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

The highly regarded journalist and Scientist Jon Orange will put Tucker in his place with his groundbreaking knowledge that drugs do not make a difference to athletic performance.

You'll see.

Nothing screams "SCIENCE!" like highly subjective and arbitrary numerical scales based on (presumably) very little actual evidence.

Not that our sport doesn't have a problem with pharmaceutical assistance, but this unnecessary.

If Rupp is already 10 (so doping at 100% probability, in Tucker's opinion), then what about the ones who are actually proven and banned because of doping, and even admitted PED use? Like is Rupp 10 and Lance Armstrong also 10?

Admittedly I don't know which evidence Tucker uses to estimate Rupp as 10, but can the evidence be as extensive as the evidence against Lance? If so, why isn't Rupp banned already?

Tucker single-handedly manages to give both sports and science a bad name.

the 11th post

asdfdgjdfgrg wrote:

Tucker single-handedly manages to give both sports and science a bad name.

I don't think he cares. Him and Steve Magness. It's just desperate attention seeking. They are not happy people.

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

wineturtle wrote:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=5625903&thread=5625654#5625903

the 11th post

What about it? He's drug obsessed. He contradicts himself. If he believes in homeostasis (look that one up it's kinda important) then how can EPO deliver more oxygen?

Where does efficiency come into his realm of consciousness? In abstracted calculations that don't relate to physics.

Sorry I'm actually talking real scienc here. That's not what sells is it?

Yes of course there is doping going on, but it's important to keep a sense of perspective, otherwise you make doping out to be something that changes the realms of science into science fiction. He and you and most people can't see that for what it is.

Yes sir, correct and correct wrote:

...

Yes. It's actually more of a scale on PED probability/chance. It's his own scale that he factors many variables. Rupp, coached by Salazar for 16 years, starting when Rump was only 14, is a 10. Do you people not think Salazar tested things out on underage Rupp? Dan Browne himself used to have teenage Rupp hanging in the OP altitude house when he was there. I think Rupp, with a 26:44 is way more a 10. I'm always reminded of Rupp running 27:10 when Chris Solinsky broke the AR. Chelanga and Salel beat Rupp. I wonder what they thought when he ran 26:48 one year later? Rupp is 10 of 10s.

Regarding Rupp running 27:10 then a year later 26:48...in that race, it was paced to break 27:13(?) which was the existing AR. That's exactly what he did. He likely was in even better shape but didn't set the race up for it, and had no answer for the last 800.

We know Rupp is tested "a lot", which is relative to his peers. Of course I know that for a good program this is not an issue, but still, it beats what most of these other countries do (SA, Jamaica, all of Easter Africa and probably Northern Africa).

Hell Rupp's progression for years seems to be on his side, not doping.

What's the scale? wrote:

What about G Thomas , Froome? 7, 8. Transformation, storyline, associations etc.

Geraint Thomas is a 13 and Froome is a 12, on a scale of 1-10. I follow cycling pretty closely, and there is nothing more obvious than these clowns at Sky. There must be a new drug or something.

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

Whatever happened to evidence that would stand up in a court of law ?

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.

100%really wrote:

If Rupp is already 10 (so doping at 100% probability, in Tucker's opinion), then what about the ones who are actually proven and banned because of doping, and even admitted PED use? Like is Rupp 10 and Lance Armstrong also 10?

Admittedly I don't know which evidence Tucker uses to estimate Rupp as 10, but can the evidence be as extensive as the evidence against Lance? If so, why isn't Rupp banned already?

This isn't scientific. This is an educated guess using variables, and yes in Tucker's opinion who is most likely (10) to be doping. Let's all just admit that 95% of those doping will never be caught. Their PED use is known to them, a coach or trainer, and maybe a teammate/spouse. This is not about evidence. We all suspect some more than others and Tucker's posts only present his opinion. Either you agree, don't, or have your own scale with similarities/differences.

Prof Ross Tucker is racist white south african scientist he hate Mo Farah because of his skin color and religion

He can go 2 hell

dsdsnjdsjkjkds wrote:

What's the scale? wrote:

Geraint Thomas is a 13 and Froome is a 12, on a scale of 1-10. I follow cycling pretty closely, and there is nothing more obvious than these clowns at Sky. There must be a new drug or something.

The entire British Cycling team is a 13. It is obvious all the Brits are systematically doping.

oh please wrote:

We know Rupp is tested "a lot", which is relative to his peers. Of course I know that for a good program this is not an issue, but still, it beats what most of these other countries do (SA, Jamaica, all of Easter Africa and probably Northern Africa).

WADA testing is not purely random. Being frequently tested might be an indication that WADA has some reason to suspect a particular athlete.

That said, if "10" is equivalent to 100% certainty that a particular athlete is doping, as the tweet thread apparently suggests, then it seems like one would have to be officially busted to score a 10. Whatever red flags there might be concerning Rupp, it seems odd that Tucker would call him out specifically as such.

Rob Young RV doping = 10

Jon Orange wrote:

asdfdgjdfgrg wrote:

Tucker single-handedly manages to give both sports and science a bad name.

I don't think he cares. Him and Steve Magness. It's just desperate attention seeking. They are not happy people.

I agree. Not a day goes by without someone calling out his arbitrary methods as unscientific. His response? Always obfuscation.

Dragon Runner wrote:

I used to value his opinion but his latest statements are a head scratcher. There's no freaking way that Farah is less suspicious than Rupp and I'm not even saying Rupp is clean, but Farah has more red flags.

I disregard Ross Tucker's science as much as the next guy, but why would you give Rupp a lower score than 10? We've all seen the lab report showing that he was taking (and benefiting from) testosterone and prednisone at age 16. His current coach admitted to sending him a hollowed out book with pills in it and to asking an assistant to find androgel buried under Rupp's clothes and make sure that no one gets the "wrong idea."

How gullible are you people?

Good call El Keniano.

So Tucker and Magness can continue in this vein on twitter and increase their following, whilst ignoring any criticism.