Completely agree with everyone that he has jumped the shark and joined the likes of Steve Magness as tabloid journalists.
Will no longer be visiting his site or supporting his work. His bias is too real.
Completely agree with everyone that he has jumped the shark and joined the likes of Steve Magness as tabloid journalists.
Will no longer be visiting his site or supporting his work. His bias is too real.
By the way, I wanted to see for myself and there is nothing in his Twitter feed about this. Is it completely made up? https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
sorry, I found it.
I think it falls under "replies" (to Syed).
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/with_replies
It'a also from a day ago by now (which means that literally hundreds of tweets intervene).
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/766273787314704384
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/766274081620684800
Here's the one where he points out that Rupp was his max (though he later explains that 10 really does mean 100%).
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/766325550801645570
He's not just throwing darts around aimlessly. Tucker has spent a lot of time researching and comparing--performance in sport is his scientific pursuit.
On top of that, it seems most of you whining don't seem to understand what he's discussing. When he uses words like "context, history, environment, change, etc., do a lot of you just tap out and press the buzzer to self-identify a below average IQ?
Use your head wrote:
He's not just throwing darts around aimlessly. Tucker has spent a lot of time researching and comparing--performance in sport is his scientific pursuit.
On top of that, it seems most of you whining don't seem to understand what he's discussing. When he uses words like "context, history, environment, change, etc., do a lot of you just tap out and press the buzzer to self-identify a below average IQ?
Very easy to sling around insults about people's intelligence but also seemingly very easy to forget about that thing called "evidence" - what does he have on any of the people named that would stand up in a court of law? if you are 100% sure of something as he claims but don't have the irrefutable evidence then you have lost touch with reality.
Excuses about how difficult it is to prove don't wash when you are claiming this level of certainty, prove it or modify those claims.
He's a retard. How does he come out with these baseless arbitrary numbers? He's worse than Magnusson, and that's saying something.
track chick wrote:
If the average is 30-40% that doesn't mean the lowest you can go is 30% - what an idiot.
This!
That is like Tucker saying that 20% of his class fails the course, so looking at even the brightest student he assumes a 2/10 on his "failure scale."
What idiocy.
And this guy is a professor/"expert"?
I am going to hope he is not that dumb but just desperate for attention and grabbing at sensationalist points before the Olympics dwindle away and nobody cares about his "area of expertise" for another four years.
At least he got Rupp and Mo right.
He complains a lot about people not understanding what his scale means, yet he never seems to clearly define it. But maybe that's by design, when no-one knows what the numbers mean, it's impossible to say that he's wrong.
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.
It is the usual pro-British bias.
Let's see, Farah has all of Rupp's NOP connections, PLUS:
- a more sudden progression, to a previously out-of-reach tier
- months yearly spent training in Ethiopia or Kenya
- missed test
- connection to Jama "EPO hotel" Aden
- lies about connection to Jama "EPO hotel" Aden
- so much more
Clearly, Farah has the edge on Rupp.
Rupp is a 10. Farah breaks the scale.
Use your head wrote:
When he uses words like "context, history, environment, change, etc., do a lot of you just tap out and press the buzzer to self-identify a below average IQ?
Can't tell you what a lot of us do. But I don't see how "context, history, environment, change, etc.," could possibly be so much more damning for Rupp than for Radcliffe.
Based on those topics, I'd give Radcliffe a 10 (suspicious progression comparable only to Farah and Baumann, crazy world record during the EPO high times, Healing Hans, blood values indicative of doping, dropping from a 2:15 to a consistent 2:23+ marathoner after her second ABP violation and the beginning of the 2nd generation EPO test) and Rupp a 7 (smooth progression, no suspicious blood values so far, best performances under the established ABP protocol, Salazar (coach of drug cheat S.), "testosterone medication", drugs in hollow books, androgel for support personnel).
Oh ok. Maybe that was too biased (patriotic/optimistic). Let's say 8 for Rupp.
I'm so confused by this thread. I feel like there was never a real intro.
Who is Ross Tucker and why should I care about him?
How can he think WVN is less suspicious than Farah? Seems arbitrary and biased. 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.
good for her wrote:
It is the usual pro-British bias.
...
Clearly, Farah has the edge on Rupp.
Rupp is a 10. Farah breaks the scale.
Good points. So yes, a pro-British bias can explain the low 7 for Radcliffe and the 9.5 for Farah.
He comes off as a douche. Ask him what Peyton manning is. Gotta be a 10 for HGH use. Anyways, Farah and Radcliffe are both 10s while Rupp is a 9. I'd actually bet all my savings that Mo is dirty.
Ross Tucker opined: I am saying that 3 is my minimum, because you'd be an idiot to say 0 based on the past (30% anonymously admit to doping). 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 #
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?
Flying Salmon wrote:
When did this guy become a tabloid journalist? I used to respect his work.
Exactly. It is no secret that mainstream journalism has given way to bias and clickbait, but "academic" research is beginning to fall prey to the same trend.
good for her wrote:
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.
It is the usual pro-British bias.
Let's see, Farah has all of Rupp's NOP connections, PLUS:
- a more sudden progression, to a previously out-of-reach tier
- months yearly spent training in Ethiopia or Kenya
- missed test
- connection to Jama "EPO hotel" Aden
- lies about connection to Jama "EPO hotel" Aden
- so much more
Clearly, Farah has the edge on Rupp.
Rupp is a 10. Farah breaks the scale.
I agree with all of the above, except that it was 2 missed tests (that we know of).
Maybe Tucker is trying to stimulate some discussion on doping, seeing as it has mostly been swept under the carpet during these Olympics.
I'd like to see his rankings of British cyclists.
good for her wrote:
track chick wrote:If the average is 30-40% that doesn't mean the lowest you can go is 30% - what an idiot.
This!
That is like Tucker saying that 20% of his class fails the course, so looking at even the brightest student he assumes a 2/10 on his "failure scale."
What idiocy.
And this guy is a professor/"expert"?
I am going to hope he is not that dumb but just desperate for attention and grabbing at sensationalist points before the Olympics dwindle away and nobody cares about his "area of expertise" for another four years.
At least he got Rupp and Mo right.
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.