Nobody talking about Ross Tucker v Paula radcliffe on twitter.... spat central!

I'm 34. I honestly have no idea how to read Twitter conversations in a way that makes them intelligible. I don't know if that's because they aren't intelligible or because I don't know how to Twitter.

If I scroll down on your post, I don't see anything that Paula says.

If I click the link and scroll through various comments on Tucker's Twitter, I see that Paula Radcliffe says something about asking questions creating noise (I don't understand the context) and that she hasn't made her values public because it would help cheaters evade detection.

If I scroll through Paula's Twitter I don't see her comments on others' posts?

Please summarize.

dsfasdsadfasf wrote:

I'm 34. I honestly have no idea how to read Twitter conversations in a way that makes them intelligible. I don't know if that's because they aren't intelligible or because I don't know how to Twitter.

If I scroll down on your post, I don't see anything that Paula says.

If I click the link and scroll through various comments on Tucker's Twitter, I see that Paula Radcliffe says something about asking questions creating noise (I don't understand the context) and that she hasn't made her values public because it would help cheaters evade detection.

If I scroll through Paula's Twitter I don't see her comments on others' posts?

Please summarize.

I could've written the same thing. I have no idea what Paula said, it looks like Ross Tucker is responding to her multiple times, but I can't see anything she's posted, even when I go directly to her Twitter.

IMO Tucker made Radcliffe look pretty dang bad. Then Fleshman comes in and goes completely off topic calling out Tucker for "mansplaining". Tucker has been coming at male dopers hard for years. Nothing his said to Paula had anything to do with her being female.

Also love when he asks about Actovegin and Thyroid abuse in sport (to which he gets no answer). The lack of discussion among elites about these things makes me feel like it's all way more common than we would think.

Agree with those saying I don't know how to read this conversation. I only see RT's posts, not PR's.

dznuts wrote:

IMO Tucker made Radcliffe look pretty dang bad. Then Fleshman comes in and goes completely off topic calling out Tucker for "mansplaining". Tucker has been coming at male dopers hard for years. Nothing his said to Paula had anything to do with her being female.

Also love when he asks about Actovegin and Thyroid abuse in sport (to which he gets no answer). The lack of discussion among elites about these things makes me feel like it's all way more common than we would think.

Yeah, Ross doesn't care about the gender of athletes, he has been outspoken about male athletes like Semenya.

Paula is going down: https://twitter.com/paulajradcliffe/status/960843000376188928

dznuts wrote:

IMO Tucker made Radcliffe look pretty dang bad. Then Fleshman comes in and goes completely off topic calling out Tucker for "mansplaining". Tucker has been coming at male dopers hard for years. Nothing his said to Paula had anything to do with her being female.

Also love when he asks about Actovegin and Thyroid abuse in sport (to which he gets no answer). The lack of discussion among elites about these things makes me feel like it's all way more common than we would think.

Fleshman has gotta go. That kind of nonsense is infuriating.

Re: Thyroid abuse common - keep in mind that although the discussion always centered on Salazar & Co, many other top runners were clients of Dr. Brown including members of BTC, the Gouchers, and Ryan Hall.

reader of the internet wrote:

dznuts wrote:

IMO Tucker made Radcliffe look pretty dang bad. Then Fleshman comes in and goes completely off topic calling out Tucker for "mansplaining". Tucker has been coming at male dopers hard for years. Nothing his said to Paula had anything to do with her being female.

Also love when he asks about Actovegin and Thyroid abuse in sport (to which he gets no answer). The lack of discussion among elites about these things makes me feel like it's all way more common than we would think.

Fleshman has gotta go. That kind of nonsense is infuriating.

Re: Thyroid abuse common - keep in mind that although the discussion always centered on Salazar & Co, many other top runners were clients of Dr. Brown including members of BTC, the Gouchers, and Ryan Hall.

They need to drop everything against Russia. Fleshman defending Paula made Paula look worse , Fleshman took the position Paula could not defend herself.

Paula not fully revealing her blood results is the same as Trump not releasing his taxes...whats she/he hiding?

Bravo Ross for being brave enough to take her on, unlike so many others, including the BroJos, who continue to think shes so clean she doesnt need to explain anything.

Huh? I'm curious how not releasing her scores "would help" people cheat. I'm honestly asking. Please tell me what I'm not seeing.

Shake Well wrote:

Huh? I'm curious how not releasing her scores "would help" people cheat. I'm honestly asking. Please tell me what I'm not seeing.

I'm more interested in the process of acquiring an independent investigation to confirm " clean" ? Has any other athlete that has never tested positive , receive an additional vote of confidence from the IAAF?

First of all I didn't say it would help other cheat, but they could certainly use her refusal as justification for not releasing theirs, which could potentially mean they are cheating. If she is so concerned about drugs in sport and the whole athletic world is curious about her results, wouldnt a person having nothing to hide, just release them?AS it stands now, as Tucker stated, the ball is in HER court to prove she was clean...no one really knows. Are you willing to take her on face value? Seems too many people are, probably coz shes a Brit., not an African.

Shake Well wrote:

Huh? I'm curious how not releasing her scores "would help" people cheat. I'm honestly asking. Please tell me what I'm not seeing.

Regardless of their debate, I'm reminded of how useless CAS is in all of this. Somebody big does really need to go after them. They make terrible decisions one after the other just out of fear of offending any athlete. They're the reason dopers get to compete and gender cheats get to make a career out of lopsided victories.

Isn't the guy who 'independently investigated her findings' and said there was nothing to see this guy??? Saugy?? He doesn't exactly seem squeaky clean.

http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/the-destruction-of-samples-and-martial-saugy/

LOoks like he was sitting on the IAAF panel alongside Paula

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.iaaf.org/news/amp/news/2006-iaaf-world-anti-doping-symposium-set-to

Shoebacca wrote:

Regardless of their debate, I'm reminded of how useless CAS is in all of this.

What, you expect a court of arbitration to just order an investigation against her? That's not how a court works. If anyone is totally useless it's the IAAF and WADA. It's their responsibility to defend their decisions in court (which IAAF has shown to be completely unable to do) or go after people who they think might seriously be doping (which WADA has also shown to be unwilling to do because it would hurt the sport's image).

CAS has really very little to do with this. They're basically there to enforce contracts, consistency, and human rights. Be mad at the IAAF and WADA.

vvvvvvvvvvv wrote:

Paula is going down:

https://twitter.com/paulajradcliffe/status/960843000376188928

Not unless Coe reverses his "independent" investigation. She's not releasing data . Paula will just fade to the background, every time she speaks up , it also focuses on her own case, and like the twitter exchange, she has no answers , and ends up shutting up.

Shoebacca wrote:

Regardless of their debate, I'm reminded of how useless CAS is in all of this. Somebody big does really need to go after them. They make terrible decisions one after the other just out of fear of offending any athlete. They're the reason dopers get to compete and gender cheats get to make a career out of lopsided victories.

+1

New news wrote:

Isn't the guy who 'independently investigated her findings' and said there was nothing to see this guy??? Saugy?? He doesn't exactly seem squeaky clean.

As internal IAAF emails showed, Saugy was the IAAF's "cleaner." Someone tests positive that's valuable to the IAAF had their samples sent from the testing lab to Saugy in Switzerland. Saugy would then proclaim "lab error" and the positive is swept away. The same IAAF that was bribing athletes to not start a case on a positive sample.

Saugy also the unnamed person in Paula's deeply flawed statement released after the sample data dump. Nothing agreed with her own biography among other simple issues of fact.

Of course, Coe knows nothing. He has previously claimed he doesn't read email.

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

First of all I didn't say it would help other cheat, but they could certainly use her refusal as justification for not releasing theirs, which could potentially mean they are cheating.

If she is so concerned about drugs in sport and the whole athletic world is curious about her results, wouldnt a person having nothing to hide, just release them?AS it stands now, as Tucker stated, the ball is in HER court to prove she was clean...no one really knows. Are you willing to take her on face value? Seems too many people are, probably coz shes a Brit., not an African.

Shake Well wrote:

Huh? I'm curious how not releasing her scores "would help" people cheat. I'm honestly asking. Please tell me what I'm not seeing.

" and that she hasn't made her values public because it would help cheaters evade detection."

-I must have misunderstood that sentence then. I'm in agreement with you, but was just really confused as to what the above sentence meant.