Paula Radcliffe should give Wang Junxia the benefit of the doubt

Sorry that link didn't work, here is the article:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/shart/100024237/scandal-as-controversial-chinese-athlete-wang-junxia-enters-iaaf-hall-of-fame/

You bring up a very good point. There is the same amount of evidence on both of them doping and the level of suspicion should be about the same.

Exactly…By the way, Ma Junren had to have figured something out in the science of coaching, even if it was doping assisted…Wang broke 4 records in six days…had to have been some optimal combination of peaking, altitude training (and possibly doping but we will never know)…However if he wanted to prove something he should have brought his athletes to European circuit…

The idiotic thing is that he did it again in 1997, he had Jiang Bo go for a 1500 meter world record attempt in Shanghai even after the doping suspicion of 1993..logic would have said go to Europe if you want to prove something…

tjmiler wrote:

The idiotic thing is that he did it again in 1997, he had Jiang Bo go for a 1500 meter world record attempt in Shanghai even after the doping suspicion of 1993..logic would have said go to Europe if you want to prove something…

They don't have short tracks in Europe like the one in Shanghai!

Except that the 90s were the EPO era and there was actually a test for EPO when Paula set her record.

And the fact that there is no full race video of the records wang supposedly set.

And the fact that it doesn't take a genius to look at the all time list for 3000m and realize that there was more than just doping going on at that meet.

speaker of truth wrote:

Except that the 90s were the EPO era and there was actually a test for EPO when Paula set her record.

And the fact that there is no full race video of the records wang supposedly set.

And the fact that it doesn't take a genius to look at the all time list for 3000m and realize that there was more than just doping going on at that meet.

Simple comparison of Tirunesh Dibaba and Meseret Defar's 5000m times to Wang's 3k time on Jack Daniels VDOT tables indicate that both Dibaba and Defar ran 5k times equivalent to about an 8:08 or 8:09 3k, so Wang's 8:06 is not an impossibility

Comparing Pamela Jelimo's 1:54 clocking also indicates that she ran a time equivalent to a 3:52-3:53 in the 1500 meter...

In conclusion, yes Wang was spectacular in 1993 but then again meteoric rises of equivalent performance are not unheard of (for instance Jelimo , Dibaba, Daniel Komen, and Noah Ngeny only have had 1-2 spectacular seasons at young age and then dropped from the WR ability)

speaker of truth wrote:

Except that the 90s were the EPO era and there was actually a test for EPO when Paula set her record.

And the fact that there is no full race video of the records wang supposedly set.

And the fact that it doesn't take a genius to look at the all time list for 3000m and realize that there was more than just doping going on at that meet.

In addition, think about the fact that the fastest times in the 1500, 3000, and 5000 all came about when others in the world were training and racing fast times...When people like Qu and Wang, Defar and Dibaba, Komen and Gebreselasie, El G and Morceli, El G and Ngeny, Coe and Ovett, when they race against each other, each pushed the other to faster times than they would have alone

Without the training and competition with Qu, arguably Wang would not have accomplished what she did. Its a possibility that it was this co-training and competition that elevated them to a high level

tjmiler wrote:

Simple comparison of Tirunesh Dibaba and Meseret Defar's 5000m times to Wang's 3k time on Jack Daniels VDOT tables indicate that both Dibaba and Defar ran 5k times equivalent to about an 8:08 or 8:09 3k, so Wang's 8:06 is not an impossibility

Comparing Pamela Jelimo's 1:54 clocking also indicates that she ran a time equivalent to a 3:52-3:53 in the 1500 meter...

I guess I missed the part where Dibaba followed up her 14:11 with a 3:51 three days later. And then the day after that an 8:12 3k. And then the day after that an 8:06 3k.

Here's are Wang's marks, by the way. Of course, she was qualdrupling back from a 10k, not a 5k. But if the VDOTs are all the same I guess we should just throw all of that out the window:

September 8: 29:31, WR

September 11: 3:51.92, #2 all-time (now #4), betters old WR

September 12: 8:12, WR

September 13: 8:06, WR

Nutella1 wrote:

They don't have short tracks in Europe like the one in Shanghai!

Alright I'm actually sick of hearing people claim that the track was short.

I have almost NO doubt that doping was involved given the magnitude of the performances. But the track being short is virtually an impossibility.

The stadium in Shanghai was used to host both the East-Asia Games and the All-Asia games in the early and mid 90s. If the track was short, it would have had to have been overlooked by SEVERAL different nations from both of those competitions.

Radcliffe started accusing others the same time she started running faster herself.

Strange coincidence? I think not.

It is one of the ways she has attempted to divert such suspicions from herself to others, especially Olga Yegorova and Junxia Wang, who were her primary competitors at that time.

Indeed, Radcliffes marathon time at London is closer to the men's WR times than any of the other women's WR's.

Your argument ignores the fact if you can build a track to 400 meters you can also build a track that is 390 meters. How hard would it be to adjust the size of a track? It doesn't seem complicated to pull off.

Seyta wrote:

Alright I'm actually sick of hearing people claim that the track was short.

Well, now that you put it THAT way, and admit your are ACTUALLY sick (as opposed to merely annoyed), I'm sure everyone will quit saying things you don't like about that short track.

Anyone who wants to believe in the legitimacy of those marks is free to do so, as there's no law against being a dupe, fool, sap, twit, moron, etc. And by the way, Wang's marks are BS regardless of whether Radcliffe was juiced.

All this has been beaten to death on these boards but the simple answer is that there's a lot more reason to suspect doping with Wang Junxia and the rest of Ma's army than with Radcliffe, in particular the positive tests for a number of Ma's athletes and his being fired as a coach by the Chinese over it. I'll let others argue the short track stuff yet again.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Radcliffe doped but when the only evidence is statistical I just don't think it's a compelling case.

strange coincidence? wrote:

Radcliffe started accusing others the same time she started running faster herself.

Strange coincidence? I think not.

It is one of the ways she has attempted to divert such suspicions from herself to others, especially Olga Yegorova and Junxia Wang, who were her primary competitors at that time.

Indeed, Radcliffes marathon time at London is closer to the men's WR times than any of the other women's WR's.

Absolutely! I agree with this. Said Aouita did an interview around 1985 or 86 when he accused others of "taking things". Paula I recall in the World Champs y before her World Marathon record holding up a sign in the stands "EPO Cheats Out". Sebastian Coe spoke out early on also. What did they know? Mary Slaney used to speak out in interviews about her competition (she called Russians and East Germans "the Bulgarians" wherever that came from. Why would they feel they need to make comments like that? Regina Jacobs was highly suspicious since 1984 but I never heard Suzy Favor Hamilton ever point suspicion publicly.

You have to think about the psychology. Every top World Class elite runner has to have doubts that the competition is clean. When you make a public individual statement like Radcliffe holding up that sign you have to wonder why they felt like they had to have that attention drawn to them in their views against cheating.

Just just a gut feeling of mine. Dieter Baumann was the same way to. I never heard Bob Kennedy once mention his feelings so publicly against dope cheating and you know he had to have some.

IAAF (i.e. real) tables:

8:06 = 3:47, 13:54, 29:12

Wang was a doper embedded in a systematized school of doping. Paula- no way to tell for certain, but if so she was very much a "lone wolf".

Radcliffe's 2:15 marathon from a runner that never broke 30:00 for 10k is equally off the charts as Wangs 10k.

The big difference is that Paula ran for years. You can see her progression. T & F has has many great athletes in Britain.

The Chinese have done literally nothing in the distances except for that short time period where many women ran incredible times, then very quickly vanished. The story gets better when you realize a number of Ma's runners got caught before the 2000 Olympics in Australia. China then pulled all their entries into Australia. None of these women did anything after that.

Don't you notice Paula 1:12:03 timing wouldn't split her to under 2:20:00. Paula can't split 1:07:42 in a half marathon to equal her world record. Paula simply can't run her world record anymore this year and 2011.

Mary Keitany is disappointing. In London Marathon 2012 she could've run 2:18:20 or 2:17:42 if she goes out in 1:10:00. Can she learn to pace herself not too fast not too slow. She needs to run 5:18 miles splits evenly and negetive splits which she done.