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

wow so many quotes and quotes within quotes....im so lost, i'll bett $32 that someone really really really loves defending bad form bobble head EPO saucing no speed no kick no medals till late in the game mrs pasty Paula....no way would i waste my time trying to sort through the rebuttals and quotes within quotes....im sure this thread is only hours away from being gutted....lolz

Lets Think This One Through wrote:

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

On "Ndereba's 2:18:47 from 2001:" How do we know if that time is clean or doped? If

She might be clean, but she was being coached by a Moroccan pre ABP, and seems to operate in the opposite to Renato's theory,

"Runner's World Daily: So Catherine, you were in Kenya two weeks ago.What were you doing there?

Catherine Ndereba: It was a quick trip, for a family wedding. My husband Anthony's first cousin was getting married. So I took the chance to see my family, my sister (Anastasia, a world class marathoner), and spend time with my daughter Jane.

RWD: Did you train much over there?

CN: No, I am different in that I train here in America at sea level. So I did not want to stay there too long at altitude to mess up the cycle.

classic....but im sure renato will come on here and claim he coached her to greatness as well....im going to say it again, the dude is the donald trump of the coaching world...they are close to the same age, maybe its something from that generation

What you seem to be arguing is that no one else was a potential WR holder, which is somehow making the case that Paula is that much better than everybody else. Recall I let you give me the best examples, and you chose a world-record doper with a time nearly 3 minutes slower than Paula. 1) Which athletes have a faster clean baseline than Paula, and 2) if doping is both prevalent (I'm told likely more than 44%, and even more at the medal positions) and effective, why did none of them run faster than 2:18, until 2017?

Lets Think This One Through wrote:

...I don't know why you think every doper should be a potential WR holder when all elites are not created equal and there's interindividual variation.

Twaddle.

forgive my ignorance and can someone educate me, how is the EPO used by dopers different from the natural EPO produced by the kidneys when elite athletes go to altitude for extended periods of time?

is it the same and simply additional quantity without additional effort? or is it synthetic and different?

can WADA et al detect the difference when they produce extra EPO naturally from altitude vs doping? if so, when in time were such tests finally developed so we know what times to trust a bit more?

I am very curious how some people feel so sure Paula's hemoglobin levels are from doping and not extensive time at altitude

logic it out wrote:

forgive my ignorance and can someone educate me, how is the EPO used by dopers different from the natural EPO produced by the kidneys when elite athletes go to altitude for extended periods of time?

is it the same and simply additional quantity without additional effort? or is it synthetic and different?

can WADA et al detect the difference when they produce extra EPO naturally from altitude vs doping? if so, when in time were such tests finally developed so we know what times to trust a bit more?

I am very curious how some people feel so sure Paula's hemoglobin levels are from doping and not extensive time at altitude

synthetic EPO or rhEPO has from MULTIPLE studies done by people with PhDs and other research under their belt shown

- larger and more numerous mitochondria

- your body creates more blood cells faster that what is achievable through hard training at altitude

- and they have pretty good blood tests now for 1st generation and CERA style EPO. but there are now peptides and other hormones that were developed for diseases that can do more than just what rhEPO was doing, binding with different receptor sites etc...and these are now coming out in PILL FORM and no way to detect them from urine, and very hard to detect in blood

next point....our bodies have a natural limit to things to keep us from dying. your body will only produce so much red blood cells at altitude and then it will put a stop to it. when you inject a drug you are BYPASSING the body into going beyond what was NATURAL.

when we are hurt our bodies pump pain killers and adrenaline, but only so much. you go to the hospital they can inject you with synthetic drugs, and you feel no pain, you have an infection your body sends white blood cells to work, you go to a hospital and they give you antibiotics that are not NATURAL and your infection is fixed way faster.

this whole idea that PEDs dont work yet everything else out there that has been created synthetically does the work better and faster is naive. next time you have a headache dont take IB's, cause they are just a placebo, a fallacy, and even if they did work they only improve your headache pain by less than 1%.

paula

1500 Metres 4:05.37 Glasgow (GBR) 01 JUL 2001

One Mile 4:24.94 Zürich (SUI) 14 AUG 1996

2000 Metres 5:39.20 Sheffield (GBR) 29 AUG 1993

3000 Metres 8:22.20 Monaco (MON) 19 JUL 2002

Two Miles 9:32.07 Loughborough (GBR) 23 MAY 1999

5000 Metres 14:29.11 Bydgoszcz (POL) 20 JUN 2004

10,000 Metres 30:01.09 München (GER) 06 AUG 2002

5 Kilometres 14:51 London (GBR) 14 SEP 2003

8 Kilometres 24:38 Balmoral (GBR) 24 APR 1999

5 Miles Road 24:47 Balmoral (GBR) 24 APR 1999

10 Kilometres 30:21 San Juan (PUR) 23 FEB 2003 AR

15 Kilometres 52:48 Heerenberg (NED) 07 DEC 2014

10 Miles Road 51:11 Portsmouth (GBR) 26 OCT 2008

Half Marathon 1:06:47 Bristol (GBR) 07 OCT 2001

Half Marathon 1:05:40 * South Shields (GBR) 22 SEP 2003

25 Kilometres 1:20:36 London (GBR) 13 APR 2003

30 Kilometres 1:36:39 London (GBR) 13 APR 2003

Marathon 2:15:25 London (GBR) 13 APR 2003

KEITANY

1500 Metres 4:29.7h Nairobi (KEN) 13 JUN 2003

5000 Metres 16:29.4h Nairobi (KEN) 29 JUN 2006

10,000 Metres 32:18.07 Utrecht (NED) 17 MAY 2007

5 Kilometres 15:18 Ras Al Khaimah (UAE) 18 FEB 2011

10 Kilometres 30:41 Cape Elizabeth, ME (USA) 05 AUG 2017

15 Kilometres 46:30 Ras Al Khaimah (UAE) 18 FEB 2011

10 Miles Road 49:30 Ras Al Khaimah (UAE) 09 FEB 2018

20 Kilometres 1:02:36 Ras Al Khaimah (UAE) 18 FEB 2011

Half Marathon 1:04:55 Ras Al Khaimah (UAE) 09 FEB 2018

25 Kilometres 1:19:43 London (GBR) 23 APR 2017 AR

30 Kilometres 1:36:05 London (GBR) 23 APR 2017 WR, AR

Marathon 2:17:01 London (GBR) 23 APR 2017

DIBABA

3000 Metres 8:29.55 London (GBR) 28 JUL 2006

5000 Metres 14:11.15 Oslo (NOR) 06 JUN 2008 WR, AR

10,000 Metres 29:42.56 Rio de Janeiro (BRA) 12 AUG 2016

5 Kilometres 14:51 Carlsbad, CA (USA) 03 APR 2005

10 Kilometres 30:30 Tilburg (NED) 01 SEP 2013

15 Kilometres 46:28 Nijmegen (NED) 15 NOV 2009

10 Miles Road 51:49 Portsmouth (GBR) 23 OCT 2016

Half Marathon 1:06:50 Ras Al Khaimah (UAE) 10 FEB 2017

Marathon 2:17:56 London (GBR) 23 APR 2017

GLADYS CHERONO

800 Metres 2:08.6h Narok (KEN) 02 APR 2011

1500 Metres 4:25.13 Getafe (ESP) 08 JUL 2004

3000 Metres 8:34.05 Stockholm (SWE) 22 AUG 2013

5000 Metres 14:47.12 Zürich (SUI) 29 AUG 2013

10,000 Metres 30:29.23 Ostrava (CZE) 27 JUN 2013

5 Kilometres 16:02 Bolzano (ITA) 31 DEC 2013

10 Kilometres 30:56 Ottawa (CAN) 23 MAY 2015

15 Kilometres 56:40 Santurce (ESP) 25 NOV 2007

20 Kilometres 1:10:28 Valencia (ESP) 30 MAY 2004

Half Marathon 1:06:07 Ras Al Khaimah (UAE) 12 FEB 2016

Marathon 2:18:11 Berlin (GER) 16 SEP 2018

all very similar 10k and half marathon, but paula rocked 1 min faster in girls only and 2+ with wejo pacing....and this was 15YRS ago come on man lolz open your eyes

logic it out wrote:

I am very curious how some people feel so sure Paula's hemoglobin levels are from doping and not extensive time at altitude

Because in 2003 and 2005 (Vilamoura and Helsinki), she was not at altitude, but in competition, and her hemoglobin levels rose by 20 - 30% within days, while the ret-% decreased by over 20%.

That is not altitude, and not EPO, but a blood transfusion.

The IAAF chose to not even mention the rise in Hct, let alone the decrease in ret-%, they just argued that the final Hct level could have come from hemoconcentration, some 90 minutes after racing for 67 and 32 minutes in the low to mid 70s. Such an effect would certainly be under 1% for Hct, not over 20%, and it would have no effect on the ret-% (a relative value), which is why the PR shills here blame faulty equipment. Four times. Lolz.

In 2012 on the other hand, she had this outrageously high 16.2 g/dl, along with normal ret-%. That can't have just come from altitude, because

a) her normal values were reported to be below 14 g/dl, so the increase is too large to be natural

and

b) altitude would have lowered the ret-% below normal, the lower, the larger the increase in Hct. So even if her super blood would have miracously had such an increase, the ret-% would have been all the way down. But instead, the ret-% were higher than in 2003 and 2005.

This is typical when you combine artificial EPO administration (Hct up, ret-% up) with altitude (Hct up, ret-% down): a huge increase in Hct along with normal-ish ret-%. Old blood doping trick, use altitude to hide EPO. She just overdid it there.

Here is, for comparison, what CAS wrote about Jeptoo's 16.6 g/dl:

"Professor Schumacher said that 16.6G/dl was considerably outside of the population reference expectation for female athletes. "

If you wonder why blood transfusions in 2003 and 2005, and EPO in 2012: that is a question of timing. Professional career dopers use EPO out-of-season, as in winter 2012, for it works slowly and systematically, and blood transfusions in competition for a quick boost, such as in Vilamoura and Helsinki.

I have no problem with the Guardian, or that specific article. I don't even have a problem with you lying about it, but I felt like pointing out this lie.

Funny that you now admit that the 30% there don't come directly from the authors, but from the journalist's (Nicola Davis) interpretation:

And last: now you pretend that the authors contradicted their main findings in the appendix? Oh man, you are getting weirder every day.

Hint: that appendix just adds information, it does not declare the major finding of 43.6% - which is unlikely to be overestimated according to the authors - irrelevant.

You are just incorrigible. I will ignore your lies for now, as long as I can resist correcting your trolling.

If this data is correct. There is no doubt " blood transfusion ".. Disappointed Radcliffe is another phony.

+1

rekrunner wrote:

What's my take? Surely I've answered this a dozen times already. To put the value I place on these anecdotes in perspective, take the time to google "proof by example".

Maybe you should take the time and read it. Your continued rhetoric that non-African countries didn't improve as much as you think they should have during the EPO-abuse era is proof that the E. African's sudden, significant running of very fast times during the same time period is not related in any way to EPO is an inappropriate generalization as defined by "proof of example." So, you can't have it both ways rekrunner - if you don't want people using "proof by example" from doping anecdotes, then you can't keep hammering that non-African vs African example either.

m!ndweak wrote:

classic....but im sure renato will come on here and claim he coached her to greatness as well....im going to say it again, the dude is the donald trump of the coaching world...they are close to the same age, maybe its something from that generation

That's funny Chad. ?

rekrunner wrote:

What you seem to be arguing is that no one else was a potential WR holder, which is somehow making the case that Paula is that much better than everybody else.

Recall I let you give me the best examples, and you chose a world-record doper with a time nearly 3 minutes slower than Paula.

1) Which athletes have a faster clean baseline than Paula, and 2) if doping is both prevalent (I'm told likely more than 44%, and even more at the medal positions) and effective, why did none of them run faster than 2:18, until 2017?

Lets Think This One Through wrote:

...I don't know why you think every doper should be a potential WR holder when all elites are not created equal and there's interindividual variation.

Maybe because testing got stricter which makes it a bit harder to cheat? So micro-dosing instead of swallowing a pharmacy?

Maybe, five and a half years after the first post, this thread is a complete waste of time, energy, and space.

J.R. wrote:

There are two possibilities:

A. Paula Radcliffe is dirtier than Lance Armstrong ever was, or;

B. Drugs don't help performance to any significant degree and all drug testing is a shame.

Rojo, you still haven't answered my question from a few days ago. Is it possible for a woman to run under 2:15:25 and break Paula Radcliffe's record in the marathon without drugs?

If so, then the answer is B.

She was a freak. So was Lance until everyone else started using EPO. Then he got on and was a good responder. The E. Africans have been filthy for three decades and it's not even arguable. Go complain about them. Or is that not in line with being politically correct?

Another lost bet. The post had nothing to do with Paula.

m!ndweak wrote:

wow so many quotes and quotes within quotes....im so lost, i'll bett $32 that someone really really really loves defending bad form bobble head EPO saucing no speed no kick no medals till late in the game mrs pasty Paula....no way would i waste my time trying to sort through the rebuttals and quotes within quotes....im sure this thread is only hours away from being gutted....lolz

The truth is: - YOU gave us an article where - I quoted and attributed that a co-author said 43.6% raises a big question, - I quoted and attrituted that the reporter summarized the team's answer to that big question. - You just said it was a lie, like an autonomous reflex, failing to point out any lie. The first time I mentioned 30%, I explicitly attributed it to the Guardian's Nicola Davis. Why do you only find it funny now? Another way of saying the Appendix adds details, is that the Abstract left out details. And, on the contrary, the appendix explicitly declared, in a section called "Basic Results", that the "major finding" of their primary analysis of the survey results is in Table 4, not the Abstract. I even quoted that for you. 43.6% is the raw result of some unknown combination of truthful survey responses, mixed in with (inadvertent or not), false responses.

Are you sure it wasn't just epo taken at altitude?