OMG, I totally wish Paula Radcliffe gets caught/outted.

"Paula Radcliffe has put Britain on the map," agrees Hartmann. "She set a record that's so far out there, and it's already 10 years old, that record could become 20 or even 25 years old. That tells you everything you need to know. And hopefully with the clampdown in drug testing there won't be an athlete who can go near it. There's no clean athlete who can go near that in the next 10 years."

That part is very interesting!

Nested quoting is a pain in these forums — sorry if it doesn’t work.

When the suspicious scores you suggest exist are found, I’m prepared to revise my claims. Note, they will also be subject to the pre-2009 issues identified and quantified by the scientists.

But surely you agree, that the suspicious points we DO know about cannot be linked to these prior performances. As far as I know, future doping cannot work to improve the past.

That doesn’t seem to be an outrageous claim.

Success of other dopers? If we limit ourselves to the unique event of the marathon, there are a severe lack of examples. For both men and women, there are how many, 2 or 3 in the top-100? For the men, is there anyone even in the top-50? Again, even the Sunday Times reported 90% of the athletes in the database were not flagged as suspicious by Ashenden/Parisotto’s reliable analysis.

Do Shobukhova and Jeptoo count as a success or a failure? Even doping, they failed to get closer than 3 minutes to the world record. They used EPO and failed.

Regarding secrets, every athlete in the history of every sport has their scores kept secret. They should be known to independent anti-doping experts, but not the public.

I take Ashenden and Parisotto’s words in peer reviewed papers with more weight than their words in open letters in self-defence. When there is a contradiction, the peer reviewed words win.

I don’t take anyone’s interpretation, but make my own. I have read the IAAF’s replies, and most importantly, the endnotes. I have read several of the papers written by the scientists and some textbooks. There really doesn’t seem to be much room for interpretation of Ashenden’s scientific words in the peer-reviewed papers. These papers clearly demonstrate many things that can lead to “false positives”, that were corrected in 2007 and 2009. All of the non-expert challenges in this forum seem to doubt that these effects can be properly applied to Paula — something the experts Ashenden or Parisotto never said, either in papers or in public.

The samples are reliable for a group summary analysis, where individual errors can average out, but not for individual ABP-type comparisons and conclusions.

And we don’t know what specific conclusion they reached about Paula. That is your assumption, and their secret.

Can you please look up “undertaking” in the dictionary? Ashenden is asking that the IAAF 1) give a “promise” to the public, and 2) give “the full database” to Dick Pound’s independent review. Even Ashenden doesn’t ask to make the database public. What does *that* tell you? I don’t know if they made a public “promise”, but the IAAF gave “the full database” through 2015, to Dick Pound’s independent committee, making the “public undertaking” moot.

Again, IMO the values should be known to independent anti-doping experts, but NOT the non-expert public population looking to confirm their own pre-judgements.

Ashenden’s “altitude detection” method fails when testing is at sea-level after extended altitude stays and/or altitude tent usage.

I showed you several public tables that show up to 16.5 is still ok for women at SEA-LEVEL, and that we can subtract 1.4 for women at 2400m to compare it to sea-level.

16.2 is well within normal at 2400m, and 14.8 is OK for Paula at sea-level.

No one seems to have a problem comparing Paula to population limits.The whole Sunday Times analysis was about 3 off-scores which ranged from 6-11 points above sea-level suspicion, and only 1 off-score, 3 points above altitude suspicion.Shobukhova had 7 off-scores ranging from 11-53 points above sea-level suspicion, and 7 off-scores ranging from 3-45 points above the altitude-level suspicion.That is a massive, difference, even accounting for individual variations.

pop_pop!_v.2.2.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

all of Shobukhova's high scores (she had 7 as high or way higher than Paula's highest score

Please stop posting this. For the 10th time, there is no comparing off-scores from athlete-to-athlete. It's effectively a per-athlete z score.

We all know Paula used that as an official excuse. It's more wrong than the other wrong excuses she used to hide her doping.

The IAAF is by far the most aggressive enforcer of the ABP.

pop_pop!_v.2.2.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Here's another coincidence: All of her suspicious scores came AFTER her two world records in 2002, 2003! Maybe doping made her slower?

Another excuse that is wrong many different ways. The effects of doping throws off scores for a very long time, pre-event and post-event. This is why, technically, the bio-passport is very effective.

The problem is the IAAF doesn't enforce the few results of testing they collect every year. Paula being the gold standard of a doper that the IAAF will never test positive.

Please move onto more creative excuses. Please!

I should only need to reply once, and I'm sure I already have. I don't know or care if he agrees with me, but I agree with him in part, and disagree in other parts.Each of the 100 times fails on two counts:1) We don't actually know Ashenden's opinion about Paula. He wanted to keep that a secret.2) Which Ashenden do you mean? Some of his statements in open letters appear to contradict some of his work in peer-reviewed papers. Even the WADA IC commented on the large discrepancies, but felt it was not up to them to reconcile the differences.I pretty much agree with all of the papers I've read that Ashenden helped write. So this must mean he agrees with me, about many things that can cause false positives.I disagree with Ashenden's public words to the extent that they disagree with his peer-reviewed published words.

yup yup wrote:

For the 100th times, Ashenden does not agree with you.

...

Props to Pros wrote:

Does rojo really think most pro athletes are clean? How can he think that world leaders are clean?

Who did Lance beat that was clean? Name one guy.

Cadel Evans

game over, go hide.

Raneto Conavo wrote:

Plus this article is really interesting... reading it in 2016!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/apr/20/paula-radcliffe-london-marathon-record

"It was noted that her time qualified her to compete in the men's marathon at the upcoming world championships in Paris, and she was quizzed on her use of aboriginal emu oil – a product 400m Olympic gold medallist Cathy Freeman had extolled – to heal the wounds caused by a freak accident running into a child on a bike during a training run in Albuquerque, New Mexico."

How many freak injuries and illnesses has she had

It seems to be a lot

Just think, if every head bob cost her even just 1/1000th of a second, she'd have run 23 seconds faster by eliminating that inefficiency. If it's 1/100th of a second, we're talking almost 4 minutes faster!

rekrunner wrote:

No one seems to have a problem comparing Paula to population limits.

Posted the person who hasn't read WADA publications on the matter.

Let's compare apples to oranges and tell me how orange an apple is. That's what we're talking about.

Interesting...Any biomechanics gurus have an opinion on this?

Consider this.... wrote:

Just think, if every head bob cost her even just 1/1000th of a second, she'd have run 23 seconds faster by eliminating that inefficiency. If it's 1/100th of a second, we're talking almost 4 minutes faster!

rekrunner wrote:

1) We don't actually know Ashenden's opinion about Paula. He wanted to keep that a secret.

And why is that? Paula promised litigation.

Who in their right mind would, knowing Paula is ready to pull the litigation trigger and grind her opponents to dust in court, proffer an opinion on the woman's scores? Certainly not a trained, practicing scientist.

Your doubt generation attempts on Ashenden are shameless. Are you laughing out loud every time you post stuff like that?

Changing the subject:

The list of extraordinary incidents with Paula is, well, extraordinary.

There was the "nose strip" incident.

There was the "Christmas card" incident that needed surgery.

I know there are more. It was one of the more interesting things about the other Paula thread. Nothing ever seems to add up with her.

rekrunner wrote:

The IAAF is by far the most aggressive enforcer of the ABP.

Please stop posting these false statements.

You haven't even bothered to look at WADA's annual reports on the topic. The IAAF has a report for 2015 on the topic too. Whatever you do, don't read that one either.

Lay off Paula, losers.

Yes, lay off

Quit hatin' on Paula

"Haile Gebrselassie told me that if I went to Berlin, I could run 2.13. Berlin on paper was a faster course. [...] I did think I could go faster if things kept progressing and I got a decent training load in. I was in better shape in early 2004 but then I got hurt. There wasn't a race when I could cash in."

I looked at the reports. The UCI does more ABP testing, but resulting in far fewer ABP sanctions.Stop pretending that WADA or the IAAF annual reports say something contradicting this:"The 56 ABP convictions that the IAAF has obtained to date is more than have been obtained by all other sports federations and national anti-doping agencies put together. At the WADA ABP Experts Symposium held in Doha in November 2015, it was reported that there have been 85 ABP cases brought across all sports to date, of which 69 (or 81%) have been from athletics. As noted above, the IAAF has obtained 56 convictions to date, with 13 cases still pending. The UCI (cycling) has secured the next most ABP convictions, with 13. The IAAF is the only anti-doping body to have ever obtained aggravated sanctions for an ABP offence."Wikipedia gives us slightly different information: UCI has 14 sanctions, and the IAAF has 65 sanctions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_passportIt's not even close. Nobody does ABP better. The UCI is a far distant second, while other sports combined account for the remaining 2 or 3 ABP sanctions.If you have a specific WADA or IAAF annual report in mind that suggests a different enforcement of the ABP, please provide the relevant statistic and source, Otherwise it's you spreading false statements.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The IAAF is by far the most aggressive enforcer of the ABP.

Please stop posting these false statements.

You haven't even bothered to look at WADA's annual reports on the topic. The IAAF has a report for 2015 on the topic too. Whatever you do, don't read that one either.

Who do you mean by "we"? I think you should speak for yourself because you say a lot of things no one else is talking about.I actually have read the WADA publications on the matter. Again, did you have one specific one in mind? Maybe with a specific quote or statistic? When I say "no one", I mean the Sunday Times, and their readers who bought into an analysis based on population limits without raising this question.I was talking about the improved 2005 EPO testing not detecting Shobukhova's use of EPO despite having multiple (7) off-scores indicating a much higher possibility of doping than Paula's off-scores.What are you talking about?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

No one seems to have a problem comparing Paula to population limits.

Posted the person who hasn't read WADA publications on the matter.

Let's compare apples to oranges and tell me how orange an apple is. That's what we're talking about.