Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

Smell that? Cheater! cheater! cheater! it is almost pathetic just reading that... oh omg i got the spotlight, why me?? I just have a marathon pr of 2:15!

Not so sure wrote:

http://www.paularadcliffe.com/statement-september-2015/

Here's the link to read it directly on her site.

To me, this was wholly unconvincing. She comes across as extremely whiny and perhaps Lance-like. She attacks the Sunday Times repeatedly with arguments that seem pretty weak. Her only REAL argument is that the abnormal blood values they took from her should not be considered valid test results. Perhaps that's true, I don't know. But, it sounds like a lot of excuses and backpedaling. If she had released this statement weeks ago, preemptively, then maybe I'd be sold on her sincerity, but at this point, it looks like she's still trying very hard to hide things, and it seems she only spoke up now because her hand was forced.

I agree. I actually don't care as much about Paula Radcliffe as active athletes, because I would like to see competition cleaned up as much as possible now, but if she had released her blood values, with those explanations attached, several weeks ago, there would have been an enormous brouhaha, but she would have gotten credit for her openness. Now, there is still debate about her rationalizations, and if anything greater suspicions about her honesty.

I completely understand why prominent athletes, especially female athletes, given the number of sick stalkers out there, would want to keep things away from competition as private as possible. But I'm afraid, as intimate as it is, blood values of track athletes have to be openly disclosed. Would it still be possible to conceal drug use? And would that lead to possible misinterpretation, and false accusations? Probably, but no more than occurs today. At the very least, it would be one piece of evidence that clean athletes could cite, even if the "everyone is a doper" crowd would remain suspicious.

She s nothing but a manipulative liar. Lance Armstrong female version.

So this settles it. It's ok to investigate those other drug cheats, but not Paula. Which means, I guess, that all those others named by the Sunday Times are drug cheats, but not Paula.

Surely the speculation behind the scenes, which she was well aware of, was damage enough for her to come out earlier? There's no way she's naive enough to think her name wasn't going to be leaked, as evidenced by her clearly prepared response. So her response has no credibility, it would have been worth something, actually a lot, if she had come out weeks ago.

I'm amazed it's only just come out now. The thing is, if she's guilty, it would still have made more sense to come out earlier.

Link wrote:

Kimmage just dropped the other shoe:

Radcliffe to ST: "You print it and I sue you (and) you won't be getting any money back in future like Lance Armstrong - I promise you that."

https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage

:

Most of us already knew it was Paula who said that, in any event she is quite the bully.

In all of these three cases referred to by the Sunday Times (as well as on many more occasions) I was EPO urine tested at the time, and also in follow up. All of these three cases followed periods of altitude training. Only one of my blood test scores is marginally above the 1 in 100 accepted

Wow. How Lance-like. Or, whichever denier you like.

Someone is clearly assisting her write this nonsense knowing full well the job at hand is to hide anything and everything while taking every attempt to confuse the issue.

She had a urine test after altitude training. Unless you are a complete idiot, nothing will ever show up there. Your event is a couple days later, the EPO is at maximum efficacy and the athlete never tests positive.

Just release the scores Paula and if you are clean, it will be there in the data. It's as simple as that really.

EPO cheats out.

Apparently someone has registered my screen name...

Only one of my blood test scores is marginally above the 1 in 100 accepted

The stats would say 1/XXX not go in factors of 10, so if a sample is outside of the 1/100, you wouldn't then say it's 1/1000. What exactly was the probability?

Will haile and geb be outed too under parliamentary privilege

Or will they escape the dragnet.

ghostwritten wrote:

Took the Nike lawyers quite a while to work on that draft, apparently.

You mean that she did not write that???

If her worst value on record is a 1-in-100 after running a hot half marathon, then people are really grasping at straws. The question is whether she's had other higher values that were excused and erased for some reason. It's the question that should have been asked by everyone when a dozen athletes released their blood data a few weeks ago. Did they simply omit all their off readings that they would like excused?

Paula is most likely clean, at least on the EPO/urine testing scale. She won't have to worry until they start measuring for beet root extract.

pop_pop!_2.0 wrote:

Just release the scores Paula and if you are clean, it will be there in the data. It's as simple as that really.

As if you and all the other message board commandos would know how to read the blood data. You would simply point at some piece of data you know nothing about and call it absolute proof that she cheated.

Sadly, in my case the Sunday Times’ experts failed appallingly.[\i]

Love this. Parisotto and Ashenden are horribly wrong after years of analyzing blood scores for WADA/IOC sports including the IAAF. Ok, right.

Oh man, it just gets better and better with bad car analogies "innocence" and "guilt" as if there were a legal process. Overall, bad attempts at obfuscation.

I love the declaration any analysis at all is biased because she says so.

Epo cheats out Paula.

Not so sure wrote:

http://www.paularadcliffe.com/statement-september-2015/

Here's the link to read it directly on her site.

To me, this was wholly unconvincing. She comes across as extremely whiny and perhaps Lance-like. She attacks the Sunday Times repeatedly with arguments that seem pretty weak. Her only REAL argument is that the abnormal blood values they took from her should not be considered valid test results. Perhaps that's true, I don't know. But, it sounds like a lot of excuses and backpedaling. If she had released this statement weeks ago, preemptively, then maybe I'd be sold on her sincerity, but at this point, it looks like she's still trying very hard to hide things, and it seems she only spoke up now because her hand was forced.

Paula was quick to point the finger at all over the years but when its her turn she is very masterful in not being guilty. The lack of transparency only lends to suspicion.As in anything that is not absolute her blood values might lend to an interesting discussion to getting to more absolute standards vs assumptions.

Why not take the lead and open the debate. Review by experts may give a better outline and explanation to a rather cloudy picture of blood values. Unfortunately for Paula she appears guilty until she can take a leadership role with absolute confidence that her blood values can be properly explained vs the spin she is spewing out now.

Her statement, and her actions (such as holding up placards in 01) are oh so Lance like.

Simple fact of the matter is, even WADA's own bosses admit that only 2% of cheats who are out there, get caught.

Watched an amazing documentary the other day, was probably discussed on here at the time it was aired. A joint BBC production into drug use in athletics and how easy it is to get away with it.

The investigative journalist who fronted it, micro-dosed on EPO for a few weeks. His VO2 max went from 58 to 63, and his power output from 350 W to 375 W (7% increase). He sent all his blood tests and his bio-passport to an un-named source for checking, and the results came back that he was CLEAN.

So the fact of the matter is, you can STILL micro-dose on EPO (and maybe loads of other stuff as well) and get away with it.

\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a61rS4jN3As

She says none of the dodgy tests are attached to her best performances

This is a tenuous statement. The Portuguese race cited was her 4th fastest half marathon and was run 2 weeks after her half marathon PB in late 2003, the same year of course she ran 2:15

Is the FloJo of the marathon the only athlete who has ever been tested shortly after a strenuous race? Her defense makes no sense.

The whole point of random dope tests is that they can happen any time without prior warning.

Remember the days when the FloJo of the Marathon was begging the IAAF in 2002 to publish all her results to prove that she was supposedly clean? Careful what you wish for.

Hoist by your own pompous petard Paula ... and I am loving it.

whothewhothewho wrote:

whatthewhatthewhat wrote:

I actually believe her.

So do I.

Same here.