Drugs in other sports and the media.

1…107108110112113…217

Comments

  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,728
    So, a fellow SA who smashes his opponents and an almost 20 year old WR scores lowest?
    Lucky he wasn't an Ethiopian woman, then. :roll:

    He's been bothering with that French tool too much.
    Everyone is dirty mon ami, but zee frogs and the Boks.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • dish_dash
    dish_dash Posts: 5,647
    Spot the connection.
    Ross Tucker is currently Professor of Exercise Physiology with the School of Medicine of the University of the Free State.
    Van Niekerk remains based at the University of the Free State, guided by coach Ans Botha and her team.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,930
    Is that all footballers and all russians on 9.5? If that's the case then mathematically Russian footballers should be higher.
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    In any case her gender is her own business, but when it comes to sports they have to draw lines somewhere.

    Unfortunately, not when you compete at the highest level on the World stage. The thing which really gets me about all this is the IAAF set a level of 10 nanomoles per litre for testosterone in women. This is actually three times the level in the average women and higher than many men.

    CAS in their twisted wisdom overturned this ruling on the basis that high testosterone levels in women is an unproven performance enhancement. If that is the case then surely limiting women to a level lower than 10 should have no adverse affect on their performance?
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,236
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Is that all footballers and all russians on 9.5? If that's the case then mathematically Russian footballers should be higher.
    0.95 x 0.95 = 0.9025, so arithmetically lower. Just saying.

    Anyway who gives a flying frankfurter what yon k-nob says?
  • jawooga
    jawooga Posts: 530
    orraloon wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Is that all footballers and all russians on 9.5? If that's the case then mathematically Russian footballers should be higher.
    0.95 x 0.95 = 0.9025, so arithmetically lower. Just saying.

    Anyway who gives a flying frankfurter what yon k-nob says?
    Yebut... the index is out of 8, so 40% more suspicion. The evidence is all there.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,930
    orraloon wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Is that all footballers and all russians on 9.5? If that's the case then mathematically Russian footballers should be higher.
    0.95 x 0.95 = 0.9025, so arithmetically lower. Just saying.

    Anyway who gives a flying frankfurter what yon k-nob says?

    I really hope you're not a maths teacher.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    hypster wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    In any case her gender is her own business, but when it comes to sports they have to draw lines somewhere.

    Unfortunately, not when you compete at the highest level on the World stage. The thing which really gets me about all this is the IAAF set a level of 10 nanomoles per litre for testosterone in women. This is actually three times the level in the average women and higher than many men.

    CAS in their twisted wisdom overturned this ruling on the basis that high testosterone levels in women is an unproven performance enhancement. If that is the case then surely limiting women to a level lower than 10 should have no adverse affect on their performance?
    i wrote that above myself. Cant see why CAS let this situation happen. if there was no benefit from testosterone then why do so many cheats take it ?
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    sherer wrote:
    hypster wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    In any case her gender is her own business, but when it comes to sports they have to draw lines somewhere.

    Unfortunately, not when you compete at the highest level on the World stage. The thing which really gets me about all this is the IAAF set a level of 10 nanomoles per litre for testosterone in women. This is actually three times the level in the average women and higher than many men.

    CAS in their twisted wisdom overturned this ruling on the basis that high testosterone levels in women is an unproven performance enhancement. If that is the case then surely limiting women to a level lower than 10 should have no adverse affect on their performance?
    i wrote that above myself. Cant see why CAS let this situation happen. if there was no benefit from testosterone then why do so many cheats take it ?

    An interesting point sherer which now leads me to conclude that if it's a testosterone free-for-all for the next two years, then presumably many (if not all) winners in major womens' competitions may well test positive for high testosterone. That will supply the IAAF's proof for them and make a nonsense out of all competition since the CAS ruling. The shot putters and hammer throwers are going to have a field day (pun intended).
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,435
    hypster wrote:
    sherer wrote:
    hypster wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    In any case her gender is her own business, but when it comes to sports they have to draw lines somewhere.

    Unfortunately, not when you compete at the highest level on the World stage. The thing which really gets me about all this is the IAAF set a level of 10 nanomoles per litre for testosterone in women. This is actually three times the level in the average women and higher than many men.

    CAS in their twisted wisdom overturned this ruling on the basis that high testosterone levels in women is an unproven performance enhancement. If that is the case then surely limiting women to a level lower than 10 should have no adverse affect on their performance?
    i wrote that above myself. Cant see why CAS let this situation happen. if there was no benefit from testosterone then why do so many cheats take it ?

    An interesting point sherer which now leads me to conclude that if it's a testosterone free-for-all for the next two years, then presumably many (if not all) winners in major womens' competitions may well test positive for high testosterone. That will supply the IAAF's proof for them and make a nonsense out of all competition since the CAS ruling. The shot putters and hammer throwers are going to have a field day (pun intended).

    Isn't it pretty easy to detect artificial testosterone (as compared to produced by your own body).
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,930
    I'm no doping expert, but I thought that the men just doped themselves up to some 4:1 WADA limit where 1:1 is normal. There is some expensive / difficult / whatever test that can be done that gets around this, but is rarely done. No idea what the women do. And I think I read there is some hair test on the way at some point that is supposed to improve this.*

    CAS are lawyers and asked IAAF to prove that higher testosterone was beneficial and IAAF couldn't. Sounded more like a poorly prepared IAAF than anything else.*

    * May well be an idle poorly researched internet opinion.
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    My index of being a dick.

    Ross Tucker 10
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,464
    dish_dash wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Out of interest, what has Tucker said on the subject of Wayde van Niekerk?

    Well... he presented a suspicion index a couple of days ago (1-10, with 10 the highest and apparently he won't go below a 3) in a twitter discussion with Syed. From what I can piece together:

    Rupp 10
    Russians (all of the I presume) 9.5
    Football 9.5
    Farah 9.5
    Dibaba 9
    Lance 9
    Blake 9
    Bolt 8
    Froome 8
    Thomas 7
    Radcliffe 7
    Rudisha 6
    Trott 5 or 6
    van Niekerk 5

    Maybe we should do a similar ranking for Twitter experts and the suspicion they are talking bull. Vayer would be a 10 and Tucker a 9.5
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    Pross wrote:
    dish_dash wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Out of interest, what has Tucker said on the subject of Wayde van Niekerk?

    Well... he presented a suspicion index a couple of days ago (1-10, with 10 the highest and apparently he won't go below a 3) in a twitter discussion with Syed. From what I can piece together:

    Rupp 10
    Russians (all of the I presume) 9.5
    Football 9.5
    Farah 9.5
    Dibaba 9
    Lance 9
    Blake 9
    Bolt 8
    Froome 8
    Thomas 7
    Radcliffe 7
    Rudisha 6
    Trott 5 or 6
    van Niekerk 5

    Maybe we should do a similar ranking for Twitter experts and the suspicion they are talking bull. Vayer would be a 10 and Tucker a 9.5

    What am I even doing responding to this crap but who is 'Lance' in this list? Is it Armstrong? If so why does he only have a 9 on 'suspicion'? The man full out confessed? Why am I even responding to the Tucker. Why?
    Correlation is not causation.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,356
    Above The Cows wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    dish_dash wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Out of interest, what has Tucker said on the subject of Wayde van Niekerk?

    Well... ...9.5

    What am I even doing responding to this crap but who is 'Lance' in this list? Is it Armstrong? If so why does he only have a 9 on 'suspicion'? The man full out confessed? Why am I even responding to the Tucker. Why?

    Quintana can't roll something, Joelsim got shagged by Tom Jones and you've been suckered in to postbait.

    There's definitely something in the water.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • Richmond Racer 2
    Richmond Racer 2 Posts: 4,698
    Pinno wrote:
    Above The Cows wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    dish_dash wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Out of interest, what has Tucker said on the subject of Wayde van Niekerk?

    Well... ...9.5

    What am I even doing responding to this crap but who is 'Lance' in this list? Is it Armstrong? If so why does he only have a 9 on 'suspicion'? The man full out confessed? Why am I even responding to the Tucker. Why?

    Quintana can't roll something, Joelsim got shagged by Tom Jones and you've been suckered in to postbait.

    There's definitely something in the water.



    But Thats Not Unusual
  • Mad_Malx
    Mad_Malx Posts: 5,183
    but You Can Leave Your Helmet On
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    Mama told him not to come.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,356
    Above The Cows wrote:
    Mama told him not to come.

    It definitely isn't the way to have fun.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • r0bh
    r0bh Posts: 2,438
    Above The Cows wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    dish_dash wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Out of interest, what has Tucker said on the subject of Wayde van Niekerk?

    Well... he presented a suspicion index a couple of days ago (1-10, with 10 the highest and apparently he won't go below a 3) in a twitter discussion with Syed. From what I can piece together:

    Rupp 10
    Russians (all of the I presume) 9.5
    Football 9.5
    Farah 9.5
    Dibaba 9
    Lance 9
    Blake 9
    Bolt 8
    Froome 8
    Thomas 7
    Radcliffe 7
    Rudisha 6
    Trott 5 or 6
    van Niekerk 5

    Maybe we should do a similar ranking for Twitter experts and the suspicion they are talking bull. Vayer would be a 10 and Tucker a 9.5

    What am I even doing responding to this crap but who is 'Lance' in this list? Is it Armstrong? If so why does he only have a 9 on 'suspicion'? The man full out confessed? Why am I even responding to the Tucker. Why?

    Would love to hear the "science" behind Tucker's dope index ratings :roll:

    I'm currently reading Syed's latest book "Black Box Thinking" and it is rather amusing that Tucker and his gang exhibit all the classic traits of cognitive dissonance; they could easily be an example in his book :D
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,356
    cognitive-dissonance.jpg
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,657
    Joelsim wrote:
    My index of being a dick.

    Ross Tucker 10

    On a scale of ten?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,236
    Rats. Not exactly other sports but...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/disability-sport/37253893

    Michael Gallagher Paralympic golds 2008 and 2012 done for EPO.
  • yorkshireraw
    yorkshireraw Posts: 1,632
    was chatting to an anti-doping officer who'd worked on the Paralympics - as well as substances, they have to check for 'prohibited methods', including wheelchair athletes who break their own toes just before their competition, because they can't feel it, and the adrenalin rush gives them a performance boost.

    crazy.
  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    was chatting to an anti-doping officer who'd worked on the Paralympics - as well as substances, they have to check for 'prohibited methods', including wheelchair athletes who break their own toes just before their competition, because they can't feel it, and the adrenalin rush gives them a performance boost.

    crazy.

    :shock:
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,638
    dish_dash wrote:
    Trott 5 or 6
    van Niekerk 5

    This seems slightly odd, I must say.

    van Niekerk is the only person ever to run the 100m, 200m and 400m in under 10s, 20s and 44s respectively. The whole world has competed regularly in all these events for well over a century. Further, there are only 14 athletes in history who have run within a second of his new WR. 2 of these did so at altitude and 2 of these have had their own issues re doping. So realistically, only 10 legit runners ever are within a second of van Niekerk. And a second gap is a country mile in 400m running - barely in camera shot at the finish! The previous WR holder - Johnson - is widely held to be one of the top handful of greatest athletes ever. His achievements are truly astonishing.

    I don't think anything Laura Trott has done comes anywhere close to such a demonstration of extreme performance in the rather more confined world of women's track cycling.

    This isn't to diss the achievements of Dame Laura or to suggest the van Niekerk must be dodgy. It's just to put things in some kinds of perspective.
  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    ^ you forget, Van Niekerk is South African therefore must be clean.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,638
    ShinyHelmut wrote:
    ^ you forget, Van Niekerk is South African therefore must be clean.

    van Niekerk may well be worth a 5 or 6 or even higher simply due to the astonishing nature of his achievements. It's Trott that seems like a political (ie anti-British) statement to me, along with Thomas (assuming this is Geraint). Thomas is good but has yet to actually deliver a performance to compare with Radcliffe's marathon WR. There must be zillions of athletes not mentioned who are as suspicious/insuspicious as Trott and Thomas. Radcliffe's place on the index seems fair, in the interests of balance.
  • cruff
    cruff Posts: 1,518
    ShinyHelmut wrote:
    ^ you forget, Van Niekerk is South African therefore must be clean.
    Winner winner, chicken dinner

    The bloke is an absolute tool - double standards don't even come close. He probably reckons Daryl Impey was truly a victim of a pharmacist with bad hygeine...
    Fat chopper. Some racing. Some testing. Some crashing.
    Specialising in Git Daaahns and Cafs. Norvern Munkey/Transplanted Laaandoner.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,356
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    was chatting to an anti-doping officer who'd worked on the Paralympics - as well as substances, they have to check for 'prohibited methods', including wheelchair athletes who break their own toes just before their competition, because they can't feel it, and the adrenalin rush gives them a performance boost.

    crazy.

    So breaking one's toes induces adrenalin production?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!

Categories