Sunday Mail Has More Details on Paula's Blood Values and Off Scores + News She'll Put up £1m for an MRI lie detector

Also, Paula can also get anxiety sometimes as well.

from Wiki:

Radcliffe was then selected for the 2000 IAAF World Half Marathon Championships in Mexico.[63] Radcliffe won her first World title, despite suffering a panic attack when her nose tape, designed to help her breathe, fell off half way round.[64]

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.[108][111]

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’. The UK Anti Doping Agency, having received Radcleffe's blood test history via the IAAF, stated that "Ukad has come to the same conclusion as the IAAF review that there is no case to answer".[122]

I never said otherwise. What I think is, that if WADA or the IAAF really wanted to change and really go against doping, they would start with fresh personnel, instead of continuing with the questionable old guys, protecting each other and standing up against transparency and criminalization of doping. Look at how IAAF, including Coe, fought the publication attempts from the University of Tübingen, including Coe's contradicting statements in front of the British parliament.

Add to those facts that Coe also didn't notice anything as Chair of FIFA's Ethics Committee, according to his words... Coe then in turn puts obviously corrupt people onto his new Ethics Committee (refer to that thread), and promotes one of his best buddies, a known doper defender, to become Chair of it.

It's funny how we (mostly) see the same facts, but come to completely different conclusions. Here for example WADA "I"C is criticizing the IAAF council, but doesn't suggest any consequences such as revamping it or getting fresh people in as new leaders.

From that, you apparently conclude that WADA is tough and fair and unbiased, because otherwise it wouldn't have criticized the IAAF Council. Then you further conclude that the IAAF Council may remain unchanged, and IAAF's president may come out of its midst, because even the tough and fair and unbiased WADA said so.

I would say that WADA's criticism is a political smokescreen, intended to bow to public pressure, and the lack of consequences is evidence for the former.

Similarly the Saugy scenario; WADA openly admitss that it doesn't believe his explanation about the destroyed samples (tough on doping or politics?), yet again it wants to continue to work with him (prove of Saugy's innocence or evidence of its bias?).

You will have to admit that history supports my side, as for example pointed out in the linked Throwback article with many examples including the IOC and the USOC, from Carl Lewis over Dieter Baumann to Merritt, all protected by their national organizations. Remember who created WADA? Yes exactly, IOC, USOC and other related organizations because of (perceived?) public pressure. Exactly those organizations that have such a pro-doping history were the ones to create WADA, allegedly to fight doping. Oh, and who became WADA's President? The Vice-President of the IOC, previously known as the Johnson defender. All one big happy family. I made my point.

Even today: look at Dennis Mitchell being USATFs relay coach of Gay and Gatlin, Nike hiring Gatlin, or UKAD ignoring Bonar, cutting back on drug testing before the London Olympics, letting doorbell Farah getting away with his ridiculous excuse etc. etc. etc.

According to that dictionary, yes. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, no. In any case, note that I didn't say that "independent" is factually wrong; I just find its use "laughable", because it implies that the WADA IC is not influenced by WADA. In that context, I note that you, like so many others, confused WADA with WADA IC here or there. For example, you said that the WADA IC considered the IAAF Rebuttal "scientifically sound". It did not. I cite: "The WADA experts have declared the rebuttal to be scientifically sound."

See how the public is being played here?

Also, how can any experts declare statements such as "Paula claimed it was 30 C" to be scientifically sound? Moreover, that document is so full of vague excuses such as "the OFF score is high, but altitude may cause elevated OFF scores" without going into the details. That is so obviously a deliberate cover-up attempt, just plain sickening. Refer to larkimm's (!) comments on that.

That's fine, I never argued otherwise. It should simply be called the WADA-C, in order to not pretend that WADA and WADA IC are two completely different entities.

Of course 1. Neither WADA nor Dick Pound can openly admit how large the scale of the doping overall as well as the IAAF involvement was, because the IAAF was reporting to WADA at that time. To do so, would be to admit their own failure as the controlling organization - yes, Pound was in WADA President for a large part of the time under investigation!

Correct. "seem" and "mostly". In addition to several damning facts (Armstrong, Russia, destroyed samples), there are even more allegations and insinuations (Lagat, Paula, Davies).

Right. Like Fuentes' blood bags. Admit it: even you can't keep a serious face when stating these things.

Cool story, rjm.

rjm33 wrote:

Shortly afterwards, her three suspect test results were leaked, though Radcliffe still refused to release her complete blood-test history.

That reminds me that Lord Conflict-of-Interest called these "three suspect test results" 1 - 2 isolated values. ;-)

Then it should be easy for you to see that a finding of a group organizational passive failure of a council, even one that Coe was an individual member of, and a recommendation that the individual Coe is the best man to fix the organizational issues, are not contradictary.

I think why we see the same facts differently is due to our opinions going into the "scandal". I saw then, and still see now, the IAAF having a leading anti-doping organization (the group of hard working individuals under Dolle), that was only recently undermined by Diack and his secret circle, inserting themselves in the last stage of the sanctioning process, and committing extortion. I see it more-so now because no one has been able to name a better ADO.

The public transparency you want will not improve anti-doping, but hinder it, as the public tries to second guess the data, and will not understand, or worse, refuse to accept, valid non-doping explanations (even those explained by Ashenden in papers), and view them as excuses, and evidence of doping and cover-ups and generate 2000-post threads of public discussion.

Criminalization of doping will not improve anti-doping, but make it more costly. Fraud, trafficking, possession of controlled substances, etc. are already crimes.

Starting over with "fresh personnel" would be both unnecessary, and a major step backwards, effectively throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I don't care about FIFA. I don't expect Ethics Commissions to see problems, but to investigate problems that come to them.

What about Dick Pound's 45-minute spirited defense of Ben Johnson? This doesn't look like this was Dick Pound's choice -- Canada needed a lawyer quickly in Seoul, and he was the only one available (a tax lawyer at that). This profile (in the Telegraph -- I know) doesn't sound like the Pound you are describing as complicit in cover-ups:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/drugsinsport/2325475/Dick-Pound-Making-enemies-was-part-of-job.html

"Pound recalls: "I took him into the bathroom in my hotel room and I said, 'Listen Ben, I've got to know, are you on anything, because if you are then there's nothing I can do about it?' He looked at me and he lied."

Similar argument for the barrister Michael Beloff. He wasn't so much defending UK dopers as much as pointing out excessive punishments going beyond, and therefore in violation of, what was permitted under WADA rules. Dopers are still being punished.

I didn't draw all these conclusions about WADA or the WADA IC, but simply said your stance was inconsistent -- you seemed to give the IAAF/Nick Davies email example as a response to my request for examples of WADA's pro-doping history, concluding that WADA cannot be trusted, when it is the WADA IC who said this needs further investigation, because (in their opinion) the IAAF/Nick Davies knew more about Russian skeletons than they were admitting. This is not an example to cause us to mistrust WADA.

What can we say about Saugy and the destroyed samples? They were collected, tested and destroyed, like any other samples, according to WADA guidelines, years before this "scandal". It looks like this request to take the Russian samples was kind of a one-off thing, for the first time. I can't form a judgement without seeing what the WADA instructions were, and who would have been aware.

What about history and the Throwback article? I didn't find anything about the IOC, except them actually sanctioning Ben Johnson, and that existing rules tied their hands for others who had lower concentrations. I also found nothing about Baumann or Merritt. While national organizations have "protected" their athletes, I don't find any evidence of the IOC's alleged pro-doping history in your Throwback article. Since the IOC formed WADA as an independent entity, I guess you see them as dependent too.

I'm not confusing WADA and the WADA IC. You cited the "WADA IC" report. For clearing up any doubt, in the report: "The IAAF rebuttal dated 06 November 2015 was accepted as scientifically sound by the WADA expert group assisting the IC and the IC concurs with that judgment." So it's correct that "the WADA IC considered the IAAF Rebuttal "scientifically sound"."

The statement "Paula claimed 30 C" is not a scientific statement (the report actually said 29 C). These details of "30 C" and "67 minutes" and "90 minutes", while providing endless opportunity for discussion, turns out to be not "scientifically" relevant. We have seen in this thread, papers and textbooks that show these plasma concentration effects can happen in cooler temperatures of 23 C, and after as little as 6 minutes of effort, and returns to normal 2 hours post-effort. There is no deliberate cover-up attempt, but this is just another example of the public not being able to understand, or refusing to accept, what scientific experts would consider valid "excuses".

The "I" in the WADA Independent Commission is meant to be independent of the accused (IAAF) and the accuser (ARD/Sunday Times/Ashenden/Parisotto). WADA was selected as an independent organization to form an independent committee to investigate the truthfulness of these allegations.

The IAAF *DID* openly admit the prevalence of doping, in their own 2011 study. And we learned that the IAAF was not reporting the blood data at all to WADA before 2009, and was not flagging suspicious ABP's to WADA, because they were using their own software, and not WADA's. So your theory of the IAAF, or WADA, not wanting to admit failure does not stand up.

Hey Rekrunner,

Do you reckon Coe/the IOC will let the Russians back in for Rio?

My guess is that he will, but if he doesn't then Coe is better than I think he is.

I think a decision should be made asap either way out of fairness to the athletes (well, the clean ones at any rate!), as it can't be easy to train for an event when you aren't sure of an invite.

The tough decision will come as a recommendation from Rune Andersen and 5 member task force monitoring the progress. Whether it is justified will depend on the report on June 17. If Russia is making genuine progress and conduct change, according to the roadmap laid out for them, then the IAAF should honor their side of the bargain. Russian athletes have already missed a World Championship.

After giving a spirited defense of the IAAF, part of me felt at the time that if Russia were banned, somehow the IAAF should have also been banned, as it takes two to tango. It seems to me awkward and ironic, dare I say hypocritical, that given the IAAF's (the secret circle) role in extortion, that the IAAF is the one who expelled Russia. But banning Russia, or worse the IAAF, punishes a lot of innocent athletes.

The tragic victims are the clean Russian athletes (if you think there are any), and the dirty ones who had little choice but to dope to compete under their national regime. Maybe some consideration should be given to athletes to compete under the Olympic flag. For example, is an athlete like Isenbayeva part of this?

For example, I think Liliya Shobukhova is, and continues to be, a multiple victim in this saga. She was forced to take life threatening doses of drugs. Then she was caught, and forced to make 450,000 Euros in multiple payments to avoid sanction. Then she was sanctioned anyway, and is now forever vilified by the public, including Paula, and will continue to receive pressure to return money back to organisations, like the London Marathon who promised to pursue her, to send the right message. I imagine at the time that she had to turn a large portion of appearance fees and prize money to her national federation, so probably never received the sums of money she will be asked to return. Maybe these organisations should ask the money from Diack.

Isn't it amazing that we have very spirited defence of Paul even though as the years tick by and women's marathoning is deeper than it has ever been the top times still plateau at low 2.20's, a mile down the road from Paula, who of course was clean. Can Rekrunner also give us a spirited defence of Flo Jo please because her performances were more believable.

She has managed to become part of the athletics furniture with the IAAF, BBC etc whilst side stepping the issue of her highly suspicious tests, she has some front.

It's been at least a month since we had a Coe/Cram/Paula love in, surely it's time for another...

The spirited attacks against Paula died down after WADA IC report Parts 1 and 2 failed to take the bait. The UK media have turned their attention to Coe.

OK -- FloJo:

- started lifting weights, and strength training like a man

- broken wind-meter read 0.0

Women's marathon:

Deep as ever, but still not very deep. Only 20 women in history (not counting Shobukhova) have run sub 2:20. In any race, there is usually no need to run faster to win. Lack of top depth in races makes them tactical wait and see affairs. Can you name fast time trial type races for women? It's rare to see a race like Shalane Flanagan taking a group of 7 to 35km leading to 4 women breaking the course record, but we can see the fast start didn't phase them much -- they all had plenty of reserve. (I'd think if blood doping worked, and everyone can do it undetected, we'd have more women under 2:20. I'd think if it worked for Paula, it could be repeated at least once again in history.)

rekrunner wrote:

(I'd think if blood doping worked, and everyone can do it undetected, we'd have more women under 2:20. I'd think if it worked for Paula, it could be repeated at least once again in history.)

The good old times with practically undetectable blood/epo/steroid doping are over. This shows everywhere with the exception of the men's marathon, but in particular in women's racing.

Now most people are limited to epo micro-dosing (with obviously smaller effects), out-of-competition doping in selected remote areas, and keeping the T/E ratio below 4 : 1. Plus of course new drugs that can't be detected yet; apparently there was no breakthrough lately.

I say most, because some athletes may continue to be protected by their NADOs and IAAF/WADA. For example, it is extremely suspicious that next to none gets caught by UKAD, while the UK performed stronger than the obviously drugged up Russians at the last Olympics. Doorbell Farah, I'm still laughing. With the current IAAF President, UKAD of course has a special status. See how Coe surrounds himself with Brits in the IAAF.

Then there is the special status of the Nike group (strong Armstrong supporter until the very end), which among other things is not only the main sponsor of USATF, but also had the current IAAF President under contract (who fought for them at the IAAF and denied it later...). No surprise then that Nike hired Gatlin, who recently at age 33 performed literally better than ever, including during his officially drugged up times. (I know, you call all of the above occurrences coincidental, including that UKAD significantly decreased their testing in the buildup to the Olympics.) At least such cases are now much less common than 10 - 20 years ago.

P.S. It's getting boring to jump through your hoops, rekrunner. As a last example for WADAs bias, pointed out here for the fourth time, look at how Coe attacked not only Seppelt, but also Ashenden's reputation, later than covered up by the WADA IC - also pointed out here in this thread a few times without response from you and larkimm. His various other lies, e.g. about the Tübingen publication attempts, were discussed here too (Paula's were proven here in the first 40 pages). Honestly, I'd be ashamed to defend such a person. That he cheated on his wife for at least ten years goes without saying.

rekrunner wrote:

After giving a spirited defense of the IAAF, part of me felt at the time that if Russia were banned, somehow the IAAF should have also been banned, as it takes two to tango. It seems to me awkward and ironic, dare I say hypocritical, that given the IAAF's (the secret circle) role in extortion, that the IAAF is the one who expelled Russia. But banning Russia, or worse the IAAF, punishes a lot of innocent athletes.

Ha ha, that's a good point - they should ban the IAAF also from this year's Olympics!

As you say, the Russian athletes are victims in this in that they were part of a programme of drug-taking, which probably left little opportunity for opt-out.

casual obsever wrote:

It is extremely suspicious that next to none gets caught by UKAD, while the UK performed stronger than the obviously drugged up Russians at the last Olympics. Doorbell Farah, I'm still laughing. With the current IAAF President, UKAD of course has a special status. See how Coe surrounds himself with Brits in the IAAF.

Then there is the special status of the Nike group (strong Armstrong supporter until the very end), which among other things is not only the main sponsor of USATF, but also had the current IAAF President under contract (who fought for them at the IAAF and denied it later...). No surprise then that Nike hired Gatlin, who recently at age 33 performed literally better than ever, including during his officially drugged up times.

+1

I've mentioned before how the UK beating the drugged up Russians in the 2012 medal table is somewhat remarkable.

And my biggest concern around Coe is that he clearly doesn't see anything inherently wrong with Nike sponsoring a convicted doper.

As much as I want to support Coe and believe he is the right guy for change, contradictions such as this keep cropping up.

The real "secret" to the rapid and dramatic improvement by Mo Farah with his new coach Alberto Salazar was because of new "revolutionary" training methods such as "push ups", "sit ups", and "weight training"... that no other coach in the world could possibly have known about.

As Mo's legs and body became stronger and faster... simultaneously... his hearing became weaker and weaker...until he could not even hear his doorbell ring... to answer the door... when the doping test person was ringing the doorbell... to do a doping test on Mo Farah.

Just a c...

Of course Alberto Salazar (with the NOP) has his own blood testing equipment. Frederico Rosa has also purchased his own personal and expensive blood testing equipment to use for his athletes at his 5 training camps in Kenya.

All of the blood tests mentioned in this new article (and many other lab tests not mentioned) about blood testing for recreational athletes being more easily "available within 5 years" have actually been easily available as blood tests for over 30 years to professional athletes with access to people with knowledge and skill in this area of medicine.

For example:

Paula Radcliffe.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2016/may/04/blood-testing-for-amateur-runners

Oh boy.

Coincidence, not evidence.

The evidence is: Paula is clean - Seb trusts Paula - IAAF is against doping - Seb trusts Nike - Nike is against doping - Gatlin is clean.

Rekrunner... It's pretty clear that blood doping worked and whilst Psula wS hammering 2.15 there was a whole load of Russians peppering the 2.20/21 area. What was interesting about these (and there were many) is that they were almost all old (35-40) and they also looked nothing like athletes. If you look at the best in the world (Kipchoge is the perfect example) they are so smooth, so effortless they stand out a mile. Anyone who looks horrendous running or very ungainly should not be in the top handful in the world, it doesn't add up. A large number of these women were clearly cheating regularly and going undetected in major marathons. They probably go a long way to explaining the 'high number of high placed finishers in the London marathon with suspect blood results'

Rushkies wrote:

Rekrunner... It's pretty clear that blood doping worked and whilst Psula wS hammering 2.15 there was a whole load of Russians peppering the 2.20/21 area. What was interesting about these (and there were many) is that they were almost all old (35-40) and they also looked nothing like athletes. If you look at the best in the world (Kipchoge is the perfect example) they are so smooth, so effortless they stand out a mile. Anyone who looks horrendous running or very ungainly should not be in the top handful in the world, it doesn't add up. A large number of these women were clearly cheating regularly and going undetected in major marathons. They probably go a long way to explaining the 'high number of high placed finishers in the London marathon with suspect blood results'

1) You might want to check the spelling on the name of that last post by someone with the first letter....r....in their name.

2) Who are you talking about in this sentence?:

"Anyone who looks horrendous running or very ungainly should not be in the top handful in the world, it doesn't add up."

You better not be talking about Paula "Perfect Form and Perfect Blood" Radcliffe ... Mr. Rushkies.

Are you trying to make an inflammatory implication about Paula?

Yes. I also note that this is the same Salazar who coached drug cheat Slaney when she was caught. Oh, and naturally USATF tried to protect her, and cleared her of all charges - fortunately to no avail at the end. Same story as with Baumann in Germany.

It is also the same Salazar who wrote this article 20 years ago, explaining why one can't be top-5 without doping. Same Salazar who gave Rupp, I cite, "prednisone and testosterone medication" at age 16. Same Salazar who performed testosterone experiments on his sons.

But let's get back to topic: same Salazar who is best buddy with anti-doping Coe.

Yes. This is indeed tragic because the tester was trying to reach him via phone and doorbell for a full hour. Poor Mo and his hearing. UKAD confirmed the plausibility of the above, so he really is that weakened, hearing-wise.

Hilarious how they mention Paula and low Hb within a few sentences. Guess they haven't seen her 16.2 g/dl.

rjm33 wrote:

As Mo's legs and body became stronger and faster... simultaneously... his hearing became weaker and weaker...until he could not even hear his doorbell ring... to answer the door... when the doping test person was ringing the doorbell... to do a doping test on Mo Farah.

I bet he heard it the third time they called.

My favourite story is of the female tennis player who became so worried when the drug testers rang her LA doorbell that she immediately repaired to her panic room, fearing the worst from these dangerous-looking people outside her door.

I thought that UKAD determined the plausible explanation was the possibility of doorbell "error" for Mo Farah's doorbell.

Paula's blood can have an anemic low hemoglobin level one day and then just 2 days later she can have a hemoglobin level that is actually above normal.

It just depends on which day you do the blood test . Fridays tend to be low and Sundays tend to be high. It also depends on if her anemia has been effectively treated with wheat grass and ostrich on that day... or not.

Paula's blood tests can be highly variable. That is probably why she does regular private and personal blood testing on her blood to "keep track" of things...and to make sure her blood stays in the "perfect zone".

OK casual obsever?

rjm33 wrote:

OK casual obsever?

Sounds good to. It also explains why those familiar with her (zigzag) baseline are convinced of her innocence.