OMG, I totally wish Paula Radcliffe gets caught/outted.

What really kills me is the way she rubs it in our noses with that ridiculous head bobbing of hers, as if to say: "I'm so much better than everyone else, I can break the WR by 4 minutes while bobbing my head!".

Bop wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

If she was so doped up how come she never won the Olympics?

because they often test at the olympics

The IOC is legendary for declining to sanction positive scores to "preserve brand equity."

Why didn't she win? No idea. We know Russians are running elaborate doping programs and not doing *that* well. Which only tells us most podiums are polluted.

not certain but the reason she did not win might be she doesn't do well in warm weather marathons.

Many great runners wilt in the heat.

rekrunner wrote:

Here's another coincidence: All of her suspicious scores came AFTER her two world records in 2002, 2003! Maybe doping made her slower?

And another coincidence - all of Shobukhova's high scores (she had 7 as high or way higher than Paula's highest score), came starting 2005, when you say the EPO test became more reliable, but they still couldn't catch her for EPO, until the ABP.

Again, you are overstating, if not mis-stating, the facts. Actually, those aren't facts, those are your hopes because:

a) Her other values are kept a secret, despite Paula's claims for transparencies including her promises to release such values;

b) The leaked so-called database was quite incomplete.

Therefore it is inaccurate to claim that "All of her [Paula's] suspicious scores came AFTER her two world records in 2002, 2003" and "she [Liliya] had 7 as high or way higher than Paula's highest score".

Finally, even if - a big if - the latter were true, it would only imply a different doping strategy (e.g., doping to a Hb = 16 g/dl instead of 18 g/dl), not that Paula was clean.

I didn't imply she was clean, but according to the data we do know, that any alleged doping made her slower. We saw the same pattern with Kisorio. Of course the non-naive path is to imagine they doped before.But wow! Impressive! That's powerful data! I'm inaccurate based on your speculation that it's still possible that earlier "suspicious" points exist but we don't know about them yet because Paula must be hiding something? And you call me hopeful? Working against you is that the IAAF, UKAD, and WADA have the complete database and still expressed no cause for concern. Chalk up another coincidence.Your different doping strategy sounds more like altitude training and hypoxic chamber. And as far as we know, she must have failed badly, as she only obtained higher than 15.1 g/dl three times, and then only after altitude training and/or strenuous exercise, factors known to increase haemoglobin and decrease plasma concentration.But go ahead and give us some more powerful speculation based on the possibility of data we don't know.

rekrunner wrote:

I didn't imply she was clean, but according to the data we do know, that any alleged doping made her slower. We saw the same pattern with Kisorio. Of course the non-naive path is to imagine they doped before.

But wow! Impressive! That's powerful data! I'm inaccurate based on your speculation that it's still possible that earlier "suspicious" points exist but we don't know about them yet because Paula must be hiding something? And you call me hopeful? Working against you is that the IAAF, UKAD, and WADA have the complete database and still expressed no cause for concern. Chalk up another coincidence.

Hold on. You falsely claimed it to be a fact that Paula's off-scores during her world records were inconspicuous, and then you have the nerve to call me out for speculating?

You are trying the same thing here again in your first paragraph. Since we do not know when she started doping, we cannot conclude that doping made her slower.

And yes, I still don't trust the IAAF, or Saugy. For example given their "explanation" for Paula's suspicious off-scores, e.g. that they are irrelevant because they were obtained 60 - 90 minutes instead of 120 minutes after a race, her world record off-scores could very well have been 120 or above, taken 90 minutes after the race. Given their history of bribery and destroyed samples, everything is possible.

And yes, this is speculative, but only done to demonstrate that your speculation (called "fact" in attempt to "prove" her to be clean) was indeed speculative and not factual.

this is only my personal opinion rojo,and not an attack,but i dont believe paula was clean,and i dont think the dibabas are either,especially not genzebe.i also dont believe for a minute that a human being can run a 2.02/2.03 marathon without being doped to the gills.i remember paula being an olympic finalist,and running around 15 minutes for 5000,and 31 minutes for 10k,then she suddenly has huge improvements,and runs 14.30,and 30 flat,as well as her ridiculous marathon time.

there was a leaked report last year about highly suspicious blood results of 800 athletes including 7 people from britain,including a really big name.a lot of people have suggested paula,but theres no proof.i DO believe paula was clean for most of her career,but not for two or 3 years there,where she seemed invincible.

Really? Suspicious blood test results? People suggested Paula Radcliffe? No proof it was her?

Please tell us more. I have not heard anything about any of this stuff except the part about Paula's hemoglobin level increasing by 21.9% or 30% in just 2 days in 2003.

And this part from Wiki:

Since the 1999 European Cup, Radcliffe wears a red ribbon when competing to show her support for blood testing as a method of catching drugs cheats.She has previously asked for the results of a blood test taken at the London Marathon to be made public, saying that she had "absolutely no objection to my test being released".[115]

In 2015, in the wake of revelations of widespread doping in athletics,[116] Radcliffe said that, unlike some other prominent British athletes, she would not be releasing her blood-test history, and discouraged other athletes from doing so.[117] She was later indirectly identified as a suspected doper by MP Jesse Norman during a parliamentary inquiry into blood doping.[118][119] In response, Radcliffe issued a statement in which she "categorically denied" cheating in any form and said she has "nothing to hide".[120] Shortly afterwards, her three suspect test results were leaked, though Radcliffe still refused to release her complete blood-test history.[121] In late November 2015, the IAAF declared that the accusation were ‘based on the gross misinterpretation of incomplete data’.

With the absolute 100% transparency of Paula Radcliffe there is absolutely nothing to see here.

And that is exactly what we will all get to see about Paula's blood test results. Absolutely nothing. Nobody is ever going to see any more blood test results for Paula Radcliffe. It was never intended for anyone to ever see the 3 leaked "suspicious" blood test results.

Oh well.

The 3 leaked "suspicious" blood test results were a little inconvenient but really no big deal for Paula.

jeff tallon wrote:

there was a leaked report last year about highly suspicious blood results of 800 athletes including 7 people from britain,including a really big name.a lot of people have suggested paula,but theres no proof.

Seriously, you still haven't seen that yet? Paula and the IAAF have openly admitted that last year, after her fans have denied it long and hard.

Now the official story is that she suffered twice from extreme dehydration, more than anybody else, even after over one hour of dehydrating after racing for 31 - 67 minutes in the low 70s, which caused her Hb to skyrocket. See rjm's comment.

As you can see here and in other threads, there are still fans left defending her. Or trolls, who knows.

jeff tallon wrote:

i DO believe paula was clean for most of her career,but not for two or 3 years there,where she seemed invincible.

Her progression seems to indicate that, yes. Coincidentally, her "dehydration-based" suspicious off-scores are from 2003 and 2005.

Plus one last attempt in 2012, when she was caught with an Hb of 16.2 g/dl (not after a race, so no dehydration excuse).

ive read a few things about it,but not others.i read an article where there were 415 suspicious russian tests,103 suspicious ukrainian,77 suspicious kenyan,32 suspicious american,and so on.no names were named,but it had something to do with likely blood doping.my interpretation of it is perhaps 190-200 russians ,about 50 ukrainians and maybe 15 americans were doping,and i read something about 14 suspicious results,from 7 brits.800 suspicious results from 5000 middle and long distance athletes.when you think about it,take away russia,and thats really not many.

ive read a few articles about leaked suspicious tests,for blood doping.apparently 415 russian,103 ukranian,32 american,and so on.then there was a similar article i read,about the percentage of athletes by country with abnormal results.russia topped the list,with 30%.there were 14 suspicious test results,from 7 british athletes,and i read yet another article where 800 athletes out of the 5000 tested were apparently blood doping.to me,thats not many.

jeff tallon wrote:

800 suspicious results from 5000 middle and long distance athletes.when you think about it,take away russia,and thats really not many.

Without Russia: 400, i.e. 8%. Doesn't sound too bad. But that is only about blood doping, so drug cheats like Baumann or Slaney would not appear suspicious, and it also only includes those with outrageously high off scores of 110ish or above, while 80 - 90 is normal.

In other words, neither steroid dopers nor "gentle" EPO users (elevating Hct by 10 - 20%) would appear suspicious.

Um no, I did not claim her off-scores during her world records were inconspicuous, but that the suspicious ones all occurred after Chicago 2002 and London 2003. To date, the only off-scores reported as suspicious occurred in 2003, 2005, and 2012. I find it awkward to refer to, or acknowledge scores not yet identified.As a matter of factual accuracy, the only "real" reported suspicious ABP off-score is from 2012.The two other reported suspicious ABP off-scores are "pretend". They could be interpreted, by today's post-2009 ABP standards, as suspicious, only if you ignore that these samples were not collected, transported, stored, analyzed, and/or scored by today's standards. I suppose any "imaginary" suspicious scores not appearing in the incomplete leaked database, in 2002 and 2003, if any are found to exist, could eventually be promoted to "pretend" suspicious scores.But in the interest of factual accuracy, let's have it your way, and replace my original false claims with these:Here's another coincidence: All of her "reported" suspicious scores came AFTER her two world records in 2002, 2003! Maybe doping made her slower?And another coincidence - all of Shobukhova's "reported" high scores (she had 7 as high or way higher than Paula's "reported" highest score), came starting 2005, when you say the EPO test became more reliable, but they still couldn't catch her for EPO, until the ABP.Of course, we don't *KNOW* when she (Paula) started doping. We don't even know *IF* she started doping, so we actually cannot conclude doping had any impact, faster or slower, until we are able to conclude she doped.Even if you don't trust the IAAF, or Saugy, why don't you trust scientists who write papers like Ashenden, Parisotto, Onofrio, Schumacher, and many others, and what physiology textbooks teach new students?

That isn't even funny.

That's more like it. So yes, either that, or her world record scores were also suspicious. The latter assumption is supported (not proven!) by the success of other dopers as well as Paula's choice to keep those values secret.

I am fully aware of that. It was still reasonably easy to dope with EPO, but one had to be more careful. See the increased number of positive tests in addition to the scientific articles about the changes in the EPO test during the last decade.

Actually I do trust them. I don't trust IAAF's "interpretation" of their work.

The question is: why do you take IAAF's interpretation of Ashenden and Parisotto over their direct words? Apparatchik or troll?

Starting with:

"In our opinion, if the pre-2009 data are considered sufficiently reliable to extend a sanction, then they are also sufficiently reliable to undertake our analyses."

including:

"We consider that the comparatively conservative conclusion we reached of ‘likely doping’ was warranted, "

and again:

"We therefore call on the IAAF to give a public undertaking that it will immediately share the entire database with Dick Pound’s independent review."

Well of course the IAAF never made "the entire database" public. Otherwise we'd most likely know Paula's WR off-scores. It is quite telling that I support this transparency, while you remain in favor of IAAF's secrecy.

Further:

"As the IAAF attests in their media release, they specifically set out to ensure their blood tests were reliable. As the IAAF media release states: “The IAAF Blood Testing Protocol indeed eventually formed the outline basis for the WADA Guidelines which were adopted in 2009.” (see p6).

• It is our opinion that the results were collected under a sufficiently standardised procedure to permit a valid scientific analysis of the data."

Yet you have argued against this for months!

And finally:

" Further, as attested to by the IAAF’s published article, it was possible to make an allowance for altitude where necessary because the altitude of the testing location depicted in the database followed a distribution similar to that of the altitude of the training location."

Yet you think 16.2 was ok for Paula because of altitude. Or so you say, as I don't believe you are serious.

rekrunner wrote:

all of Shobukhova's high scores (she had 7 as high or way higher than Paula's highest score

Please stop posting this. For the 10th time, there is no comparing off-scores from athlete-to-athlete. It's effectively a per-athlete z score.

We all know Paula used that as an official excuse. It's more wrong than the other wrong excuses she used to hide her doping.

rekrunner wrote:

Here's another coincidence: All of her suspicious scores came AFTER her two world records in 2002, 2003! Maybe doping made her slower?

Another excuse that is wrong many different ways. The effects of doping throws off scores for a very long time, pre-event and post-event. This is why, technically, the bio-passport is very effective.

The problem is the IAAF doesn't enforce the few results of testing they collect every year. Paula being the gold standard of a doper that the IAAF will never test positive.

Please move onto more creative excuses. Please!

For the 100th times, Ashenden does not agree with you.

of the 800 athletes who were deemed suspicious i dont think 400 of them were russian.it was possibly more likely 180-200.there were 415 suspicious tests from russian athletes,many of whom would have been tested more than once.im guessing as with steroid use,there must be different levals of epo use,and maybe if its used in small amounts it wouldnt be so bad......probably wouldnt show up as supicious either,as you say.the gains in running times wouldnt be as much,but it would be enough.the russians,turks,and others seemed to pour all sorts of drugs into their athletes in really high potent doses.their improvements were probably bigger than everyone elses,but im wondering what the health costs will be down the track?

She's gay?