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

Hey, El Keniano, we agree! He did an excellent job of showing that conflicting evidence will put different athletes at different places on a scale. It also shows that weighing those factors are inherently subjective! I just wish he would have finished what he started, I'd love to hear his, and your, ranking of Centrowitz, the Ethiopians, or anyone else.

"Not even UK athletics thought he was a cheat and they allowed him and his athletes to share the same training tracks as the UK Athletes."

Yeah, that's the good spin. It's all a coincidence.

Of all the thousands of tracks in the world, they just ended up on the same one at the same time.

And when Mo was walking by Jama's house, it was a coincidence that Jama's daughter saw him.

And it was a coincidence that Mo was at a small party with the doper kid.

Not even UK athletics thought he was a cheat

How do you infer this?

Probably everyone in UKA just KNOWS he is a cheat, but still has to "think" otherwise to Keep Up Appearances to the public.

Remember when the site did a doping suspicion poll. We should all do that again and compare results (and ask what has changes). I remember that T. Dibaba was one of the least suspicious athletes.

Algonquin wrote:

Remember when the site did a doping suspicion poll. We should all do that again and compare results (and ask what has changes). I remember that T. Dibaba was one of the least suspicious athletes.

I agree. It took a long time to get the data published, though. Thenrevelations since then, Russia, IAAF, etc, will also have changed peoples' minds on the culture of the sport.

In the mean time, hop over to the other thread and share your list! It's an echo chamber right now...

fred wrote:

Yeah, that's the good spin. It's all a coincidence.

1) Never failed a test

2) Never been accused. Zero allegations

3) Has been tested more times than any British Athletes (140x since 2010) and it's done by one of the strictest doping agencies in the World, UKAD. Compare that to the Ethiopian and Kenyan system, which is non-existent

Finally, remember when the Sunday Times exposed the blood data scandal last year? Farah, Ennis and Pavey went against the advise of UK athletics and gave the Sunday Times journalist permission to post his blood data online. From 2005 to 2012, his blood data came back normal and other long distance runner he was racing against, had abnormal blood levels. They however were not named. Funny how people ignore that. They remember the missed test, but suddenly they come down with amnesia when it comes to Farah releasing his blood data.

Summary: No allegations, no evidence and so the only thing left is guilt by association. Sorry, but that's pathetic. Clutching at straws to say the least.

What's the scale? wrote:

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.

Wow. Tucker strikes me as amazingly naive and completely clueless. 43.03 is about a 12 on my 1-10 scale, for example.

Ross Tucker is a true poster child for 'scientists' who are well known for tweets and media, but not for peer reviewed science. Famous for begin famous. Not for doing any research worth mentioning.

bobgob wrote:

fred wrote:

Yeah, that's the good spin. It's all a coincidence.

Summary: No allegations, no evidence and so the only thing left is guilt by association. Sorry, but that's pathetic. Clutching at straws to say the least.

In this sport, association is much more that clutching at straws. It is certainly a starting point for suspicion. To say that Farah's association with Aden, Driouch, Salazar, and the incompetent and self serving UKAD is nothing is to ignore the realities of sports and doping/anti-doping.

one of the strictest doping agencies in the World, UKAD.

Strict at what? Covering up for its superstars? Who's the "100% me" ambassador again?

Look at the links between UKAD governance, IAAF campaigning, etc. Some athletes are too big to fry. Mo would fit this category.

Two positives make a negative wrote:

one of the strictest doping agencies in the World, UKAD.

Strict at what? Covering up for its superstars? Who's the "100% me" ambassador again?

Look at the links between UKAD governance, IAAF campaigning, etc. Some athletes are too big to fry. Mo would fit this category.

Wrong.

Soccer in the UK is the national sport. The biggest Club in the World and in England is Manchester United. UKAD banned one of the biggest and most important soccer player for 8 months in 2004, because he missed a test. His name was Rio Ferdinand. His reason was not valid and so it was classed as 'avoiding'. England were in the European Cup that year and were favourites to win it. If there was ever a cover up, it would be that. He was England's best defender and he missed out and England never won the competition.

Nobody is above UKAD.

You seem to think that UK Athletics conducts the test, but it's not. UKAD is a separate organisation and they cover all the sports in the UK. Soccer, Athletics, Tennis, Hockey, Swimming etc. It's run and funded by the UK government. They have one of the strictest system in place, which is why missing a test is not uncommon. When it was revealed Farah missed a test, Rimmer, Sotherton, Sharp, Lewis Francis and a host of other British athletes explained they too missed tests during their careers. Michale Rimmer himself said that he missed two tests and they were stupid reasons. Farah wasn't annoyed by the revelation, he was annoyed for being singled out when others had the same experience. None of them were in the papers, only he was.

And the link your making with the IAAF and Seb Coe, well sorry to break this to you, but that was UK Sports, not UKAD.

UKSport, UKAD and UK Athletics are all separate organisations

.

Do you not see how silly you sound? You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

UKAD has testified before parliament that they did not pursue information about a doping doctor. Graham Arthur was fired for the mistakes he made in his position as Legal Director (with regard to pursuing doping cases). UKAD reduced the number of tests before the 2012 Olympics. UKAD was in charge of helping Russia reform its anti-doping program (How's that work out?) UKAD has been shown to not announce sanctions publicly. The head of UKAD has been revealed to direct her agency cover up leaked IAAF data. A UKAD board member had an email revealed that the agency did not even “know how effective” it was as pursuing anti-doping.

UKAD is not one of the strictest NADOs in the world. UKAD is no authority to prove that it's athletes are clean.

Clerk wrote:

UKAD has testified before parliament that they did not pursue information about a doping doctor. Graham Arthur was fired for the mistakes he made in his position as Legal Director (with regard to pursuing doping cases). UKAD reduced the number of tests before the 2012 Olympics. UKAD was in charge of helping Russia reform its anti-doping program (How's that work out?) UKAD has been shown to not announce sanctions publicly. The head of UKAD has been revealed to direct her agency cover up leaked IAAF data. A UKAD board member had an email revealed that the agency did not even “know how effective” it was as pursuing anti-doping.

UKAD is not one of the strictest NADOs in the world. UKAD is no authority to prove that it's athletes are clean.

Oh boy, so much mis-information. So I'll have to break it down.

1) UKAD agreed to help Russia reform and take control of their testing until they sorted their system out. That was based on the findings from last year's WADA report, which was devastating. However, unlike Kenya, who were given time to clean up and sort out its system. Another WADA report last month called 'the McLaren report' revealed that Doping was state sponsored and it was across the entire Russian sport, not just athletics. So it didn't matter whether Russia's track and field was actually cleaning up, this report set the entire Russian Sport back. That's why the IOC had to vote on whether to ban Russia completely and decided to allow the individuals sports to decide. The IAAF only last month banned Russia, not because it didn't clean up in time like Kenya, that was irrelevant, but because of further revelations by 'the McLaren report' meant that they had no choice.

2) In November 2015, they asked for more funding so they could increase their testing and got a 7% increase in funding in March by the UK government.

I know your trying to portray them as this weak inept organisation. But as the previously poster has shown, people have confused UKAD with other organisations. UKAD does not have that reputation of being weak, corrupt or inept. Far from it. The reality is, UKAD has one of the strongest system in place and very few countries have a similar system. UK sports starts have made the point and complained about how sport stars from other countries don't have a similar strict system as they do.

What propaganda department are you from at UKAD?

Whoops.

And this was before the missed tests with Lizzie.

UKAD made "ghastly mistakes". Oh my.

That scared me.

Ha Ha Ha

Moranic Orangic wrote:

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.

Yeah, those Eastern Germans were natural talents weren't they derived absolutely no benefit from the well documented systemic doping.

Dopebot wrote:

Dope Scale Galen Rupp is 10

I am a bot. Info:

http://habs.sdf.org/dopebot

Hilarious.

This actually makes me seriously worry, SA has gone from a disgustingly racist nation to a tin pot shady backwater country like Angola or Somalia in a generation so cheating is probably now the norm.

My list:

Elliot, Snell, Ryun, Schul, Walker, Pre, Keino, Dixon, Eliza McCartney, Emma Cochburn all score a 1.

Willis, Gregson and Blankenship are 2s. (You can never be too sure!)

Lemaitre 3.5-4

De Grasse (i'm hoping he's clean but I'm a sceptic). 5

Rudisha is a 5.5 (on the balance he might be, but he might not, I'm hoping not).

Kiprop 6 (De Rosa link is a killer blow to his credibility).

WvN, Centro, Rupp score 6.5. Mo is definitely an 8.

Bolt's an 8 (he could be doping on Actavegin mostly, though I doubt it)

Ledecky, Phelps are 7s.

Schippers 8

British cycling are 8.5.

Elaine Thompson, Semeya, Bekele, Komen, Geb. El G. Morceli Are 9s

Carl Lewis, MJ, are 9.5s (I'm holding out hope!) As is Vessala.

Viren, Makhloufi, Dibaba (x 2), Ayana, Soulimen score 10.

Flo Jo, JJ Kersee, East Germans, Armstrong, M. Jones all score a 12.

What irritiates me about Mo - and it is true of at least one or two Rio gold medallists also - is their contradictory positions on drug takers.

Mo raced against Alemayehu Bezabeh eariler this year, who was banned between 2011-2013 for drug taking. He had this to say: “I’m racing against a guy who I lost a medal to – but am I ever going to get that medal back? No. Anyone associated with that should get a liftetime ban. I’m doing it the right way so let me do what I do, let me run.”

That's a commendable position to take against drug takers. You start thinking, "hey, maybe Mo really does hate drug takers and what they are doing to the sport."

But then he always seems happy to have his picture taken with characters mired in suspicion:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02142/asafa-powell_a_2142718b.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/28/2628E9AB00000578-0-image-a-16_1425082008715.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/20/21/357EA0A400000578-3651196-image-m-5_1466453813772.jpg

Either you hate these guys or you don't. Can't have it both ways.