Danielnino00:


We should add 4 years because Benji says so? You have no evidence whatsoever to back up any of your claims..Just assumptions and assumptions. If this was a court of law,your argument would be thrown out the moment you present it... There are pictures of Ndidi with the u-17 in 2013 where he looks as young as his mates who passed the MRI back then...Go and check..

Mujtahida:

There's no doubt that age cheating is one of our national pastimes. Anybody arguing against this fact is dreaming

Danielnino00:


We should add 4 years because Benji says so? You have no evidence whatsoever to back up any of your claims..Just assumptions and assumptions. If this was a court of law,your argument would be thrown out the moment you present it... There are pictures of Ndidi with the u-17 in 2013 where he looks as young as his mates who passed the MRI back then...Go and check..

benji93:
I think I need an audience here. I would like to know if my questions to this man GoodJoe are fair.

The discussion is about my claim that many 20/21-year-old Subsaharan Africans Players would pass the MRI test.

Note the keyword: Subsaharan African players.

As should be the case for any argument, @GoodJoe, said that was far from accurate. Fair enough.

So after running around in circles, we agreed to start again.

This subject particularly has an academic component. In fact, we are in luck we can have access to one of the most important articles FIFA based their decision on. I'll even show you why this is the most important.

My question to you all is simple. Isn't it fair to discuss this article and its references in order to draw informed conclusions on this matter?
Should these academic articles not be the first resort, instead of Punch, tribune, anecdotes e.t.c? I am not saying that these are not at all useful. But what should be your first stop?

If you are discussing an article you may want to be sure the other parties are following so you ask them questions. This is the crime i have committed my people. I asked questions.

Pls help me beg him to answer my questions. He's been dodging them. He runs away at the second step.

Amedino99:
Yeah. Bro's not moving anytime soon

maidaboi:
I think no club will pay that for him

Odunayaw:
Let's say Ndidi is 4 years older en. Then he must have failed the test at 20y/o

So how does this help benji93 position that 20/21y/o Subsaharan Africans can pass

maidaboi:
I think no club will pay that for him

mostob:
Gbam!
This question is worth millions of dollars.

Benji come and answer please.

benji93:
I think I need an audience here. I would like to know if my questions to this man GoodJoe are fair.

The discussion is about my claim that many 20/21-year-old Subsaharan Africans Players would pass the MRI test.

Note the keyword: Subsaharan African players.

As should be the case for any argument, @GoodJoe, said that was far from accurate. Fair enough.

So after running around in circles, we agreed to start again.

This subject particularly has an academic component. In fact, we are in luck we can have access to one of the most important articles FIFA based their decision on. I'll even show you why this is the most important.

My question to you all is simple. Isn't it fair to discuss this article and its references in order to draw informed conclusions on this matter?
Should these academic articles not be the first resort, instead of Punch, tribune, anecdotes e.t.c? I am not saying that these are not at all useful. But what should be your first stop?

If you are discussing an article you may want to be sure the other parties are following so you ask them questions. This is the crime i have committed my people. I asked questions.

Pls help me beg him to answer my questions. He's been dodging them. He runs away at the second step.

mostob:
Gbam!
This question is worth millions of dollars.

Benji come and answer please.

Another analysis that similarly employed wrist scans among young players found that three supposed 14-year-old male soccer players had stage 5 or stage 6 fusion. In that analysis, too, the authors similarly noted, “no correlation was observed between age category and grade of fusion.” But in both studies the authors dismissed the results —suggesting perhaps players were simply not aware of their real ages.

maidaboi:
I think no club will pay that for him

benji93:
@mostob, read this carefully(very important) and answer.

The mean chronological age of the players was 15.4 years (standard deviation ±0.7; range 12 - 17 ). The study showed that 43.0% of the MRI images were grade 6 (≥17 years) in relation to the degree of fusion of the distal radius, and 93.0% of the grade 6 players were aged 15 - 16 years chronologically. There was no significant correlation between the chronological age and the degree of fusion

Ghanaian U17 soccer players seem to be more biologically mature than a normative population of the same age category. The lack of correlation between age category and degree of fusion supports the suspicion that most Ghanaian players may not know their true age.

Odunayaw:
You've shared two papers

One says; A sample in sub‐Saharan Africa[Malawi] showed slower skeletal age development.

The other: [paraphrased] "There isn't enough research on Subsaharan Africa to determine"

---

Enter Ghanaian research: MRI SCANS OF THE LEFT WRISTS OF 86 PLAYERS ASPIRING TO PLAY FOR THE NATIONAL U17 FOOTBALL TEAM

Results


Conclusion



From this research, correct me if I'm wrong, I deduce that

- Ghanaian kids (sample for West Africa) do not have slower skeletal age development
- A 15/16 y/o [on paper] Ghanaian is 50/50 likely going to fail an MRI.

So how is a Nigerian 20/21y/o going to pass. Bring your research

benji93:
Nope. That wasn't the paper I originally shared. I believe at least one of the papers you mentioned is a reference in the main paper I shared. You seem to be interested so let's go.
Are you aware of the most important study on which FIFA based its decision to adopt the MRI?

zuchyblink:
I am not sure but Ndidi is more than 30. His injury worries could be age related.

Odunayaw:
[b][/b]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dear-fifa-there-is-no-scientific-test-to-prevent-age-fraud/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465138/#!po=41.1111


These are the two papers you shared. The Ghanian study was referenced in the former

What's the most important study. Post, I have time to go through it

benji93:
Yes, this is the most important study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465138/#!po=41.1111

And yes I did mention ScientificAmerican, but you may want to be careful referencing it. Be sure they are properly referencing their references.

You seem to be open to a nice exchange. So let's continue.

Would you like me to tell you why it's the most important paper to rely on? Or we can just move on?

Amedino99:
ADL moving like someone that used his personal money to finance the osihmen deal
It's either he uses osihmen to the last Kobo or sell him for a price higher than the purchase price. But then how many years did osihmen sign for

Odunayaw:
Two facts can exist

You're saying everyone should doubt everyone else ages because of a blanket fact?

TheGoodJoe:


This post is devoid of the argument. We agree that age cheating is common in our country. That is why we embraced the MRI wrist scan wholeheartedly, at the cost of even losing some genuine players.

We are very strict with the MRI scan. CAF and FIFA are also strict with it. This has helped curb age cheating at U17 level. Plain fact.

Now these guys are coming with a very fake, bias and false theory that 20/21 years old pass MRI scan. That is a bloody lie and there is no source to back a blatant lie.

So subtle attack on me won't help bend the truth

Finito.

TheSuperNerd:
Kessie has more skill than Nwakali?? Oh because he is at Milan. Lol

Kessie is all power and Brawns. Not much brains.

Odunayaw:
Let's say Ndidi is 4 years older en. Then he must have failed the test at 20y/o

So how does this help benji93 position that 20/21y/o Subsaharan Africans can pass

benji93:
Yes, this is the most important study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465138/#!po=41.1111

And yes I did mention ScientificAmerican, but you may want to be careful referencing it. Be sure they are properly referencing their references.

You seem to be open to a nice exchange. So let's continue.

Would you like me to tell you why it's the most important paper to rely on? Or we can just move on?

elyte89:



U go stubborn for real life…na only u I sabi wey be say dem go leave argument for u,but u go still continue just to prove a point