I don't know how much clearer I can be. On a scale of 1-10,where Rupp is 10,Farah 9.5, is say WvN is at 5. The lowest I go is 3
Laura Trott? on things I don't know about. However, based purely on statistics & the sport, I'd say a 5 to 6. Same situation as WvN
What about G Thomas , Froome? 7, 8. Transformation, storyline, associations etc.
Ha, I used Rupp as my max! Lance for me was a 9 in 2005. Blake 9, Bolt 8, football 9.5. Your scores are high!
Radcliffe? Rudisha? On this, I'd say 7 and 6.
Dibaba gets 9, Russians 9.5. That's a suspicion index, based on knowledge, context, history & my assessment of performance
what does Farah get on that index? 9.5! Rupp is 10!
Prof at uni of the free state :') wtf is this a third tier community college?
well no, not 3 - that's as low as I'd go, because about 30-40% of athletes confess to doping when asked anonymously!
If the average is 30-40% that doesn't mean the lowest you can go is 30% - what an idiot.
Radcliffe only a 7? wrote:
Radcliffe? Rudisha? On this, I'd say 7 and 6.
Yeah, I'd think that even half the brojos would go higher than 7 for Radcliffe (on a "suspicion scale", not a likelihood scale).
Dumoulin wrote:
Prof at uni of the free state :') wtf is this a third tier community college?
Good for you. You are very close to the correct answer:
I’m currently Professor of Exercise Physiology with the School of Medicine of the University of the Free State. I’m also the scientific and research consultant to World Rugby, ambassador and scientific advisor to Virgin Active and adidas. In the past, I’ve consulted with a number of teams in high performance sport, including SA Sevens (including the 2009/2010 World Series winning team), SA Kayaking, SA Triathlon, USA triathlon and the UK Olympic Committee.
It is interesting that Ross Tucker uses the word... "suspicious".
It is just a coincidence.
When did this guy become a tabloid journalist? I used to respect his work.
"a suspicion index", on LRC, might just as well be called a "popularity index"
Jesus christ, I take back my words mate.
Seventhly, I am not a cheat. wrote:
Radcliffe only a 7? wrote:Yeah, I'd think that even half the brojos would go higher than 7 for Radcliffe (on a "suspicion scale", not a likelihood scale).
Radcliffe a 7, Rupp a 10: now I have seen everything.
Flying Salmon wrote:
When did this guy become a tabloid journalist? I used to respect his work.
That's what Twitter (social media) will do to you. He really needs a different hobby.
I'm genuinely sorry to see this, I actually went and checked because I couldn't believe that he would basically go down to the level of a Letsrun troll and accuse everyone of doping.
Whatever happened to evidence that would stand up in a court of law ?
This is a great example of "sports science". Completely useless
casual obsever wrote:
Seventhly, I am not a cheat. wrote:Yeah, I'd think that even half the brojos would go higher than 7 for Radcliffe (on a "suspicion scale", not a likelihood scale).
Radcliffe a 7, Rupp a 10: now I have seen everything.
Oh boy Ross:
http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Capture-400x256.pngHey Ross!!! The chart is from you website!!!
Hey Ross. You are tweeting too much on twitter.
Please finish the Robert Young Brit-Liar-Cheater-Fraudâ„¢ report as soon as possible.
How the heck do you have Paula at a 7 and Galen at a 10???
Ross. You messed up your decimal places again.
It is obvious that you really mean to say…that Paula is actually a 70.
Wrong again Ross.
Paula is a 700.
rjm33 wrote:
It is obvious that you really mean to say…that Paula is actually a 70.
Wrong again Ross.
Paula is a 700.
But if she really did not know what 'Healing Hans' was putting in the syringes, is it really 'doping'?
Is it or is it not true Bolt was getting shot-up by 'Healing Hans' as a teenager?
It was very clear - given that 30% of athletes themselves confess to doping, the minimum is 3/10.
Then I say 10/10 for athletes who you think are dead certainly doping. Two anchors. Pretty simple really
Perhaps I have underestimated people's ability to understand a linear scale from 3 to 10.
Sigh. Bangs head on desk...
I am saying that 3 is my minimum, because you'd be an idiot to say 0 based on the past. So 3 is as low as I go, but it does / not mean zero, no. It means that's a start point, based on self-confessed human behavior. It's as low as I will go
So I'd say at a minimum,the least suspect gold medalist is a 4. Add dominance,historical context, environment, coaching etc / and it goes up. So you take Ethiopia with zero OOC testing, or Jama Aden's EPO bag, or Salazar's multiple issues, higher #
Yeah, of course. And I just explained to you which sports, which factors might affect that. In athletics,Nick Willis is a 3
10 means I am dead-certain, based on what I know of context, history, situation & performance (and change) of doping probability.
Ok, so that's a fair point. The scale ends at 9.999, because who can be certain on either end! Fair enough!
Maybe even a 6 (for WvN). Our environment (drugs available through gyms/schools), his range at age,dominance. All factors to think
There's no specific evidence or link between him & environment. And performance alone not enough for more. Else it'd be 8 or 9
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.
