Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

Smarty Pantalones wrote:

OK. Then why aren't there dozens of women who ran the same races as Paula with those same extreme blood values

Because Paula wanted it more than they did, she taps deeper into her well than anyone else.

What is written in Wikipedia about Vilamoura (I never went to read something about it, but I suppose your data are in the article reported in Wikipedia) is an absolute bullshit.

In the most part of competitions off stadia (Marathon and walking events), the machine for surveying temperature and humidity are located in a place very far from the site of the competition, for instance under the stands in a stadium, in a more fresh area with shadow, and are not reliable. Not only, but during a competition lasting long time we have great variations of these two parameters.

And also, temperature and humidity don't mean anything : what is important is their effect on the body. For example, if you are at a temperature of 25 degrees for 2 hours, standing under the sun, you have some effect, but if you go to sit with the same temperature and humidity only 5 meters far, in the shadow of a tree, the effects of the same temperature and humidity are very different.

In the specific case of Vilamoura, I remember everybody trying to find some protection from the sun, looking for some shadow, because it was not possible to stay 5 minutes, standing, without being like in a sauna.

There was not one tree or some building, on the course, for producing some shadow. After those Championships, IAAF decided to authorize the use of showers on the course, in case of similar weather situations.

David B wrote:

I just think it will be covered up. British Heroine, friend of Seb's (same Uni), Nike cover girl.

.

You don't know much about the UK if you think that two people who both happened to go to the same University (with the best sporting reputation in the country) at least 15 years apart makes them friends.

If the IAAF had any concerns about her doping, they'd throw her under a bus as quickly as they could.

Renato Canova - ok, that could explain 1 dodgy reading - what about the over 2. Why won't she release data to the public explaining each reading. She wanted readings/names to be released back in Jan before her name was found to be on the list. I just doesn't add up.

Values released....check skysports news.

Back from the hospital wrote:

Smarty Pantalones wrote:

OK. Then why aren't there dozens of women who ran the same races as Paula with those same extreme blood values

Because Paula wanted it more than they did, she taps deeper into her well than anyone else.

And therefore doped because "she wanted it more." See how that works?

The IAAF wasn't going to test her positive, so why be clean? She may have gotten really far without PEDs, but there you are at elite international you figure out anti-doping is a joke and EPO is like free money because Diack is perfectly fine with it. Why NOT dope?

Canova, do you have any comment on the my previous posts on the magnitude of her hgb change?

Yes, the test is not valid in the current BP protocol, and you are right of course to say that the BP is not being used effectively. And correct to say that the biggest changes WADA can make are more frequent tests.

But accepting that the test cannot be used in antidoping proceedings, do you have any comment on how dehydration changes hgb? How it changes blood volume? Any comment on the blood test's result of huge plasma volume contraction (enough to change her hgb by 2.8 g/dL) indicating such severe dehydration that surely Paula's performance would have been effected?

At last. ... wrote:

Values released....check skysports news.

False. It's a retelling of her statement to the MP's yesterday, now with even more misdirection and confusion.

You don't request analysis from WADA. She's not an anti-doping authority so UKAD wouldn't re-analyze the results. Conveniently, the IAAF is the only one with the authority to request a re-analysis.

The article says the IAAF declared it non-positive at the time. The same time 1/3 of all T&F podiums had extremely abnormal values suggesting doping. So, yeah Paula is "never tested positive." Then she goes on to hopelessly confuse WADA and UKAD.

Why won't she let Ashenden and Parisotto discuss her scores? Hmm...

EPO cheats out Paula...

So if her half marathon was under the stated conditions (30 degrees, humid), does it make it more or less likely that she was doping in order for a woman who grew up in the cool climate of Britain to crush a field which included many African and Mediterranean athletes? I for one am even MORE suspicious.

WIth regard to 1, who has the authority to release the data to a certified lab? Paula has that authority. So I assume you agree that she should do this.

With regard to 2, you're now changing your story. An "expert witness for the defense" is not the same thing as an "independent witness." Assuming you were in some type of arbitration, did you testify for the defense, or were you hired to give an independent analysis to the arbiter? For example you could have been paid for by the defense, if the defense is bound by contract to cover the costs of such a witness, but you were not an "expert witness for the defense."

With regard to the "Dirt-digging into data by newspapers and unqualified sources," the newspapers have access to a limited amount of data, something Paula clearly agrees with. If you truly believe that " Unbiased evaluation by qualified personnel is important," shouldn't you be pushing for Paula to release this data so such an evaluation may take place?

BTW, thanks for your elaboration clerk, that was helpful.

Here is the link to the sky sports story with the released blood values:

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe

Man Overboard wrote:

BTW, thanks for your elaboration clerk, that was helpful.

Here is the link to the sky sports story with the released blood values:

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe

That article doesn't say what you think it says.

"This data needed to be looked at in context by the right experts so I requested WADA go back and go over again all of this data.

Which, she has no authority to do. What she is doing is having the IAAF rubber-stamp the "never tested positive" results from an era where 1/3 of all podiums were sanctionable.

This article says what is actually happening:

Asked if freeing data would clear her, she said: "I don't need to. I'm clean.

EPO cheats out Paula.

Hmmmmmm wrote:

She also says if she released her blood scores along with an expert's analysis then it would clear her. Strange then that she has chosen not to do this

Ya. Right. Release the results and have not a moron phd quack about it. Have a panel of the best look at it. And NOT nike patsies as coe by definition is. By the way. Probably coe is the very best man for the job meaning that in the political arena he has to do what he does.and in the way he does. There is no one else. This is the paradigm. It sucks

The numbers are out there now folks.

"Radcliffe's "off-scores", the measures used to gauge an athlete's blood values, in the three tests were 114.86, 109.86 and 109.3."

"In 2003 Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, who worked closely with The Sunday Times, contributed to a paper in the journal Haematologica, which said the commonly used cut-off value for females training at altitude is 111.7, higher than two of Radcliffe's test scores.

She says the third, which gave the highest reading of 114.86, can be explained by circumstances that would now render it invalid.

It came from a sample taken immediately after a half-marathon in 29C heat in Portugal. The World Anti-Doping Association now considers any samples taken within two hours of competition as invalid, because exertion can affect blood values.

Radcliffe believes that without this crucial context, the experts could not reach an informed conclusion on her blood values based purely on the information in the database."

As I just posted elsewhere:

The 111.7 value is for a "worst-case" athlete if the sample was taken at altitude. Look at the paragraph bridging the two columns on page 337 of the study, as well as Table 2.

I need to read the study in more detail, but I'm not sure we should pretend that the Sky news article clears Paula.

In other words, it's possible some of that "context" could go against Paula.

Hdudhebrhd wrote:

WIth regard to 1, who has the authority to release the data to a certified lab? Paula has that authority.

Not really, no.

The short answer is she refuses to let Seppelt/Parisotto/Ashenden discuss her scores. If she was clean, Ashenden/Parisotto could return a non-positive analysis a long time ago and this would be all over.

##Long answer

According to WADA standards, Paula is not an anti-doping authority. She cannot request samples be retested at a WADA certified lab. Retesting means unfreezing samples and re-running tests. The IAAF and perhaps her home federation has the authority to retest.

Paula cannot request her old results be re-analyzed and declare those IAAF official re-analysis. Paula cannot request WADA/UKAD reanalyze the results either. She's an athlete, not an anti-doping authority.

What she can do is pay for an expert who could work in the field for other IOC sports to re-analyze her results and come to a independent conclusion. At the moment, it reads like she wants the IAAF to declare her non-positive again. This from an era where 1/3 of all podiums had positives.

Renato Canova wrote:

What is written in Wikipedia about Vilamoura (I never went to read something about it, but I suppose your data are in the article reported in Wikipedia) is an absolute bullshit.

Sure it was on Wikipedia. But 22 degrees was also mentioned on the IAAF site and in various newspaper articles about the event. I have no doubt it was hot that day ( I wasn't there and you probably were), but if 22 degrees is widely reported as the temperature (universally temperatures are measured in the shade), why not say: "A half-marathon run in 22 degrees in the shade"? Why give the 30 degrees number? Maybe it was 45 degrees in the sun, without wind. Who cares?

I can understand that different humidity/wind/temperature levels have an effect on bodies. But temperature as a given is only measured correctly ceteris paribus, without taken into account the effect of direct sunlight. They will not have measured 22 degrees in a glasshouse would they?

Renato Canova wrote:

For example, I was in Vilamoura when Paula won the WHMCh (I had the number 3 and 4 in the men race), and well remember the weather conditions, with more than 32 degrees for a course totally under a strong sun, without one meter with some shadow. It's obvious that any blood sample taken immediately after that race has to produce final data very far from a "normal" average.

I don´t want to enter to judge Paula, but I trust that she is doped.

I also understand that different human bodies and top trained athletes have a different physiology I also understand that different situations may result in different values of the doping tests. But then why the same persons that thinks so, says that the biological passport is trustful ?

However the main reason I post here and now it´s to say that PAULA RADCLIFFE LIES when she says that the test that she did in the Half Marathon WC in Portugal. I was there present, i know how that was done.

Her doping test in the Half Marathon WC in Portugal, wasn´t done immediately after the race. It´s not true ! The tests of the all runners that were made on that occasion, were done after the race is finished, and all the female participants finished the race and remember she was the winner and the last one female to finished many minutes after Paula. What really happened there it was that she was nominated/elected to be present at the test right after to cross the finish line, and from that moment on, one female member of the judge follows her until the moment she was present to the doctor cabinet/room to collect the test. From the moment she finished and she was nominated to do ten test, passed more or less one hour and half. She goes undress, she takes the shower in the improvised vestiaries they had there, she the dress with another clothes, drinks some liquid, and waits a long period before she gets to the podium. Only after that is when she was tested. But, as usual, with higher temperatures, the collect of the urine sample take from some minutes to some hours, because with dehydrated it´s not easy to piss despite the runner try to drink lots fo liquids to piss, and that takes even hours.

Besides, it was very easy to detect if the warm of that day have some effect to higher the test values. It´s just to check what were the value and the effect of the high temperature on the other runners that were tested on the same occasion.