Wejo, You had posted in one of the Radcliffe threads that you felt Paula should release her blood values and explain them, as it is likely they will eventually be leaked anyway, which I agree with. You also said you would suggest this to her at the World Championships. So did you get a chance to talk to her?
LOL, yea I'm sure he asked all the same tough questions he's asked Gatlin and Rupp.
If he got her mad enough, I'll take Paula in the fist fight between them.
My guess is that he thought that asking her all of those tough questions sounded like a good idea at the time, but when he actually saw her face to face, he was totally intimidated by her.
DC Area Runner wrote:
My guess is that he thought that asking her all of those tough questions sounded like a good idea at the time, but when he actually saw her face to face, he was totally intimidated by her.
Agreed. That's why guys like Kimmage are so important to the sport. He's not afraid of anyone, no matter how intimidating. He's risked his job and reputation for the good of the sport, and has never been afraid to question even the most crafty, savvy cheats.
He is going to break the Radcliffe doping story just like he broke the NOP story. The interview is currently being edited. Steve Magness is the voice-over.
She's got him by the balls. Wejo's silence is DEAFENING
Where are the tough questions, wejo? Where are the questions?
OK, so the Brojo's didn't ask the questions, but what would be interesting is what the general journo gossip was at around midnight in the bar.
yessir wrote:
DC Area Runner wrote:My guess is that he thought that asking her all of those tough questions sounded like a good idea at the time, but when he actually saw her face to face, he was totally intimidated by her.
Agreed. That's why guys like Kimmage are so important to the sport. He's not afraid of anyone, no matter how intimidating. He's risked his job and reputation for the good of the sport, and has never been afraid to question even the most crafty, savvy cheats.
Intimidated? I guess you have never met Paula. She's an incredibly sweet lady.
BJP wrote:
yessir wrote:Agreed. That's why guys like Kimmage are so important to the sport. He's not afraid of anyone, no matter how intimidating. He's risked his job and reputation for the good of the sport, and has never been afraid to question even the most crafty, savvy cheats.
Intimidated? I guess you have never met Paula. She's an incredibly sweet lady.
Incredibly sweet ladies don't cheat then denounce people who accuse them.
Johnny Johns wrote:
BJP wrote:Intimidated? I guess you have never met Paula. She's an incredibly sweet lady.
Incredibly sweet ladies don't cheat then denounce people who accuse them.
People who have valid inside information don't post it anonymously on LRC. Go sell your evidence to the Sun.
I am really looking forward to wejo's response on this!! Can't wait for that doped up bird beak finally have the Lance Armstrong-esque meltdown we all know is coming!
ShitHead34 wrote:
I am really looking forward to wejo's response on this!! Can't wait for that doped up bird beak finally have the Lance Armstrong-esque meltdown we all know is coming!
What if his only response is just to "out" you for posting multiple times under different nicknames in order to agree with yourself?
CMON WEJO: IF SALAZAR DID THIS YOUD BE ALL OVER HIM
I don't think Wejo is/was worried about Paula, it is her douche bag husband that had him worried.
I'm pretty sure someone posted on another thread that Wejo said he went for a run with Paula in Beijing. They saw him say it in one of the letsrun interview videos on youtube.
Wejo won't reply. He is scared of bobblehead and sleazy. Wejo will never ask the hard questions, or the relevant questions. He is just playing at being a journalist as an excuse to never get a job. Same way John DuPont was a "wrestling coach".
Johnny Johns wrote:
Incredibly sweet ladies don't cheat then denounce people who accuse them.
Nor do they threaten lawsuits to newspapers and say they won't get their money back.
This was Wejo's original post. He had so much to say then, but now his silence is Radcliffe-esque
Wejo:
When did they get internet on international flights? I was going to sleep on my way to Worlds. Instead I'm writing this.
1) I am extremely compromised. I consider Paula and Gary personal friends, but that doesn't have anything to do with one being clean or dirty.
Case in point - Paula is the one who told me in 2002 (when I first met her prior to her running her first marathon but I was so impressed with how she talked about it and the pace she ran in training and hearing about how she was made or the marathon, that Robert and I went and bet on her to win the London marathon and won I think $500)
that "You only know about yourself being clean" and she told the story of how her and Gary became friends with Ali Saidi Sief and started wondering, "maybe he is clean (because they were friends with him)" and soon after he was busted.
2) Her stance on the blood values makes me less likely to believe she is clean.
3) I'm not convinced she was dirty.
a) I will start with Robert's line above, " If you actually go to the Original source......" and then he proceeds to totally botch it. As others have pointed out in this thread, Paula in December said she wanted the list revealed TO THE IAAF, I don't see anything about her saying she wanted the blood values public.
If you want to criticize her for being a hypocrite you need to go back further to the 2002 quotes people are mentioning. She could turn that around and say she wanted her blood tests results released, not the details. Problem is pre 2009 you couldn't be sanctioned for a blood testso a blood test doesn't mean anything.
The Paula I know always stood for transparency so I assumed she would be for values being out there.
b) IF we assume the blood values of the anonymous British athlete are hers, that athlete supposedly had 3 blood values that were 1000 to 1. The article did not say they were proof she was dirty, it gave the impression they would need to be followed up on.
That to me is not conclusive proof at all.. If it was more conclusive proof the others should have written about it differently, "One British athlete's blood values were so off the charts on 3 different occasions, they had certainly to be doping." They never wrote that.
They said there are reasons athletes could have high values: illness, altitude, pregnancy.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33749208b) Let's say you are Paula and you are clean. The Times of London comes to you and says, "We have these suspicious blood values on you. We're doing a big expose, we've got Shobukhova, Ramzi, we're going to publish it." I can understand not wanting to be bunched in with those others without some context.
c) My inclination would be like Robert's "I have nothing to hide, let's publish this data because I am for clean sport. I am clean. There IS an explanation let's figure it out. If the blood tests are not accurate when they first started out, let's get that information out there. If tests need to be done at a consistent time pre or post competition, let's get that out there."
However, my livelihood is not based on being a commentator for the next 30 years, no other sport I know of releases blood values (I thought cycling did, but I don't think they do anymore, can someone let me know), and if I thought the public would not put anything in context and I'd be associated with being a doper, then I can see the argument for being against them being published. I hope I wouldn't follow what people told me in that case. (Where are the Freud PR firm jokes in this thread?)
Even if the details weren't released and she had a suspicious value I may be naive but I still wish she'd say, "You know what I understand some of my values were suspicious, I know I am clean, I have nothing to hide, but there is a reason blood profiles aren't public and explain it." Actually that doesn't work. I wish she had just said, "I call on WADA to launch an independent investigation of my values. They will release a report on them and put them in context. Get the Sunday Times to agree to this and pay for it."
There must be a good reason other sports including cycling don't release values right?
d) In our editorial on the Sunday Times story, there was debate whether blood profiles should be public. I said they should be. Jon thought they shouldn't be. However, we concluded if they should be released they ALL should be public. That way there might be some context.
What if the testing in the initial years wasn't that accurate or standard? Are there values in Paula's tests that look like errors instead of anomalies, etc. What if she was ill etc? The BBC said illness, altitude, etc could affect your blood values.
The head of WADA said, "It would be reckless to draw conclusions on the basis of limited information.
If there is a stronger case on why we should draw conclusions let's hear it from the British press. Instead, I do have a big problem with how the Sunday Times handled the one suspicious British athlete. They cleared Mo Farah and Jessica Ennis and then cast suspicion on everyone else. Release all the names or none or come out and specifically accuse the British athlete of something.
4) I think the values will be leaked. Might as well address it head on now.
5) I will tell Paula these things directly in Beijing. Her and Gary are always receptive when I speak with them.
Even if Paula explained away the blood values, it wouldn't prove she was clean, but it would make me sleep better because I have never been more impressed with an athlete in my life than Paula Radcliffe.