benji93:
1st point: Skeletal maturity differs from one race to another. The article in question, which apparently FIFA based their decision to adopt the MRI on suggested this in the first picture, in which case they were referring to a study in Malawi. They didn ot ocnduct studies of their own in the Sub-Sahara. They only sampled Algeria in North Africa. Scientific American suggested FIFA based their decision on this study, and they are very likely correct, because at least the first author on that paper Jiri Dvorak was on Fifa's medical team.

In one of your later posts you suggested that FIFA considered every race, but how do you know this? The most important study that informed their decision didn't sample and Sub Saharan country. For a decision as important as this by a governing body such as FIFA, you better be sure you have colelcted data across board. Besides the sample size although reasonable, is quite small, reasonable becos the correlations are not that different from those published by the studies they referenced.

The only way to account for the delay in maturity observed in a sample of Sub-Saharan African countres is to use different standards for Europeans and Subsaharan Africans. Nothing shows that this is the case. FIFA is clearly applying the European standard to Sub-saharan Africans.

Figure 2 shows the average age for each grade, Grade VI being complete fusion. Even for their small sample size they recorded a mean of 18.3 for complete fusion. This is based on their study on 4 countries, none of which is in Sub-sahara African. If complete Fusion is over 18(Standard deviaiton of approximately 1) for these countries, anyone who can do some statistical analysis and knows that skeletal development is delayed in Sub-saharan would guess that the mean for Sub-saharan Africans would be around 20. It's not so hard.

So it's quite easy to conclude that Sub-saharan players around 20/21 would most probably pass the test. The study across Algeria, Malaysia, Algeria, Switzerland is not accurate, not to talk of Sub-saharan Africans with delayed skeletal maturity.

A further study published in the South African Journal of Sports Medicine concluded that there's no correlation between chronological age and grade of fusion for a sample of Ghanaian players(3rd Figure), meanwhile the study FIFA depended on reported correlation for the countries they sampled. Very interesting. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dear-fifa-there-is-no-scientific-test-to-prevent-age-fraud/

Meanwhile the sample size across board although reasonable is quite small honestly.

Is the method reasonable, yes. Is it able to identify players who are about 20 and above? most probably yes. You are overestimating the accuracy of the MRI test. Before you conclude that FIFA considered everything, ask for the bases of their decision to use. You don't seem to have any idea.

So even though i hate that Scientific American used a picture of one of our youth teams as cover, i don't disagree with them, as in the third picture. it's not foolproof.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dear-fifa-there-is-no-scientific-test-to-prevent-age-fraud/

benji93:
1st point: Skeletal maturity differs from one race to another. The article in question, which apparently FIFA based their decision to adopt the MRI on suggested this in the first picture, in which case they were referring to a study in Malawi. They didn ot ocnduct studies of their own in the Sub-Sahara. They only sampled Algeria in North Africa. Scientific American suggested FIFA based their decision on this study, and they are very likely correct, because at least the first author on that paper Jiri Dvorak was on Fifa's medical team.

In one of your later posts you suggested that FIFA considered every race, but how do you know this? The most important study that informed their decision didn't sample and Sub Saharan country. For a decision as important as this by a governing body such as FIFA, you better be sure you have colelcted data across board. Besides the sample size although reasonable, is quite small, reasonable becos the correlations are not that different from those published by the studies they referenced.

The only way to account for the delay in maturity observed in a sample of Sub-Saharan African countres is to use different standards for Europeans and Subsaharan Africans. Nothing shows that this is the case. FIFA is clearly applying the European standard to Sub-saharan Africans.

Figure 2 shows the average age for each grade, Grade VI being complete fusion. Even for their small sample size they recorded a mean of 18.3 for complete fusion. This is based on their study on 4 countries, none of which is in Sub-sahara African. If complete Fusion is over 18(Standard deviaiton of approximately 1) for these countries, anyone who can do some statistical analysis and knows that skeletal development is delayed in Sub-saharan would guess that the mean for Sub-saharan Africans would be around 20. It's not so hard.

So it's quite easy to conclude that Sub-saharan players around 20/21 would most probably pass the test. The study across Algeria, Malaysia, Algeria, Switzerland is not accurate, not to talk of Sub-saharan Africans with delayed skeletal maturity.

A further study published in the South African Journal of Sports Medicine concluded that there's no correlation between chronological age and grade of fusion for a sample of Ghanaian players(3rd Figure), meanwhile the study FIFA depended on reported correlation for the countries they sampled. Very interesting. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dear-fifa-there-is-no-scientific-test-to-prevent-age-fraud/

Meanwhile the sample size across board although reasonable is quite small honestly.

Is the method reasonable, yes. Is it able to identify players who are about 20 and above? most probably yes. You are overestimating the accuracy of the MRI test. Before you conclude that FIFA considered everything, ask for the bases of their decision to use. You don't seem to have any idea.

So even though i hate that Scientific American used a picture of one of our youth teams as cover, i don't disagree with them, as in the third picture. it's not foolproof.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dear-fifa-there-is-no-scientific-test-to-prevent-age-fraud/

TheSuperNerd:
Serie A: Transfermrkt's Africa's Most Valuable XI in Italy featuring Osimhen and Lookman

elyte89:
TheGoodjoe fit cry with this news

benji93:
Helloooooooooooooooooooooo, You are not serious. The study on which the decision was based did not consider Subsaharan countries, in which case a different study they referenced suggested that there are delays in skeletal maturity in Subsaharan Africans. So if there's a mean of 18.3 with a standard deviation of one, which means even though it's reasonable over half of the young players from these countries that they sampled would still pass if their age was 18/19. This means based on the Malawi study, the average goes to about.



Again you have ignored the study on actual Subsaharan Africans which sug

maidaboi:
the are better than him

Danielnino00:


Even though these kind of underground dealings is very common in government agencies in Nigeria,I gotta say this story sounds too good to be true.... A new league with investment worth $1bn is definitely something we could have heard whispers of in the news... Though a few years ago, there was talk about some private clubs in Nigeria quiting the NPFL and creating a new league,but it never materialized

benji93:

Helloooooooooooooooooooooo, You are not serious. The study on which the decision was based did not consider Subsaharan countries, in which case a different study they referenced suggested that there are delays in skeletal maturity in Subsaharan Africans. So if there's a mean of 18.3 with a standard deviation of one, which means even though it's reasonable over half of the young players from these countries that they sampled would still pass if their age was 18/19. This means that based on the Malawi study, the average goes to about 20.

TheGoodJoe:


Among 16-year-olds, for example, roughly the same number of kids were at stages 1, 3, 4 and 5, representing a spectrum of growth at that age. “There is so much overlap that you may have a person who is 18 who could have only minimal fusion to complete fusion, and there are people who are already fused going from ages 20 to 16,” says Vicente Gilsanz, a professor of radiology and pediatrics at the University of Southern California. Although only one player in the 16-year age group was graded as completely fused (stage 6), the standard deviation in that grouping is also pretty telling.

---

I will start with this excerpt.

I do not think Fifa did not say there isn't a chance of a player of 18 having minimal fusion. It was never the point. The point was a large chunk of Over 17 players will have close to complete fusion. The article in this case does not contradict the point in any way.

The one player who had complete fusion, is the case like Obinwa.

FIFA has never said it is accurate but the accuracy is high. At this point, there is nothing concrete disproving the accuracy but you may.

benji93:
Before I continue this conversation, I will ask you one question. Have you read the study I referenced? And do you have an understanding of the conclusions therein? If you don't have a good feel of what they are saying, that's ok. I only want to know who i am dealing with here.

benji93:

Helloooooooooooooooooooooo, You are not serious. The study on which the decision was based did not consider Subsaharan countries, in which case a different study they referenced suggested that there are delays in skeletal maturity in Subsaharan Africans. So if there's a mean of 18.3 with a standard deviation of one, which means even though it's reasonable over half of the young players from these countries that they sampled would still pass if their age was 18/19. This means that based on the Malawi study, the average goes to about 20.

TheGoodJoe:

Don't be eager. Let us take it a step at a time.

benji93:

Helloooooooooooooooooooooo, You are not serious. The study on which the decision was based did not consider Subsaharan countries, in which case a different study they referenced suggested that there are delays in skeletal maturity in Subsaharan Africans. So if there's a mean of 18.3 with a standard deviation of one, which means even though it's reasonable over half of the young players from these countries that they sampled would still pass if their age was 18/19. This means that based on the Malawi study, the average goes to about 20.

benji93:
No No No, don't be dismissive of my questions . They are fair. Answer the questions. Have you read the study on which FIFA based its decision to adopt the MRI? And do you understand their interpretation of the data presented or their conclusions on other studies? I should have done this in the first place. That should have been the first step in this conversation. So pls Sir, answer the question.

TheGoodJoe:


Give us your stance from it. Then I will tackle it as I did this article.

benji93:
My friend, you are not being reasonable here. Answer my question. Have you read it? And do you understand? I don't want us to be flying past each other.

benji93:
My friend, you are not being reasonable here. Answer my question. Have you read it? And do you understand it? I don't want us to be flying past each other. If you can answer this, i would be willing to go the mile. I am just not going to be wasting my time.

TheGoodJoe:


You are the one jumping up and down. If there is a point you disagree with, highlight it and paste.

I have taken time to breakdown the article you posted then you are saying whether I understand study figures.

Use your study figures and present your point.

TheGoodJoe:


From the below data, it shows that people below the 17 years can have complete fusion. It is not talking of players above passing the test.

benji93:
You are not serious. I have posted snippets in good faith, but you have not responded in good faith. When I talk about one thing you talk about another thing. You started with, "oh your submission is far from accurate". So I will ask, what argument did I make that was far from accurate? If you can, quote it again.