's ABP case stands at the DT hearing - it will make four (4) of Morocco's eight (8) fastest marathoners that were implicated for doping:

1. Al Mahjoub Dazza (2:05:26 NR) ABP violation (pending)

2. Gharib (2:05:27)

3. Gourmi (2:05:30) ABP violation (2009)

4. Khannouchi (2:05:42)

5. Abdelkader El Mouaziz (2:06:46)

6. Kirsi (2:06:48)

7. Bouramdane (2:07:33) ABP violation (2011)

8. Annani (2:07:43) ABP violation (2011)

(Note: Morocco is 2nd in ABP-bans only behind world-leading Russia).

Four out of their fastest all-time busted for doping. That leaves the other four as either clean or doped that didn't get caught. If the other four are clean the question arises as to why the four runners busted for doping couldn't do it clean like their fellow countrymen?

rekrunner wrote:

let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

A lot of the Russian male endurance talent pursued race walking over the decades which is extremely popular in the Slavic nations (in fact, the RW coaches make twice as much as the running coaches). The idea was that Russian men could be more dominant and a world powerhouse in RW as opposed to distance running where it would be difficult to the pursue the goal of world dominance against the likes of the East Africans (no surprises there).

And that's exactly what the Russian men accomplished in RW. Names such as Bakulin, Nizhegorodov, Morozov, etc. setting WRs and winning Olympic gold became the heros of the Russian people. Now they had something to celebrate & Putin could boost about the Russian domination in an Olympics sport. But much like their other sports, it all came crashing down with the state-sponsored doping crisis resulting in bans, stripping of medals & annulment of times. Read up on the legendary but infamous RW coach, Viktor Chegin, who received a lifetime ban for doping violations.

And doping prevalence in the marathon can be high depending again on the nation. Case in point with a country that has a strong culture of doping; Morocco. Take a look at their fastest marathoners over the years. If Al Mahjoub Dazza's ABP case stands at the DT hearing - it will make four (4) of Morocco's eight (8) fastest marathoners that were implicated for doping:

1. Al Mahjoub Dazza (2:05:26 NR) ABP violation (pending)

2. Gharib (2:05:27)

3. Gourmi (2:05:30) ABP violation (2009)

4. Khannouchi (2:05:42)

5. Abdelkader El Mouaziz (2:06:46)

6. Kirsi (2:06:48)

7. Bouramdane (2:07:33) ABP violation (2011)

8. Annani (2:07:43) ABP violation (2011)

(Note: Morocco is 2nd in ABP-bans only behind world-leading Russia).

Four out of their fastest all-time busted for doping. That leaves the other four as either clean or doped that didn't get caught. If the other four are clean the question arises as to why the four runners busted for doping couldn't do it clean like their fellow countrymen?

Although I agreed to use the 50% prevalence for the sake of discussion, your exceptions and Moroccan examples only further highlight the absurdness of attempting to use a global prevalence estimate for a limited range for a specific event.

In a thread about Bekele and Kipchoge beating the best dopers, it would be more interesting to have an accurate estimate of how many of the top-100 best performances (2:05:10 or better) were performed under the influence of a banned substance, rather than talking about Moroccans or Russians.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Kipsang, Kiptum and Jeptoo - the list can go on - shows that doping extends to some of the best marathon runners from Kenya. If we have learned anything from the doping scandals of the last half century it is that doping extends to the top - in any sport. Champions, medallists and even world record holders will dope.

WADA has identified there is a culture of doping in Kenyan running. We see doping busts on a weekly basis - it has even reached the point of near satire, when there are news reports of a runner jumping out of a window to avoid testers. Kenya at least appears to be trying to do something about its doping problem, which is maybe why the numbers busted there are increasing. We can't say the same for a number of other African countries, where anti-doping hardly exists. Doping undoubtedly occurs in Western countries but is likely to be carried out with greater sophistication- and hence far fewer busts.

The doping problem in Kenya is clearly reflected in distance running; marathon runners are distance runners - they will be amongst the offenders. Doping is believed by the athletes using it to confer advantage - studies reinforce that perception; it defies credulity to not accept that the fastest times in - in any running event - have not been or aren't being achieved through doping. To do so requires the naive belief that athletes are willing to lose to doped competitors, or that of two equally talented athletes the clean athlete will beat their doped competitor. Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones and now the growing list of top Kenyan competitors gives the lie to that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The question of which are the best doping performances that are beaten by Kipchoge and Bekele begs that they themselves are clean. They may well not be.

You are relying solely on performances from athletes with confirmed anti-doping violations to answer the question. That is highly selective. As has been pointed out repeatedly, known anti-doping violations are but a fraction of those estimated to be doping as most dopers are not caught. The estimates of the incidence of doping are not exact (they cannot be - they are estimates) but are of sufficient scale to suggest that no top performance can be assumed clean, and only that no violation has been thus far recorded. Former world record holder Kipsang is such a case in point.

Hence, your attempt to redefine the question according to what is "knowledge" is quite the reverse, as it assumes a definitive answer on clearly inadequate data. There is however enough wider information on doping, and in particular its practice in countries like Kenya, to say it is very possible if not likely that all top performances are the result of doping, including those of Kipchoge and Bekele.

rekrunner wrote:

let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

A lot of the Russian male endurance talent pursued race walking over the decades which is extremely popular in the Slavic nations (in fact, the RW coaches make twice as much as the running coaches). The idea was that Russian men could be more dominant and a world powerhouse in RW as opposed to distance running where it would be difficult to the pursue the goal of world dominance against the likes of the East Africans (no surprises there).

And that's exactly what the Russian men accomplished in RW. Names such as Bakulin, Nizhegorodov, Morozov, etc. setting WRs and winning Olympic gold became the heros of the Russian people. Now they had something to celebrate & Putin could boost about the Russian domination in an Olympics sport. But much like their other sports, it all came crashing down with the state-sponsored doping crisis resulting in bans, stripping of medals & annulment of times. Read up on the legendary but infamous RW coach, Viktor Chegin, who received a lifetime ban for doping violations.

And doping prevalence in the marathon can be high depending again on the nation. Case in point with a country that has a strong culture of doping; Morocco. Take a look at their fastest marathoners over the years. If Al Mahjoub Dazza's ABP case stands at the DT hearing - it will make four (4) of Morocco's eight (8) fastest marathoners that were implicated for doping:

1. Al Mahjoub Dazza (2:05:26 NR) ABP violation (pending)

2. Gharib (2:05:27)

3. Gourmi (2:05:30) ABP violation (2009)

4. Khannouchi (2:05:42)

5. Abdelkader El Mouaziz (2:06:46)

6. Kirsi (2:06:48)

7. Bouramdane (2:07:33) ABP violation (2011)

8. Annani (2:07:43) ABP violation (2011)

(Note: Morocco is 2nd in ABP-bans only behind world-leading Russia).

Four out of their fastest all-time busted for doping. That leaves the other four as either clean or doped that didn't get caught. If the other four are clean the question arises as to why the four runners busted for doping couldn't do it clean like their fellow countrymen?

Although I agreed to use the 50% prevalence for the sake of discussion, your exceptions and Moroccan examples only further highlight the absurdness of attempting to use a global prevalence estimate for a limited range for a specific event.

In a thread about Bekele and Kipchoge beating the best dopers, it would be more interesting to have an accurate estimate of how many of the top-100 best performances (2:05:10 or better) were performed under the influence of a banned substance, rather than talking about Moroccans or Russians.

let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

You brought up the Russian marathoners...not me. On the Moroccans: The illustration there is that four (4) out of their top eight (8) fastest marathoners all-time, including their recent NR holder, were busted for doping. This isn't even their signature event! There's a Olympic silver and two WC gold medals and several major marathon titles among this group.

On the "estimate of how many of the top-100 best performances (2:05:10 or better) were performed under the influence of a banned substance." That's easy...a lot! Look at the top 100 - with the exception of Ryan Hall's AR, who dominates the 99 other spots? Answer: Kenya & Ethiopia (who would have thought). Who's on the IAAF's "most at risk for doping" list? Answer: Kenya & Ethiopia (as well as Ukraine & Belarus). Who's been routinely getting busted on monthly basis? Answer: Kenya (as well as Ukraine & Belarus). So, realistically speaking this would suggest a lot of the top 100 performances were influenced by a banned substance. You don't make that IAAF list for nothing. ?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Kipsang, Kiptum and Jeptoo - the list can go on - shows that doping extends to some of the best marathon runners from Kenya. If we have learned anything from the doping scandals of the last half century it is that doping extends to the top - in any sport. Champions, medallists and even world record holders will dope.

WADA has identified there is a culture of doping in Kenyan running. We see doping busts on a weekly basis - it has even reached the point of near satire, when there are news reports of a runner jumping out of a window to avoid testers. Kenya at least appears to be trying to do something about its doping problem, which is maybe why the numbers busted there are increasing. We can't say the same for a number of other African countries, where anti-doping hardly exists. Doping undoubtedly occurs in Western countries but is likely to be carried out with greater sophistication- and hence far fewer busts.

The doping problem in Kenya is clearly reflected in distance running; marathon runners are distance runners - they will be amongst the offenders. Doping is believed by the athletes using it to confer advantage - studies reinforce that perception; it defies credulity to not accept that the fastest times in - in any running event - have not been or aren't being achieved through doping. To do so requires the naive belief that athletes are willing to lose to doped competitors, or that of two equally talented athletes the clean athlete will beat their doped competitor. Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones and now the growing list of top Kenyan competitors gives the lie to that.

Most of this post seems to want to re-emphasize that doping is prevalent in Kenyan distance running, something that was not under discussion, nor is in doubt. Prevalence alone does not address performance.

In the end, to your credit, you realize you need to link prevalence with performance:

"Doping is believed by the athletes using it to confer advantage - studies reinforce that perception; it defies credulity to not accept that the fastest times in - in any running event - have not been or aren't being achieved through doping."

It's an apt choice of expression, "to defy credulity". Some synomyms for "credulity":

"gullibility, gullibleness, credulousness, naivety, naiveness, blind faith, trustfulness, over-trustfulness, lack of suspicion, innocence, ingenuousness, unworldliness, lack of experience, lack of sophistication, guilelessness, greenness, callowness, childlikeness, simpleness, simplicity, ignorance"

These seem like traits we should be defying in any search for a better understanding. I'm constantly trying to defy ignorance, to defy blind-faith, to defy simplicity, to defy ignorance.