Tweet

https://twitter.com/AmandaMartin185/status/1421082869288550401?s=20

More from @Scienceofsport

Ross Tucker

@Scienceofsport

29 Jul

On transgender women & performance advantages. One thought - isn’t it astonishing that given “lots of aspects…physiology & anatomy & the mental side”, that NO female has EVER come within 10% of the best 1000 males?

Or…is this an irrelevant distraction given that BOTH males...

…and females already possess the physiology & mental side necessary to be champions within their respective characteristics? So what is the source of the huge gulf in performance?

This is, in fact, the most direct journey to saying a women’s category is not necessary in sport

That is, if elite performance is a result of "a lot of aspects", we can crown a single “human” champion in all events

But where are women among the top 1000 humans in the world right now? Is it a co-incidence that they never have these aspects?

Or…maybe they’re different?

Read 7 tweets

Ross Tucker

@Scienceofsport

21 Jun

@tomhfh

@tomhfh I can assure you that I am not the one who is confused. Let’s take weight - a weight class exists for boxing in BOTH men AND in women. Why is that? What would happen if we mix the sexes at the same weight? So again, let me ask, since you feel you know this: How would you do it?

@tomhfh

@tomhfh Let’s take the first step. We use weight. We say that a male at 70kg should be accepted into women’s sport at 70kg. Now we discovered that this male is 34% stronger than the weight-matched female. Now what? We have to screen for strength, is that right? How do we do this in a

@tomhfh

@tomhfh …credible and valid way? Which tests would you use? What about punching power, which is 260% higher in males? Even if that is adjusted for mass, it stays say 150% higher. Which test might be conducted to match those together? Now think about speed - males are 10-15% faster than

Read 10 tweets

Ross Tucker

@Scienceofsport

15 Jun

A summary of the CAS decision is now available: tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user… It doesn't tell us anything that couldn't already be deduced - we know that they ruled that Houlihan failed to establish the source of the nandrolone. That's why she got 4 years. The details are key & absent

It’s been a day full “I choose to believe” statements. I can’t believe how many people’s reaction is “the system must be screwed up, she’d never dope”, having heard literally only one side of the story. It still strikes me as remarkable how specific her statement is, and the...

…”proof” she has claimed was presented to CAS in her defence includes a polygraph, a receipt, phone location records, hair samples, and STILL CAS has ruled that she failed to reach a “balance of probability”. Surely you should be asking “What am I missing from the OTHER side”?

Read 4 tweets

Ross Tucker

@Scienceofsport

15 Jun

On the Shelby Houlihan doping ban, it would be interesting to see details & the strength of what was deliberated at CAS (and by whom) from the AIU side. Houlihan suggests in her statement that “anti-doping experts agree with me”. Clearly, that’s not entirely true. One of many Qs

Also, find other doping cases with the same contaminated food/supplement explanation and check the reactions. The suspicious side-eye, a knowing “hmmm, I bet”. Now many of the same people are saying “hang on, are we sure testing is OK, it seems unfair, I believe Shelby & Jerry”.

I will say, however, late-career improvements are suspect every time (and if you list the half dozen reasons, just remember them when it’s a Kenyan or Russian, ok?). Also, other athletes with this excuse often get reduced sanctions (or none!). A 4-year ban suggests confidence

Read 4 tweets

Ross Tucker

@Scienceofsport

14 Apr

The focus is on evidence, not emotion. And it’s about being as systematic as possible, relying on data, freed from “side of the field” bias, which means:
- Identifying problems
- Understanding the cause
- Seeking solutions from experts
- Ongoing evaluation

The biggest challenges are:
- How do you know if it worked?
- How do you know if it caused a set of unintended consequences that are undesired?
Trying to understand those in a complex, dynamic environment is challenging. Too many “simple” solutions offered without thought of “B"

Classic example now is the desire to limit substitution numbers. It’s easy to understand the theory for why you’d want this. It’s less obvious to consider that it *might* make things worse, or replace one issue with another, depending on what creates injury risk (fatigue vs size)

Read 8 tweets

Ross Tucker

@Scienceofsport

12 Apr

Male advantage due to testosterone? The first crucial question in the debate, followed by a remarkably bad or dishonest assessment of the evidence to totally rewrite the physiology of male vs female performance. Here’s the clip, then a handful of tweets to correct the falsehoods

Veronica Ivy describes a testosterone-performance link as a “nonsense argument”, but she has to first deceptively reframe the issue to do this, & sidestep physiological reality. Note the question - Male VS Female difference, so it’s male compared to female. Not “within” M or F

Her response is that endogenous T has “zero impact on athletic performance”. Then she tries to explain this as a revolutionary breakthrough in knowledge. It’s nothing of the sort. What she does is to take evidence WITHIN male and WITHIN female, & pretend its relevant BETWEEN them

Read 16 tweets

Share this page!

Ross Tucker

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @Scienceofsport

Ross Tucker

Ross Tucker

Ross Tucker

Ross Tucker

Ross Tucker

Ross Tucker

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?