Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

Truth is as much a defence in the the libel laws of England & Wales too.

There are some European law concerns about privacy that might impact the publishing of the actual scores, but now that Sky have done so that is out of the window.

Really interested to see where the ST goes this weekend, as they can't ignore the story that they seeded in the first place.

pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

Clerk, I could have a better idea about the situation after Vilamoura if I could see the INVESTIGATED VALUES, not the INTERPRETATION of the values.

If I know the level of Hgb, of Hct, her MCV, RBC, RDW, MPV, PDW, PCT, LPCR, WBC, MCH, MCHC, and something connected with LYM, GRAN, MID, in this case I could have my idea about her situation.

Till when I read numbers that are INTERPRETATION of the tests, sorry, but I don't have any confidence in final assertion, because in my life I faced too many differences after testing athletes clean, in different period of their training and in different conditions.

Coach is on the right track with this. Oxygen vector doping really screws with a few of those acronyms he posted. .

What acronyms?

larkim wrote:

Truth is as much a defence in the the libel laws of England & Wales too.

There are some European law concerns about privacy that might impact the publishing of the actual scores, but now that Sky have done so that is out of the window.

Really interested to see where the ST goes this weekend, as they can't ignore the story that they seeded in the first place.

I wonder if the release of the figures in a positive light on Sky yesterday was a play by Murdoch, who also owns the Times, to delve deeper through his other media companies.

[quote]I'm loving the fact that more people believe Antio Cabral's mental recollection of a two hour period of time during what would have been a relatively insignficant series of events (to him) 12 years ago, published on an internet forum, compared to the statement made by someone for whom accuracy and truthfulness in her accounts would make the difference between being pilloried and ostracised by the world athletics community and being potentially exonerated.[quote] You mean the recollection of events that tallies EXACTLY with the regulations in force at the time? As opposed to the recollection of events that Radcliffe has told differently in different places (did you not read the excerpt from her book that says the bloods were taken BEFORE the race?); according to Radcliffe in her book the blood sample was taken before the race, now it was immediately after.

So, if you are asking me if I believe someone whom I have known on these boards for a long time and who has an impeccable record of truth-telling over someone who has told two demonstrably different stories of the same event, then surely the answer is obvious?

She says bloods were taken before the race. Presumably entirely verifiable. She does not say that bloods were not taken after the race. You're implying something because of the perspective you have.

One thing we all know for sure is Paula was shite over the last lap of the 10km but could handel anyones pace for 24.5 laps. Galen Rupp could handel any pace for 24.5 laps then die off, maybea he should run the marathon and run 2:01

Truth is as much a defence in the the libel laws of England & Wales too.

She does not say that bloods were not taken after the race. You're implying something because of the perspective you have.

larkim wrote:

Truth is as much a defence in the the libel laws of England & Wales too.

There are some European law concerns about privacy that might impact the publishing of the actual scores, but now that Sky have done so that is out of the window.

Really interested to see where the ST goes this weekend, as they can't ignore the story that they seeded in the first place.

Yes, but in England the burden of proof is on the defense to prove truth. In America, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove a falsehood.

That results in a huge difference in what gets printed and what gets silenced through bullying threats.

Not how it works wrote:

So, if you are asking me if I believe someone whom I have known on these boards for a long time and who has an impeccable record of truth-telling over someone who has told two demonstrably different stories of the same event, then surely the answer is obvious?

Well, you've got Antonio saying medal ceremony was way after the end of the race (1.5 hours) and Renato saying it was immediately at the end of the race (as they came in). Two apparently first hand accounts of something 12 years ago.

You choose to believe one rather than another. I don't doubt that both are truthfully telling their recollection of the events of that day. I'm just pointing out that if you asked me what happened even on an relatively interesting day 12 years ago I would have to admit that my recollection might not be 100% accurate.

Her husband calling for WADA to exonerate her is pretty much the same thing as paula has been arguing against(individual athletes releasing data)

totally hypocritcal

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were now in the 21st century, or are you still in the 19th where husbands and wives have to hold identical views?

You choose to believe one rather than another.

Your problem is that you give both equal weight, whereas I choose to believe the version which tallies with the doping regulations in force at the time.

If you can produce any evidence that should incline one towards Renato's version, please do.

larkim wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were now in the 21st century, or are you still in the 19th where husbands and wives have to hold identical views?

so what about all the other athletes who haven't been exonerated by WADA

are you getting the hypocrisy of it now?

coach.. wrote:

so what about all the other athletes who haven't been exonerated by WADA

are you getting the hypocrisy of it now?

I'm saying you cannot be hypocritical of someone else's views. Gary's views on the subject may differ from Paula. Only Paula can be hypocritical on this point.

Not how it works wrote:

You choose to believe one rather than another.

Your problem is that you give both equal weight, whereas I choose to believe the version which tallies with the doping regulations in force at the time.

If you can produce any evidence that should incline one towards Renato's version, please do.

I didn't make any observation about doping protocols - I pointed out that both had a different recollection of when the medal ceremony took place, and used that as an example of how two different recollections of something 12 years ago may differ factually and should therefore be treated with a degree of scepticism.

It doesn't really matter to anyone whether Antonio or Renato's accounts are accurate. It does matter if Paula's is. And Paula's account therefore is the one which can and should be tested, and I would suggest that it most likely will be done by reference to documented facts on the day - such as time stamps of doping samples taken etc, none of which are (to my knowledge) currently in the public domain.

Anything else can range from idle speculation through to honest and accurate recollection, passing through honest but inaccurate recollection on the way.

I didn't make any observation about doping protocols - I pointed out that both had a different recollection of when the medal ceremony took place, and used that as an example of how two different recollections of something 12 years ago may differ factually and should therefore be treated with a degree of scepticism.

But when one account tallies with the official and correct protocol and one doesn't, I prefer to give more weight to the supported recollection.

Another point to note is that Renato's account refers only to the Men's race, and says nothing about what happened after the Women's race at all.

It does matter if Paula's is.

Since Paula has given (at least) two versions of events, I'd suggest that her "recollections" are entirely convenience-based. You may feel differently about believing liars, but I have a strong antipathy to doing so.

Mr Larkim,

You should be a little less judgemental about your fellow posters.

I do a considerable amount of work in the area of employment tribunals and investigations actually, but that's another matter.

You are making excuses for Paula.

This being in the pipeline for a fair time, she had a long time to think about how she was going to respond and play this generally. She is a very intelligent person, almost certainly has access to the best lawyers and advice and has friends in high places, yet the way she has handled this has been disastrous.

All this guff about not being able to prove innocence is not relevant here. The reason she is under suspicion is because of the existence of real evidence not in her favour - in this case blood data which has been deemed questionable by experts.

There's either a good (ie acceptable) explanation for this data or there is not.

I happen to think that if she had a good explanation then she would have issued it in the first instance and in it's entirety with all relevant contextual info.

That's what innocent people do.

Not about Paula, but only for explaining something to all the "not expert" posters about what happens in every WCh.

The top athletes have ALWAYS blood tests BEFORE the race. This happens in every Championship, but also in the Major Marathon (for example, one year Viktor Rothlin was tested one hour after midnight, only 7 hours before the start of London Marathon).

So, it's absolutely normal that the best athletes, chosen by IAAF, must have a blood test before the race.

Instead, what happens AFTER the race doesn't depend on a choice of IAAF, but on another factor : the position of the athlete in the race.

In this case, we must still look at two different situations :

1) Positions that every athletes know there is of sure the doping control (top 3 in every competition, or in some case top 6, but Always following precise informations which everybody can have BEFORE the race)

2) Positions drawn by the responsibles of IAAF antidoping, not communicated to anybody before the race. In this case, if for example the draw includes position 6, 9 and 14, athletes can't know it, and only after the arrival the referees assigned to antidoping go to communicate to the athletes in the drawn positions they must go to doping control.

3) All the test AFTER the race are, normally, with urine only. In case of WR, also after the race we have both the test : urine and blood. Instead, before the race there are the most part of blood tests.

I want to remind that, if we search some illegal substance, we can find it in the urine only. Blood tests have the goal to individuate strange parameters, such as to create some doubt or suspicion about the athlete, and in this case normally WADA, IAAF and National Antidoping Agency increase the number of OOC tests with the athletes, Always with urine, sometimes with blood too, in order to have data enough for building the BP.

About the specific case of Vilamoura, I can't say if Paula was tested immediately after the race, or 90 minutes later. The two races were run in different times, and women started after the end of the men race. What I can say is that the 6 selected athletes for the control, including the top 3, went to the doping room BEFORE the finish of the race, since the last athlete ran about 1:25, so we were in the doping room about 25 minutes after the arrival of the top athletes.

Also, I remember that the start for men was at 10am (and the temperature of 22° can be related to that time of the day), while the start for women was at 11:30am, and the temperature was about 29° at the start, continuing to raise till, arguably, 32°.