Twitter's rise is civilization's descent.
Twitter's rise is civilization's descent.
When he says Radcliffe is a 7 he's probably talking about whether she's still doping now that she's retired.
Jon Orange wrote:
wineturtle wrote:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=5625903&thread=5625654#5625903the 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.
I doubt I ever made any statements about the efficacy of any specific drug and surely none that make out PEDs to bend the rules of science.
To fine tune the point--- if a drug or treatment is proscribed you are guilty if you use it even if that drug or treatment is widely known in the scientific community as a nostrum or flat out quackery.
Rupp may be dirty. I will not argue about that but I don't get the logic in posts like this. Improvement is not the only factor. You can make anyone look bad. For example, I cheer for the guys from Schumachers group. Some have done very well. Jager dropped his mile speedlike Rupp did, should be under 8 soon and just got a silver. Solinsky dropped his 5k PR by a lot in 2010. Should the guys who beat Solinsky in 2009 assume he was cheating? If he didn't tear his hamstring he may have been a better 10000 runner than Rupp. Solinsky, Teg and Ritz competed with the best. Lots of guys have 5000 PRs that are close to or better than Rupp. We should not say that US runners can't go fast in a 10000.
Yes sir, correctand correct wrote:
Link wrote:This isn't really that difficult. He means that, if someone is at the elite level, then there is at least a 30% chance (or, 3, on his scale of 10, maybe it's not linear...) that that person is doping.
Also? I see that the paid Nike shills are just as quick to respond here as ever. Good job. You're earning your blood money.
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.
Well, lets find out
Dopebot! Dope Scale Galen Rupp
Dopebot wrote:
Dope Scale Galen Rupp is 10
I am a bot. Info:
http://habs.sdf.org/dopebot
Dopbot! Dope Scale Lance Armstrong
suspicion index?
That ladies and Gentlemen is why I've been so critical of Ross Tucker. The fact that he's taken seriously by some, especially Wejo is beyond laughable.
A serious, objective scientist deals with facts and evidence. He clearly deals with rumors. He literally sits on his arse at home and trashes athletes achievement. He's been doing that for several years. He's still obsessed with Froome and continues to call him and his team, cheats, despite no evidence or whistle-blowers.
His bias is unreal. On one hand, he thinks Farah is a doper, but wills Komworor and the Kenyans to beat him, despite Kenya's doping system being non-existent and as bad as the Russians, while Farah has to comply with the strict UK doping system. Give me a break.
Let's take his South African bias into account.
He gives Bolt an 8 and Van Niekerk a 5? Two years ago, who heard of Van Niekerk? And he bursts onto the scene in his early 20s, wins the WC last year running one of the fastest times ever and then smashes the WR the following year from lane 8? And he gives him a 5? While Bolt gets an 8?
Bolt was running sub 20 seconds for the 200m as a teenager. Which is why when he broke Michael Johnson's record at age 22, it wasn't a surprise. Van Nieker 2 years ago at 22, just broke 45 for the first time in the 400m.
Both of Michael Johnson's 200m (19.32 and 400m (43.18) WRs were super tough. Bolt has 19.9. That's an improvement of 0.13. Van Niekerk has 42.03. That's an improvement of 0.15. He almost run under 43 seconds.
But remember folks, Ross Tucker's fellow South African who was struggled to break 45 seconds, just two years ago, and has now gone sub 10, 20 and 44 seconds in all the sprints this year, is a 5. He's much much cleaner than Bolt. Riiiigghhhht!!!!!!
No wonder he's a professor of a nonsense university. I'd have some respect if he was a professor of Harvard or Oxford. They tend to deal with facts and evidence, rather than trashing athletes reputation and accusing them without any evidence. Matthew Syed rightly pointed out that based on his silly index, all athletes are dopers.
you walked into this one wrote:
Plus a complete lack of evidence of Rupp doping, it's silly to make him a 10.
Maybe he has a crush on Magness and wants to impress him.
i'm surprised Ross would do a scale like this as by labelling Rupp a 10, people not understanding the scale will think he's saying that Rupp is definitely dirty. He's ranking these people in order of suspiciousness with Rupp being the most suspicous in his mind apparently.
But do non-Americans not understand why many would rank Rupp ahead of Farah? Rupp is a guy where there is photographic evidence from a Nike lab of him being on some sort of testosterone medication in HS. Plus he's still in daily contact with a man who knows exactly how much androgel you can rub into someone's legs the night before a race without sparking a positive test.
The argument seems to be "But Farah is a late developer."
Ok let's look at the facts. When Rupp finished up at Oregon in 2009, his pbs at age 23 were as follows. 3:43/7:44/13:18 as compard to Farah's at age 23. 3:38.0/7:38/13:09
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?
I live and train in Arizona. Therefore I'm a doper. My best 5K over the past few years is 18:13, but back in the EPO era of the 1990s I ran 15:38.
How about the US swimming team?
I don't agree with him on a 10 for Rupp. Where are you going to put the US swimming team in the chart?
I didn't either. Those are all quotes from various twitter conversations that Ross Tucker, a Sports Scientist, has had with various twitter users about his personal rating system for how confident he is that someone is doping.
He gives a baseline of 3, suggesting that 30% of people are doping, so nobody goes below that line.
He gives Rupp a 10 because of his association with Salazar, Salazar's history, his TUEs, and who knows what else. Hard to see how he gets a 10 without any actual testing evidence, like he has never missed a test (unlike Farah) and he doesn't have the sudden improvement in his mid-late 20s (unlike Farah), he doesn't train in Ethiopia or Kenya (unlike Farah), he doesn't hang out with Jama Aden and other doping personalities (unlike Farah).
He gives Farah a high score as well (9.5)
His estimation of WvK is low because the sprinter does not have known associations with suspicious coaches or suspicious training partners, plus he is young and hasn't built up a network of suspicion around him.
I'm not defending Tucker -- that's just my interpretation of what he's saying in his tweets, all of which are replies on other threads...
twitter is a hot mess wrote:
I didn't either. Those are all quotes from various twitter conversations that Ross Tucker, a Sports Scientist, has had with various twitter users about his personal rating system for how confident he is that someone is doping.
He gives a baseline of 3, suggesting that 30% of people are doping, so nobody goes below that line.
He gives Rupp a 10 because of his association with Salazar, Salazar's history, his TUEs, and who knows what else. Hard to see how he gets a 10 without any actual testing evidence, like he has never missed a test (unlike Farah) and he doesn't have the sudden improvement in his mid-late 20s (unlike Farah), he doesn't train in Ethiopia or Kenya (unlike Farah), he doesn't hang out with Jama Aden and other doping personalities (unlike Farah).
He gives Farah a high score as well (9.5)
His estimation of WvK is low because the sprinter does not have known associations with suspicious coaches or suspicious training partners, plus he is young and hasn't built up a network of suspicion around him.
I'm not defending Tucker -- that's just my interpretation of what he's saying in his tweets, all of which are replies on other threads...
ok, testing evidence, forgot about the testosterone med thing. Ahh, when will the NOP investigation be done?
And yet you think we should drop inquiries into Dibabas who were on site when Genzebe's coach was seen dumping needles and had associates caught with a bunch of EPO. How come you don't suspect that heh are microdosing? You seem awfully selective about this and told people to drop it because Simpson's last 800 was fast like Dibaba's was last year.
I wouldn't vouch for anyone but I hope people are clean and think many still are - that may be naive.
As for Rupp, the main thing is that the testosterone test is odd - I don't understand that. The notation does not seem like much and would just be stupid to write down if younger indeed trying to cheat. That could have been testoboost, which other runners who you like used.
Fixed post:And yet you think we should drop inquiries into Dibabas who were on site when Genzebe's coach was seen dumping needles and had associates caught with a bunch of EPO. How come you don't suspect that they are microdosing? You seem awfully selective about this and told people to drop it because Simpson's last 800 was fast like Dibaba's was last year.I wouldn't vouch for anyone but I hope people are clean and think many still are - that may be naive.As for Rupp, the main thing is that the testosterone test is odd - I don't understand that. The notation does not seem like much and would just be stupid to write down if you are indeed trying to cheat. That could have been testoboost, which other runners who you like have used.
rojo wrote:
you walked into this one wrote:Plus a complete lack of evidence of Rupp doping, it's silly to make him a 10.
Maybe he has a crush on Magness and wants to impress him.
i'm surprised Ross would do a scale like this as by labelling Rupp a 10, people not understanding the scale will think he's saying that Rupp is definitely dirty. He's ranking these people in order of suspiciousness with Rupp being the most suspicous in his mind apparently.
But do non-Americans not understand why many would rank Rupp ahead of Farah? Rupp is a guy where there is photographic evidence from a Nike lab of him being on some sort of testosterone medication in HS. Plus he's still in daily contact with a man who knows exactly how much androgel you can rub into someone's legs the night before a race without sparking a positive test.
The argument seems to be "But Farah is a late developer."
Ok let's look at the facts. When Rupp finished up at Oregon in 2009, his pbs at age 23 were as follows. 3:43/7:44/13:18 as compard to Farah's at age 23. 3:38.0/7:38/13:09
Ross Tucker is a scientist at Free State Uni ? This is also the very same college where WvN studies.This is also the site of South Africa Wada-accredited lab, or use to be since the lab was suspended this year after "irregularities" were found.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2016/05/03/wada-steps-in-to-suspend-african-labs-accreditation/
[...]the Bloemfontein Laboratory, became the latest to be ordered to cease analysis of athletes’ blood and urine samples after being caught reporting false positives or negatives.
van Niekerk won the 400m in the Beijing in 43"5, collapsing at the end, sent at hospital by paramedics, because the effort was too strong.
in 2016, Wada-SA lab is suspended: He breaks 10s for 100m, and trash is opponents (and the WR) in the olympic 400m without breaking a sweat (just look at his reaction at the end).
But it is not only WvN, it is the whole Sth African sprint that have made huge leaps in the last 4 years :
Let's review it
SA sprint records in 2012:
100m : 10"06 (done in 1988 at altitude, with max allowed wind of 2 m/s by a guy who couldn't broke 10"3 at sea level)
200m : 20"13 (done in altitude)
400m : 44"5
in 2016
100m record : 9"89 ! (several Sth African have broken 10" flat since 2012)
200m : 19"87 by WvN ? No !!! By the guy who finished 3rd behind behind Galin & Bolt last year in Beijing and who didn't pass a round this year (he was apparently injured)
400m : 43"03 WR.
Their sprint program has made huge strides in only a few year.
in the suspicion scale of 10, i"ll give 12.
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.
+1
This was great.
justafewfacts wrote:
SA sprint records in 2012:
100m : 10"06 (done in 1988 at altitude, with max allowed wind of 2 m/s by a guy who couldn't broke 10"3 at sea level)
200m : 20"13 (done in altitude)
400m : 44"5
in 2016
100m record : 9"89 ! (several Sth African have broken 10" flat since 2012)
200m : 19"87 by WvN ? No !!! By the guy who finished 3rd behind behind Galin & Bolt last year in Beijing and who didn't pass a round this year (he was apparently injured)
400m : 43"03 WR.
Their sprint program has made huge strides in only a few year.
in the suspicion scale of 10, i"ll give 12.
Speaking of South Africa. Didn't WADA just bust 14 SA Rugby players for doping? And wasn't Ross Tucker a consultant for SA Rugby? What kind of "consulting" is being provided. It's all very suspicious -- maybe a 9.5 on the index.