Serious question. Why has every post of mine, excluding the original post, been deleted from this thread? I had several posts that added to the discussion by either bringing up new points, or rebutting other people's posts. By only allowing my original post to stand, an unfair picture is being painted of me as a poster (one who only starts a thread to ignite controversy, which is not the case).
where are these frozen samples at?
when does paula plan to have them retested ?
prob in the same trash can as the 3500 frozen samples from athens 04 tgat the ioc didn't bother to retest last year
Rojo,Nearly the very same arguments were used to defend Armstrong.1) " But the fact that she has been so outspoken her entire career against doping..."About Armstrong they said he was the most tested athlete of all time.2) "to have seen her work so hard for the one week we spent with her, we are 100% believers she is clean."About Armstrong they said that nobody ever worked so hard or was so focused as Lance. He brought a new level of disipline to his training3) "I think very few people are ALL IN in terms of doing everything to be good and she is one of them."About Armstrong they said he dedicated his entire life to his the goal of winning and practically lived on the bike.4) "Women's running still isn't as deep as it should. There are way fewer elite women and then there are even way fewer that are doing mega high mileage."About Armstrong they said that he was one the first to bring a scientific approach to his training specifically to win the TdF. Very few were traning like him.5) "If she was doped, then please tell me why she wouldn't have dominated at the 10k distance as well? She consistently got crushed. To me, the biggest thing if one is doped is they'd have a lot in reserve for the kick. Not her."About Armstrong they asked if was doped why wasn't he winning more single day classics and the Olympics?
rojo wrote:
Josh,
Can you please stop making every thread about me? If you want to email me, my address is
robertjohnson@letsrun.com.
On to this thread. I believe that Weldon has said that if Paula tests positive, he will shut down the site.
I will admit statistically her record is absurd compared to other women. But the fact that she has been so outspoken her entire career against doping and to have seen her work so hard for the one week we spent with her, we are 100% believers she is clean. I think very few people are ALL IN in terms of doing everything to be good and she is one of them.
Consider this.
1) 2:15 seems absurd but it shouldn't be.
Women's running still isn't as deep as it should. There are way fewer elite women and then there are even way fewer that are doing mega high mileage.
I had a runner at Cornell - Sage Canaday - with the same PBs basically. He was a 14:35/29:47 guy and he's run 2:16. No one is stunned by that. Paula is a 14:29/30 flat person - so basically the same PRs.
No one will be stunned by a 2:15 when people like Dibaba start doing it.
2) If she was doped, then please tell me why she wouldn't have dominated at the 10k distance as well? She consistently got crushed. To me, the biggest thing if one is doped is they'd have a lot in reserve for the kick. Not her.
rojo wrote:
I will admit statistically her record is absurd compared to other women. But the fact that she has been so outspoken her entire career against doping and to have seen her work so hard for the one week we spent with her, we are 100% believers she is clean. I think very few people are ALL IN in terms of doing everything to be good and she is one of them.
I have no idea if Paula Radcliffe is clean or not. But that is perhaps the most ignorantly naïve statement ever written online in the history of the internet.
And then on top of that, to compare her to a MAN who has similar PBs... as though that is somehow illustrative of anything... holy crap. I'm speechless.
Ingrid Kristiansen agrees with Rojo:
"Paula is a complete runner and I have not seen anyone like her for years.
Paula runs fast season after season and that tells me she is clean runner. I am suspicious of people who come through for one race and are not seen again."
I'm no drugs cheat - Paula:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-132091/Im-drugs-cheat--Paula.html
Remember blood doping is still undetectable.
KMB wrote:
I think people believe that the 2:15:25 itself is circumstantial evidence because it's such a gross outlier. Sadly, I can see why this is the case. To imagine a clean runner being three minutes faster than anyone else in the marathon strains credulity, to put it mildly. The only reason I'm not 100 percent convinced that she doped is the weird way women manage to be so greatly separated at the front of the elite pack (this goes for other distances, the NCAA, whatever) compared to men. And I think the "women's top-level running is still in its comparative infancy" explanation expired years ago.
If a man were that far ahead of #2 -- over 2.2 percent -- in any track or road event, he'd be laughed out of the sport. This would require someone breaking the 10,000-meter record by 35 seconds or the 400 by almost a second. (I realize that there are valid reasons to assert that there's a nonlinear relationship at work as distances get longer, but still.)
If that's the case, we should have laughed at Haile years ago.
Canada Coach wrote:
KMB wrote:I think people believe that the 2:15:25 itself is circumstantial evidence because it's such a gross outlier. Sadly, I can see why this is the case. To imagine a clean runner being three minutes faster than anyone else in the marathon strains credulity, to put it mildly. The only reason I'm not 100 percent convinced that she doped is the weird way women manage to be so greatly separated at the front of the elite pack (this goes for other distances, the NCAA, whatever) compared to men. And I think the "women's top-level running is still in its comparative infancy" explanation expired years ago.
If a man were that far ahead of #2 -- over 2.2 percent -- in any track or road event, he'd be laughed out of the sport. This would require someone breaking the 10,000-meter record by 35 seconds or the 400 by almost a second. (I realize that there are valid reasons to assert that there's a nonlinear relationship at work as distances get longer, but still.)
If that's the case, we should have laughed at Haile years ago.
Or at Jim Peters who took the WR down from 2:25 to 2:20 in one race and over the next few years improved it by a further 3mins.
Moronic wrote:
Ingrid Kristiansen agrees with Rojo:
"Paula is a complete runner and I have not seen anyone like her for years.
Paula runs fast season after season and that tells me she is clean runner. I am suspicious of people who come through for one race and are not seen again."
I'm no drugs cheat - Paula:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-132091/Im-drugs-cheat--Paula.html
YOu are stupid. Paula has not been seen running a marathon since sept 30 2011. Probably her last marathon to date.
My advice to Paula just complete a damm marathon in 2013 like london marathon in april but she just wants to delay delay her retirement until the auttum marathon season.
Since jan 1st 2010 Paula has completed 1 marathon berlin sept 2011. Paula is never retiring just like kevin. I don't want to retire until 40 yrs old. I"m 20 years old i"ll retire in 2033.
kevin boy racer wrote:
YOu are stupid. Paula has not been seen running a marathon since sept 30 2011. Probably her last marathon to date.
So?, oh sorry, I didn't realise the thread was about whether she had doped since "sept 30 2011".
So who's stupid?
Canada Coach wrote:
KMB wrote:I think people believe that the 2:15:25 itself is circumstantial evidence because it's such a gross outlier. Sadly, I can see why this is the case. To imagine a clean runner being three minutes faster than anyone else in the marathon strains credulity, to put it mildly. The only reason I'm not 100 percent convinced that she doped is the weird way women manage to be so greatly separated at the front of the elite pack (this goes for other distances, the NCAA, whatever) compared to men. And I think the "women's top-level running is still in its comparative infancy" explanation expired years ago.
If a man were that far ahead of #2 -- over 2.2 percent -- in any track or road event, he'd be laughed out of the sport. This would require someone breaking the 10,000-meter record by 35 seconds or the 400 by almost a second. (I realize that there are valid reasons to assert that there's a nonlinear relationship at work as distances get longer, but still.)
If that's the case, we should have laughed at Haile years ago.
Or at Jim Peters who took the WR down from 2:25 to 2:20 in one race and over the next few years improved it by a further 3mins.
Aren't male pacers illegal for women's records? Is this one indication Paula isn't above "bending" the rules?
Letsrun Gunner wrote:
Remember blood doping is still undetectable.
From Wikipedia, so can't vouch for the accuracy:
Detection of blood transfusions
"a test for detecting homologous blood transfusions (from a donor to a doping athlete) has been in use since 2000.
At present there is no accepted method for detecting autologous transfusions (that is, using the athlete’s own red blood cells), but research is in progress and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has promised that a test will eventually be introduced. The test method and its introduction date are to be kept secret in order to avoid tipping off doping athletes.
Another form of evidence of blood doping is the presence of plasticizers in the blood, which are frequently present in IV bags that store the blood; these were cited, for instance, as evidence of blood doping by Alberto Contador..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping#Detection_of_blood_dopingThank you for your post and helping to prove my point. No one at the top level is going to be using someone elses blood. As your article stated (which wikipedia is a bit weak) they can only tell if it is from another donor.
Also when you are at the very top you are donating your blood and having it tested to make sure that it is clean. This has all come out in the Armstrong case. As far as the plasticizers it has been shown time and time again that this does not hold up becuse people can argue that it is in the environment. I agree that it shows doping but it doesn't hold up. If you study the Contador case you will see that even though he had plasticizers that this was not what he was busted on.
As far as there being a test and that they are keeping it secret. I don't believe it at this point. Maybe I am wrong. I do know however that the dopers are always ahead of the testers.
Canada Coach wrote:
If that's the case, we should have laughed at Haile years ago.
Geb has broken the 10,000m record three times: the first time by 7.5 seconds, the next time by 7.2 seconds and the last time by 5.1 seconds. He was unbeatable at one point, but never was he nearly as far ahead of the rest of the field in percentile terms as Paula is in the marathon.
Letsrun Gunner wrote:
Thank you for your post and helping to prove my point.
Your're welcome, links/sources are often helpful. Does the biological passport help to indicate blood doping? Also, if Paula has blood samples stored from different time periods could these be used to develop a biological passport for her?
If you don't think doping is going on at the highest levels of every sport, you're naive. That doesn't mean you have to scrutinize specific athletes, trying to discern who is/isn't using, it just means that a shocking percentage are doping. Radcliffe is suspicious because she is at the top of the sport. I don't care how squeaky clean you appear, if you are at the top, you are immediately more suspect than most.
How many times have we seen athletes be outspoken against doping, deny doping, only to be caught? How many times have athletes been caught without a positive test? So many athletes are protected by governing bodies and/or sponsors which makes them invincible. Lance Armstrong and Carl Lewis are perfect examples. Both were protected by governing bodies and Nike. I guarantee there are Americans in track and field right now who are protected and dope without a second thought because it can all be swept under the rug with a bit of money. That is why folks like Armstrong can be outspoken, because they know a positive test would probably never occur, and if it did, it would never see the light of day.
The Tyler Hamilton book is ridiculous if you haven't read it. This guy was doing multiple drugs and transfusions in the lead up to competition, on competition days, and right after competitions. It took him awhile to finally test positive. If he avoided a positive as long as he did, while doping as extensively as he did, you can bet others are doing the same to this day.