Twitter | Search | |
Ross Tucker
Sports science, insights, opinion. Sport through X-Ray glasses. One half of The Science of Sport podcast - . email: ross.tucker@mweb.co.za
61,564
Tweets
209
Following
79,425
Followers
Tweets
Ross Tucker 2h
The high tackle sanction framework was talked through cleanly here, ticked off main criteria: head contact from shoulder, deemed a shoulder charge (but this doesn’t change it - would be red even if a high tackle, per pathway 3 instead of 2), High danger*, and no mitigation = red
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker 2h
...you very obviously did know (there are quotes of you knowing, so again, don’t lie). Invite totally independent authority to test more often & regularly, store multiple samples for longer, condemn dopers, don’t associate with them. Etc
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker 2h
, which means take an approach to disclosure that has so powerfully driven in triathlon recently. Don’t lie (times 2). Now,much of this has already happened, so how do you win it back? For a start, don’t say you’d have left the coach had you know about the allegations, when
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker 2h
Back in ‘2016, I said that 3 out of 10 (where 10 is definitely doping & 0 is definitely clean) is as low as I’d go in terms of suspicion. How to get to 3? Don’t lie. Don’t miss tests (with weak excuses). Don’t associate with doping coaches (and lie about it). Be 100% transparent
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker retweeted
Crazie Daizee 15h
not a secret anymore: Nike distributing production Alphafly all over Iten, our sport is over as we know it in 2020, this isn't something anyone can beat via training, peer pressure to mechanical-dope or you can't compete, not something I want to be a part of 📸Kristian Ulriksen
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker 9h
Because it’s basically a prisoner’s dilemma of sorts, and there’s only one scenario in which the athlete would not benefit from a retest.
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker 9h
Run through every scenario, every audience, and every possible finding. It’s pretty obvious what the cost-benefit analysis looks like for each one - there is only zero & gain. So why anyone who knows they’re clean in that situation would be saying “Test everything over and over”.
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker 9h
There is a definitely a “win” there for Farah, given how some people don’t understand anti-doping.
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker 21h
In fact, that assumption is the root of pretty much every doping scandal in the last two decades - the naive assumption that a negative test means a non-doping, and positive means doper. The old "catch & release" has long ago been disproven as valid. Investigation is the way
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker 21h
If you accept that, then you don't understand anti-doping.
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker Jan 18
Replying to @vayerism
What's one more miracle?
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker Jan 18
No, they changed it (correctly, IMO) to say that even if it crosses the plane of the boundary, it’s only “over” it when it touches the ground on the outside. So it’s not like a goal in football. Which is understandable, but creates problems when players go outside
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker Jan 18
Replying to @triscilly @karagoucher
I said it in the first tweet.
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker Jan 18
Replying to @garybbotha
Indeed. By the same logic, they’d have to give it not out, right? If a guy runs a wide arc, which takes him out of play, then he launches himself to make a catch in the air, and lands in field. Gotta be not out by this logic. Whereas I think we’d both say should be not out
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker Jan 18
Replying to @Matlalor @karagoucher
One for the true fans only!
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker Jan 17
Replying to @karagoucher
All that said, I suspect the probability of a retest being positive is quite low - those guys weren’t taking tests they knew they’d fail, especially in-competition, so there’s only one or two scenarios where a retest finds something. Its not like weightlifting style doping!
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker Jan 17
Replying to @karagoucher
I’d love to know the rules around that. If the sample belonged to the athlete, and i was the innocent athlete, I’d be ringing the doorbell, cooler in hand, to collect my own samples for retesting! If I’m guilty, or if there’s a chance, I know what I wouldn’t do!
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker Jan 17
Replying to @karagoucher
Imagine you’re accused of a crime, and you know that there’s a single piece of evidence that would exonerate you, and you say “Leave that alone”. Crazy. And OK, a negative test does NOT exonerate an athlete as we all know. But there’s a kind of ‘high ground’ available to him/them
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker Jan 17
Witch hunt Klaxon, 100 points!
Reply Retweet Like
Ross Tucker retweeted
Kara Goucher Jan 17
Quite honestly this is shocking. If a coach being found guilty of violating anti-doping rules isn’t “credible evidence” then I don’t know what is. For what it’s worth, WADA is welcome to any of my old samples.
Reply Retweet Like