The Ingebrigtsen aren't clean; 1.5&5. Here’s why:

Jakob Ingebrigtsen poses a contradictory problem for those who think that all talented young Africans are doping and or age cheating. These arguments were based around the fact that it was seemingly impossible to run 3:30 at 17/18

Now we have a white boy who is certainly 18 running crazy times and letsrun wants to celebrate his achievements (quite rightly).

However, clearly this poses a problem for the disbelief posters have about the African teens.

Posters must then bend over backwards to create arguments which satisfy the theoretical situation that Jakob is clean and all the Africans are not.

You have posters who claim to have "studied logic(??) at a top university" coming up with the idea that Amos is age cheating despite Botswana having mandatory birth registration like Norway whilst Jakob is clean despite his brothers appearing on the fancy bears report.

You can't have it both ways. Hopefully Jakob has taught the more open minded of you that teenagers from anywhere can perform amazing athletic feats

rekrunner wrote:

Genetics versus doping is a false dichotomy.

Doping as a candidate explanation might be more believable if there were more Norwegian, European, American examples in the last three decades running as fast as Dave Moorcroft in 1982.

Is the gist of your post: PED's do not aide runners? Is the gist of your post: All PED's offer the same level of performance boost?

I'm going to poke holes in Ingebrigtsen being gentically gifted.

Physiologists like to gauge natural running talent by 200m performance. I am sure runners like Miruts Yifter and Steve Ovett were the fastest amongst their peers in events 200m and longer from grade school age.

Environmental factors which may aide aerobic fitness: Five to twenty or so generations at elevations over 5000ft. seems to alter genes in order to make some cultures genetically resistant to accute and chronic altitude sickness. This has to correlate to endurance &/or stamina. This altitude sickness gene has been identified. Too many generations at altitude seems to make gene pool too short.

These Ingebrightsens are naturally slow according to the father. There is not a family history of generations at altitude. These guys are not uniquely gifted.

Were are left with training hard. We are left with training smartly.

These Ing boys do not train harder than did Jim Ryun.

We are left with smart training or PED's.

Flip a coin.

Because you have personally blown every Ingebrigtsen, one and all, and, based on your decades-long experience in jism analysis, can truly testify that they are all PEDs abusers. In fact, the IOC hired you in 1988 to blow Ben Johnson and you were the first to declare him dirty. When Gatlin got banned, there you were, wiping your chin and giving the nod. Without you, the sport would have died long ago. Thanks, Bruv, for saving it once again. Don't be shy, take a bow.

What are some PED’s I can get in the local chemist?

which one or both? wrote:

These Ingebrightsens are naturally slow according to the father. There is not a family history of generations at altitude. These guys are not uniquely gifted.

Were are left with training hard. We are left with training smartly.

These Ing boys do not train harder than did Jim Ryun.

We are left with smart training or PED's.

Flip a coin.

If you want to be at the top, you either need all of the above: 1) smart + hart training, 2) great talent and 3) maximized doping, or be extreme in 2 out of 3. (I'd argue that it's basically not possible anymore to be an extreme outlier in point 1.)

That's a simple conclusion from the fact that we have many people who excel in 1, 2, and 3.

rekrunner wrote:

Genetics versus doping is a false dichotomy.

Doping as a candidate explanation might be more believable if there were more Norwegian, European, American examples in the last three decades running as fast as Dave Moorcroft in 1982.

There's a bunch of guys from a small country in NW Africa just a stone's throw away from Spain that ran faster than Moorcroft. ?

NOWAYJOE wrote:

Who would put PED on their own kids?

You underestimate the craziness of some parents.

+1

The brothers are still national level or close talent without drugs. People generally overestimate the ability of doping to make donkeys in to race horses.

Norwegians have some great runners in their history. John Halvorsen is one. They have tremendous genetics and aerobic engines in their favor. Add some intelligent training over many years and runners like Jakob emerge.

Filip 3:49:60 PB, NR

NOWAYJOE wrote:

Who would put PED on their own kids?

I would!

I see no reason to believe that the I’s are any cleaner than anyone else.

most of your arguments are hollow wrote:

The brothers are still national level or close talent without drugs. People generally overestimate the ability of doping to make donkeys in to race horses.

This. I don't know if the Ingebrigstens are clean or not but either way someone in that family knows what they're doing. The kid just ran 13:02 for 5,000 and even if drugs were part of it, and I want to emphasize that I am NOT saying that they are, he's still really fast without them. You can put an entire Rite Aid's storehouse of drugs into a 14:02 guy and you're not getting him to 13:02.

One thing it seems like many of you are forgetting: They have two other adult brothers who are not runners. They did not enjoy the rigorous training regime.

HRE wrote:

most of your arguments are hollow wrote:

The brothers are still national level or close talent without drugs. People generally overestimate the ability of doping to make donkeys in to race horses.

This. I don't know if the Ingebrigstens are clean or not but either way someone in that family knows what they're doing. The kid just ran 13:02 for 5,000 and even if drugs were part of it, and I want to emphasize that I am NOT saying that they are, he's still really fast without them. You can put an entire Rite Aid's storehouse of drugs into a 14:02 guy and you're not getting him to 13:02.

Same here...I don't know if the Ingebrigstens are clean or not. Perhaps they're outliers and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But there can be high-responders to PEDs: Cathal Lombard improved from 14:27 to 13:19 (~7.8%) with a similar progression in the 10k:

LoneStarXC wrote:

NOWAYJOE wrote:

Who would put PED on their own kids?

You underestimate the craziness of some parents.

I'm not buying it that the Ingebrigtsen's are clean either, but I also drank a beer and smoked some pot last night then got up this morning and chewed some nicotine gum before I had my coffee so I'm in no position to judge them for putting substances in their bodies.

Aces wrote:

One thing it seems like many of you are forgetting: They have two other adult brothers who are not runners. They did not enjoy the rigorous training regime.

I came here to bring up this very point. Posters so far have seemed to assume that Henrik, Filip, and Jacob are the only kids in the family. There are the other brothers and also a younger sister (who I think was/is competing, but not world class).

This doesn't prove or disprove their doping status, but it does show that not all of the family could or wanted to handle the intense aerobic training from childhood.

The gist is two-fold: 1) The reference to "false dichotomy" highlights the logical flaw that "disproving" genetics does not automatically "prove" effect of doping, because there may be other explanations. You cannot "prove" effect of doping by process of elimination. 2) A bigger list of European/American/non-African examples over the last three decades would be a start in the right direction (but is also not a proof).