PROF ROSS TUCKER ("Sports Scientist") tweets his DOPING SCALE (ZA): Wayde van Niekerk 5, Farah 9.5, RUPP 10

Creative Solutions wrote:

When he says Radcliffe is a 7 he's probably talking about whether she's still doping now that she's retired.

That is an outrageous statement! Transparent Paula has always been a 0!!

For evidence, refer to her transparency and her being backed by anti-doping fighter Coe. There is 0 reason for suspicion.

bobgob wrote:

...Bolt gets an 8?

Bolt was running sub 20 seconds for the 200m as a teenager.

Is it or is it not true Bolt was getting shot-up by 'Healing Hans' as a teenager?

Another question, how does a small kid become one of the top multi-million dollar futballers in the world after shooting up HGH as an 11 yr old? Is that story true or not?

800 dude wrote:

When has such (artificially restricted) evidence ever been required to draw reasonable conclusions in the real world. Courts of law don't allow hearsay or propensity evidence, both of which can be highly probative.

So are you saying that you would be OK with being accused of something and this accusation being taken seriously enough to affect your livelihood on someone else's hunches?

question for you... wrote:

bobgob wrote:

...Bolt gets an 8?

Bolt was running sub 20 seconds for the 200m as a teenager.

Is it or is it not true Bolt was getting shot-up by 'Healing Hans' as a teenager?

Has Bolt or anyone else ever explained why he went to see HH aged 16? What was the extent of the injury/problem that he had necessitating this trip of several thousand miles? Was there nobody in the Americas who could fix it?

And who paid for the trip, given he was young and unknown - does Bolt have rich parents? Must have cost a few $$$.

Presumably this is just a parody he is doing of this forum? Otherwise he is bringing science into disrepute.

Wow. What a thread.

Half of the posts imply that he can't have an opinion ("ham sandwhiches are better than turkey!") without using data and scientific protocols.

Half the posts attack his character, leaving the content undisputed.

And the third half, Jon Orange...

(ohh, and all those that don't underatand his 3/10 baseline...)

This could have been good thread.

Clerk wrote:

blah blah blah scientific protocols.

Blah blah blah blah blah...

Nobody here read your post and thought "Now this is an intelligent guy, he certainly has a grasp of scientific protocols!"

Your attempt to drop in under some delusion of authority is as laughable as a 15-year-old with a fedora and new vape pen who thinks he's looking like Humphrey Bogart

Nice try! wrote:

Clerk wrote:

blah blah blah scientific protocols.

Blah blah blah blah blah...

Nobody here read your post and thought "Now this is an intelligent guy, he certainly has a grasp of scientific protocols!"

Your attempt to drop in under some delusion of authority is as laughable as a 15-year-old with a fedora and new vape pen who thinks he's looking like Humphrey Bogart

I don't think you understood my post...

Clerk wrote:

Half of the posts imply that he can't have an opinion ("ham sandwhiches are better than turkey!") without using data and scientific protocols.

Half the posts attack his character, leaving the content undisputed. ....

He's pulling numbers from his butt to create a "suspicion index" and using his position as a "sports scientist" to push a Joseph McCarthy-style trial by suspicion. Rather than making some libelous accusation, he can just put certain (non SA) athletes high on his suspicion index.

Here's how his game works. I have never claimed that Ross Tucker is selling doping products to SA Rugby players from the back of his car! But the fact that 15 SA Rugby players were busted by WADA after Ross Tucker was a consultant for SA Rugby is one of the criteria I'm using to give him a 9.5 on the suspicion index. Now I'll go on twitter to promote my Sports Scientist Suspicion Index.

One tweet is not a McCarthy style trial. What is so wrong with sharing what he believes is true? Because his title/position implies some sort of authority? That there is an implicit fact that his opinion should mean something more?

Are you really saying that because he is a public personality in the sport, he believes his own tweets have as much impact as a CAS ruling?

He'a just some dude with two thumbs and a twitter handle, replying tona question some other dude asked. You are the one projecting this Machiavellian intent behind it all.

(Also: the "15 South African rugby players" I assume you're talking about, caught in 2014, means 15 players in South Africa, not members of the South African national team. But yes, I suppose I agree that your version of the story would warrant a 9.5)

Stupidest thing ever.

I know no body here likes Rupp, but he has never performed in a race where you might say... "wow... doper."

He is good, but no world records, no golds, etc.

Now WvN, he just broke a long standing, unreachable record.

The record was held by someone many on LRC insist was a doper.

He just beat a known (if possibly reformed) doper in merritt.

Clerk wrote:

One tweet is not a McCarthy style trial. What is so wrong with sharing what he believes is true? Because his title/position implies some sort of authority? That there is an implicit fact that his opinion should mean something more?

Are you really saying that because he is a public personality in the sport, he believes his own tweets have as much impact as a CAS ruling?

He'a just some dude with two thumbs and a twitter handle, replying tona question some other dude asked. You are the one projecting this Machiavellian intent behind it all.

(Also: the "15 South African rugby players" I assume you're talking about, caught in 2014, means 15 players in South Africa, not members of the South African national team. But yes, I suppose I agree that your version of the story would warrant a 9.5)

It's not just one tweet, but a string of tweets about his suspicion scale. Tucker is often interviewed for his "expertise" as it relates to doping as McCarthy was for his "expertise" as it related to Communism. Whether either deserved the public platform for their expertise, it was and is dangerous for such supposed experts to create a public suspicion scale as if it is based on anything more than rumors and hunches.

I'm not sure what your comment about the South African national team has to do with my suspicion scale rating of 9.5 for Ross Tucker. I certainly never implied that he sold doping products solely to national team members. More importantly, my suspicion scale is created, like Ross Tucker's, with little to no input from athletes, coaches, doping officials. It's just rumors and hunches. :-)

That he wants men to run in women's events says it all about his stupid mentality.

Interesting. I did not know Ross Tucker had some association with people who were doping or were busted for having drugs. Do you have a link where I could read more about this?

Someone on twitter mentioned that he puts his head into the sand when ever Rugby is brought up for discussion. Matthew Syed's reply was quite telling -

i chose D2 wrote:

You do the math wrote:

So let's work it out for Radcliffe by the patented Ross Tuckerâ„  system.

Gold medalist implies base value of 4.

Dominance adds (at least) one to make 5.

Historical context (EPO in 2003) adds one to make 6.

Environment/Coaching (Arizona, altitude...) adds one to make 7.

Healing Hans adds one to make 8.

Dodgy blood values (OFF) adds one to make 9.

Claiming others dope, promising blood numbers then turning back, connections to Coe/Reedie, embedded in IAAF/UKAD admin/publicity, et cetera, adds one to make 10.

So it's 100%! Any subtractions to make?

Since when does altitude training in Arizona make someone a doper?

Albuquerque and The Eddie period.

rojo wrote:

The argument seems to be "But Farah is a late developer."

No, that's only one part of a list of arguments, as outlined on a previous page.

In addition to the missed doorbell, connections to Aden, months in remote locations, he has actually had a training partner busted for EPO (then denied even knowing Hamza despite photographic evidence to the contrary).

I think Full is probably dirty, but I think Tucker has it backwards. Rupp is a more like a 9 and Farah is a 10.

Dragon Runner wrote:

I think Rupp is probably dirty, but I think Tucker has it backwards. Rupp is more like a 9 and Farah is a 10.

Fixed it, damn auto correct.

fred wrote:

i chose D2 wrote:

Since when does altitude training in Arizona make someone a doper?

Albuquerque and The Eddie period.

Runners World - Brant

"Such was the scene throughout much of Albuquerque’s elite running community in the 1990s and early 2000s—a scene that, according to a number of sources, also involved the use of performance-enhancing drugs by many of the visiting runners. “Starting in 1999, we noticed a trend,” Shawn says. “Athletes had new sorts of requests. Where to get a syringe, more privacy, leases not in their names. Athletes started traveling with an additional coach who knew nothing about running. A prominent distributor resided in Albuquerque. He was a great athlete who, when drunk, rattled off the list of performance-enhancing users. Most of these athletes were winning major marathons.”

The principal substance was EPO"