Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

bobgob · 2015-09-08T09:16:34-04:00

No more rumors. This is her in her own words. [quote]Statement of Paula Radcliffe following the Culture Media and Sport Committee Hearing of 8 September 2015 regarding the Sunday Times’ allegations concerning blood data. I categorically deny that I have resorted to cheating in any form whatsoever at any time in my career, and am devastated that my name has even been linked to these wide-ranging accusations. I have campaigned long and hard throughout my career for a clean sport. I have publicly condemned cheats and those who aid them. These accusations threaten to undermine all I have stood and competed for, as well as my hard earned reputation. By linking me to allegations of cheating, damage done to my name and reputation can never be fully repaired, no matter how untrue I know them to be. Whilst I have the greatest of respect for anyone responsibly trying to uncover cheating in sport, and of course for Parliament itself, it is profoundly disappointing that the cloak of Parliamentary privilege has been used to effectively implicate me, tarnishing my reputation, with full knowledge that I have no recourse against anyone for repeating what has been said at the Committee Hearing. At the time of the recent Sunday Times coverage, I wrestled long and hard with a desire to speak out with the true facts concerning my position, and, to fully explain any fluctuations in my blood data. However by ‘coming out’ in that fashion I was made aware that I would be facilitating mass coverage of my name in connection with false allegations of possible doping, which would enable further irreparable damage to be done to my reputation. As a result of today’s Parliamentary Hearing I can no longer maintain my silence. The investigation by ARD and the Sunday Times may have been a perfectly valid enterprise if the goal was to expose cheats, their supporters, and, their infrastructures. If, however, innocent athletes, as in my case, are caught up in the desire to sensationalise and expand the story, then that goal loses a lot of credibility, and indeed, opportunities to catch the true offenders. As the journalists themselves state, abnormal readings are not proof of guilt, yet many innocent athletes are being implicated and tainted due to the distorted interpretation of a limited historic dataset. The Anti-Doping system cannot be manipulated in such a way that innocent athletes are no longer protected from the misuse of stolen and leaked incomplete data, the misinterpretation of that data, and, sensationalist newspaper exposés. I am 100% confident that the full explanations and circumstances around any fluctuations in my personal data on a very small number of occasions will stand up to any proper scrutiny and investigation. Indeed they have already done so. In my case, numerous experts have concluded that there is simply no case to answer. I have at all times been open and transparent, encouraging and supporting the use of blood profiling for many years. At no time have any of the various anti- doping authorities found any reason to level any charge of abnormal practice or cheating against me whatsoever. My results were reviewed contemporaneously, and, more recently at my request following the Sunday Times’ articles, which insofar as they erroneously alluded to me were irresponsibly published. Nothing improper has ever been found, since it never occurred. WADA themselves have again investigated following the recent articles. I understand the team from WADA found nothing and I fully expect that once the Independent Committee publish their report I will again be found to have no case to answer. 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 threshold, and this is invalid given that it was collected immediately following a half marathon race run around midday in temperatures of approximately 30C. None of my blood test scores are anywhere near the 1 in 1000 threshold as was claimed by the Sunday Times and that which is seen as suspicion of doping. No abnormalities were ultimately found and any allegation that the IAAF did not follow up on blood data results in my case is false. Further, not one of the values questioned by the Sunday Times occurred around any of my best performances or races, including all my appearances at the London Marathon. This makes it all the more disappointing that my identity was effectively leaked at the Parliamentary Hearing, under the guise of there being a British athlete and London Marathon winner who is erroneously under suspicion. There is undoubtedly a major issue with doping in sport, and blood doping in its various guises has become a tough opponent for the authorities to combat effectively. The processes to capture those involved are complicated and have taken many years to evolve. The process continues with the help of athletes, scientists, and in some cases, the media. It was in the spirit of this that I agreed to meet with the Sunday Times reporters before publication of their story. I was incredibly disappointed however that they appeared to purely want to link me to their story. Their experts (one of whom spoke at the Committee Hearing today) gave their assessment of what they say "may" have led to abnormalities in my data. However, they did so without any knowledge of context, of personal circumstances, and, of any other facts; all of which would be, and in fact were, available to the multiple experts who examined my data at the time and more recently. The consideration and indeed necessity of that type of extrinsic information is paramount for all proper evaluation and interpretation of test data. Sadly, in my case the Sunday Times’ experts failed appallingly. In my case, the necessary extrinsic information relates to how and when the tests were conducted. I had been ill prior to the race and was taking strong antibiotics, which may have affected the data. Two (of the three flagged tests) were done immediately following races, which today would invalidate any tests. Indeed there is now a two hour rule before blood can be collected following any training or competition. This is because the evidence showed how this affects the figures. Furthermore, they were all conducted following prolonged periods of altitude training, which is today recognised as significantly impacting blood figures, and is therefore taken into account when interpreting blood data. There are also other reasons why the pre-2009 data may be considered unreliable, as various experts have explained in their evaluations; these include unreliability and inconsistency of analysis machines and transportation and storage variances. Obviously dehydration is a huge factor in post-race tests, particularly in very hot conditions. For example, one of the tests was done immediately after finishing a half marathon in Portugal in midday temperatures of approximately 30 degree Celsius heat. The Sunday Times recently attempted to obtain the consent of athletes to publish their stolen medical data, asserting behind the scenes to the effect that if consent isn’t given it will look like an athlete has something to hide and may therefore be guilty of doping. This was effectively tantamount to blackmail, and plainly unacceptable. I was extremely disturbed to see how young athletes preparing for the World Championships were upset and confused by the intrusion and demands of these journalists. A further important point is that cheats wishing to know the normal ranges were being given very valuable information and assistance by the Sunday Times. For these reasons and primarily the need for qualified interpretation with all relevant context, the sport’s governing bodies requested that athletes should not release their blood data. I was happy to stand with them. Although I have nothing to fear in terms of what the data shows, because I have nothing to hide and have done nothing wrong, it should be remembered that what is being discussed is confidential medical data which has been stolen or leaked. Such partial and historic data is of little value on its own, and, can only result in further misinterpretation and speculation. One expert said to me that trying to evaluate the data in question, shorn of context, is like trying to put speed values on a car without knowing whether the readings show miles per hour or kilometers per hour. Another senior independent expert who WADA recommended and who is head of the WADA accredited laboratory in Lausanne was asked at my request to review the data following the Sunday Times articles (without being told my identity). He concluded that: “Evaluation of Profile [redacted] - Review of Blood Data from 2001 -2008 I looked carefully the data which are part of the profile [redacted]. To my knowledge, they were obtained through several technologies. Moreover, data obtained for example in Vilamoura in 2003, with bloods collected before and right after the half marathon, ran in hot conditions, are typically showing effects of confounding factors. The increase of 2.8 in Hb (and no significant effect on ret%) is due to a drastic hemo-concentration caused by the specific race conditions. This post-race value, as most of the others, today would not be validated, and then not be implemented in a real biological passport. Therefore, I consider that any interpretation of this profile, which would be done by ignoring the confounding factors cited above, is abusive. Furthermore, any interpretation of these data implemented in an individual and longitudinal blood profile between 2001 and 2008 can be considered to my eyes as intellectually dishonest and scientifically biased.” And here lies the problem, incomplete data can be incorrectly interpreted, and indeed, has been in my case by the Sunday Times. I would like to reiterate my abhorrence at having fingers falsely pointed at me and being accused of having suspicious blood results and therefore of possibly cheating in the sport I love. I have never resorted to cheating in any form whatsoever at any time in my career. I welcome further investigation if it is necessary, however, multiple experts having already concluded contemporaneously and following the Sunday Times’ articles that there is simply no case to answer. I will continue to fully support and help the quest to find and remove those who cast a huge shadow over athletics which sadly threatens to envelop the innocent along with the guilty. Paula Radcliffe[/quote]

Pro News/Info/Results Distance

Reply New New Thread

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 14 of 20

1 13 14 15 20

Next Last

10 years ago 09/11/2015 6:19am EDT

re: António Cabral

Wow. Expert witness not subject to nike money and ass kissing coe and his good old boys club. I gotta assume.

António Cabral wrote:
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.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 6:27am EDT

re: Longjack

Besides, it was very easy to detect if the warm of that day have some effect to higher the test values. Its 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.

I think Mr Cabral hits the nail on the head here - did the other athletes tested at the same time after the same race in the same conditions show equal (or even similar) difference in their scores? Easy enough to answer, I would have thought.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 6:45am EDT

re: Not how it works

Mr Cabral has made disparaging comments about Paula Radcliffe in the past. I would therefore take what he writes with a pinch of salt

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4245676&page=1

10 years ago 09/11/2015 6:48am EDT

re: Renato Canova

Maybe that's how it works now Dr Canova, but not back then:

http://www.dis-sportschiedsgericht.de/files/regelwerke/IAAFProcedGuidelinesDopingControl.pdf

No mention of pre-competition testing AT ALL, and selection of athletes is EITHER position OR random.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 6:59am EDT

re: Jimbo68

Jimbo68 wrote:
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.

I'm just as much at liberty to be judgemental about other posters here as anyone else. We are all expressing opinions, very few of us who post here (and Lord knows, I don't know why I do!) have insight into real information other than what is publicly available to all.

The "guff" about proving her innocence is entirely relevant on this forum. This forum is full of people voicing opinions about Paula. You're right, I happen to have an opinion that she is clean. I hold that opinion because of what I consider to be some factual observations:-

- no failed tests

- what I consider to be a consistent and persistent opposition to doping throughout her career, and a very public one at that

- a principled stand which I understand the logic of in relation to maintaining some anonymity about blood results

- the fact that she is the highest profile female marathoner in the world, and a presumption that WADA has followed its own processes and fully investigated any untoward blood values to its satisfaction

(Some) innocent people (can) do some very odd things when they are put under pressure. Paula gives the impression of being someone who is very highly strung - in my experience, just the sort of person likely to make what appear to be poor judgements in the cause of defending themselves.

I make no bones about it - everything I read from this point onwards is read with a prejudice that I believe her to be innocent. I try to keep an open mind, though recognise this is impossible. But I have seen and heard NOTHING on this board from those who accuse her of doping that (in my judgement) trumps the facts as I see them.

In years to come, feel free to wheel this out as a post of a naive, gullible fanboy. But at the moment I feel she is the victim of an unwarranted witchhunt and as someone in athletics that I respect, I can't help myself but try to convince other forum posters that they are wrong.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 7:16am EDT

re: Not how it works

No, this system works from 2001. During WCh in Edmonton, all the athletes were tested during the 3 days preceding the competition.

In 2005, Dorcus Inzikuru (winner of the first Championship of 3000 steeple for women) was tested 3 times (with blood) in the same morning : one from WADA, one from IAAF and one from the Finnish National Agency. This clearly shows a total lack of coordination. Dorcus came to me crying "coach, I have no more blood...", and I explained "your final is after one week, you medulla now reacts producing new Red Cells, and after 7 days you are in the best shape of your life...".

You must understand that all the test before WCH must be considered as normal OOC tests. It's very easy for WADA and IAAF to collect the most part of samples when all the athletes are together. This explains because there is not a specific note regarding blood tests in the days immediately before the competitions, but the reality is that Always there are test with the most part of athletes, and Always with the components of the best Teams (I speak about enduranec events, I don't know if also for the athletes of other events there are blood tests before Championships).

10 years ago 09/11/2015 7:29am EDT

re: Renato Canova

Im British and i can assure you that Paula is as clean as a whistle

Nobody has any doubt here and i would stake my house on it

10 years ago 09/11/2015 7:48am EDT

re: larkim

Lol, I was sure I'd registered my name.

larkim

10 years ago 09/11/2015 8:01am EDT

re: Renato Canova

I have to admit, I don't really follow your chain of logic here?

Radcliffe is clearly lying about the pre-race test, because she says that the DCO who took the sample knew the result at the post-race testing. Whether or not the pre-race test happened, the result would not have been reported back to the DCO, who would not have passed it back to the athlete.

What we do know, and what you have confirmed, is that there is a pre-race sample which, if normal, would absolutely vindicate Radcliffe, but which she is absolutely silent about - I wonder why?

10 years ago 09/11/2015 8:36am EDT

re: Not how it works

My chain of logic is very simple : I try to describe FACTS, and don't do any comment about SUPPOSITIONS regarding Paula.

Facts :

1) There were blood tests BEFORE the competition, may be for more than 50 athletes.

2) The temperature during the Women race started from 29° reaching or overtaking 32° at the end (about 40 minutes after midday)

3) With those conditions, the values are not reliable and it's not possible to give them any validity, since the deviation from the individual values in normal weather situation follows individual trends, and also if know how much this deviation is for other tested athletes, this doesn't mean the deviation for Paula must follow the same trend. Don't forget there were athletes who, in their contracts with the organizers of Major Marathons, wanted the possibility to be authorized not to start in case of temperature higher than 17° (Vincent Rousseau, for example) renouncing their appearance fee, buit at the same time being free to compete in another Marathon during the next 30 days.

If hot and humidity have the same effect for everybody, of sure we couldn't see the Italian Ruggero Pertile, 41 years old, number 4 in WCh in Beijing...

I have my personal opinion about Paula, but I don't want to discuss here with people using their belly instead their brain.

I read too many things without any meaning, products of incomplete knowledge or prearranged opinions : for example, the fact Paula didn't win anything till 2001, as proof she began to use doping when started to win, forgetting she started to win SOMETHING ELSE, changing distance and, of course, competitors. I'm pretty sure that also the Radcliffe 2003 if had the opportunity to compete in 5000 and 10000m against the best Dibaba and Defar could only continue the same trend of before : to pace all the competition for finishing 30m behind them in the last lap.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 8:50am EDT

re: Renato Canova

Renato Canova wrote:
No, this system works from 2001. During WCh in Edmonton, all the athletes were tested during the 3 days preceding the competition.
In 2005, Dorcus Inzikuru (winner of the first Championship of 3000 steeple for women) was tested 3 times (with blood) in the same morning : one from WADA, one from IAAF and one from the Finnish National Agency. This clearly shows a total lack of coordination. Dorcus came to me crying "coach, I have no more blood...", and I explained "your final is after one week, you medulla now reacts producing new Red Cells, and after 7 days you are in the best shape of your life...".
You must understand that all the test before WCH must be considered as normal OOC tests. It's very easy for WADA and IAAF to collect the most part of samples when all the athletes are together. This explains because there is not a specific note regarding blood tests in the days immediately before the competitions, but the reality is that Always there are test with the most part of athletes, and Always with the components of the best Teams (I speak about enduranec events, I don't know if also for the athletes of other events there are blood tests before Championships).

I've read the Sunday Times story again and it confirms what you said. She was tested 2 days before and then after the race showed a 40% rise in her blood scores from the test 2 days previous. The paper then goes on to say that this could have been achieved through blood doping but that it is not proof.

The thing I don't get is, if you know you've been tested and know that you are likely to win the race and get tested again in 2 days time, why would you blood dope in the period between the 2 tests? It just seems a crazy thing to do.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 8:51am EDT

re: Pilgrim_S

10 years ago 09/11/2015 8:58am EDT

re: Link

Link wrote:
wejo wrote:
I've posted a talk with Ross Tucker today. He tries to give some context to off-scores.
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/09/wejo-speaks-paula-radcliffe-can-gain-credibility-with-more-transparency-science-of-sports-ross-tucker-says-paulas-explanations-are-plausible-but-more-info-is-needed-tucker-youre-not-dealin/
From the above article:
The most impressive move Paula could make would be to get the expert hired by The Sunday Times Michael Ashenden on her side. If he looks at her values and says they pass the test, then it is ball-game over.
First, Ashenden has already weighted in. He's said that given her blood profile in those 3 tests there was only 1 in 1000 chance that she was not doping.
But, let's suppose for a moment that Ashenden did state that he believed that Paula was clean. That's hardly game over. Even if every expert testified that these levels could be explained by Paula's account, the 'game' wouldn't be over. Why?
1. We have to believe Paula's account: 'That she had been training at altitude, that she was on antibiotics that she's right about the account of her half marathon and on and on...
2. We know all too well that athletes can dope - prodigiously - and never test positive. (Or, test positive and be let off because of their importance to their sport...) Paula has run THREE minutes faster than doped East Africans have been able to. I'm sorry. Even if this turns out in Paula's favor, I will always be suspicious. I was when she ran it. The passage of time and the failure of anyone else to even come close to it has only increased my suspicion. I don't know why it hasn't increased yours, Wejo...

So even if all the blood experts say Paula is clean you still think she cheated?

This is why Paula never wanted her values leaked.

Seems to me the more experts that get involved, the better she looks so I wish she would just release everything and let the experts weigh in.

Who holds all of this data? WADA? IAAF? Paula herself? I cannot really see each individual athlete having all the results of every blood test they ever took so what exactly goes into 'releasing the data'?

Anyone know?

10 years ago 09/11/2015 9:18am EDT

re: Renato Canova

Here's a fact for you Dr Canova; the IAAF utilised the exact same protocols for testing all athletes of that period, some of whom were banned following adverse results. If we follow your chain of "logic" all of these bans should be overturned because the tests weren't "reliable".

You perhaps ought to use your own brain a little before commenting on others.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 9:26am EDT

re: Not how it works

Not how it works wrote:
Here's a fact for you Dr Canova; the IAAF utilised the exact same protocols for testing all athletes of that period, some of whom were banned following adverse results. If we follow your chain of "logic" all of these bans should be overturned because the tests weren't "reliable".
You perhaps ought to use your own brain a little before commenting on others.

Tell him armchair quarterback. I'm sure you know the process much better than a world class, gold medal winning, WR setting coach does.

Please tell us more.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 9:27am EDT

re: Not how it works

Maybe you know more than me what happened to many athletes.

Since I want Always to learn something that I don't know, can you, please, write the names of the banned athletes, and when they had the test ?

Thank you.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 9:38am EDT

re: Renato Canova

Does EPO even work for british white ladies?

10 years ago 09/11/2015 9:39am EDT

re: Renato Canova

If the conditions were so extreme as to cause her such dehydration, wouldn't Paula have mentioned something of it in the section of her autobiography specifically dedicated to that race? instead, she makes no reference to the heat nor dehydration.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 10:05am EDT

re: joho

joho wrote:
Who holds all of this data? WADA? IAAF? Paula herself? I cannot really see each individual athlete having all the results of every blood test they ever took so what exactly goes into 'releasing the data'?
Anyone know?

IAAF has all the data. What test scores they have is an open question.

Mr. Canova could tell us if the IAAF was collecting detailed blood parameters prior to WADA testing standards.

Once ADAMS was implemented, whatever testing Paula had would be in her account. It would be detailed data. But, prior to ADAMS, I don't know how it worked. Again, it's a great question for Mr. Canova.

10 years ago 09/11/2015 10:12am EDT

re: pop_pop!_v3.0

pop_pop!_v3.0 wrote:
joho wrote:
Who holds all of this data? WADA? IAAF? Paula herself? I cannot really see each individual athlete having all the results of every blood test they ever took so what exactly goes into 'releasing the data'?
Anyone know?
IAAF has all the data. What test scores they have is an open question.
Mr. Canova could tell us if the IAAF was collecting detailed blood parameters prior to WADA testing standards.
Once ADAMS was implemented, whatever testing Paula had would be in her account. It would be detailed data. But, prior to ADAMS, I don't know how it worked. Again, it's a great question for Mr. Canova.

The Sunday Times has at least some of the data if not all, certainly more than 3 scores.

Page 14 of 20

1 13 14 15 20

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

Jump To A Page

Follow Not how it works

Block Not how it works

Follow Not how it works

Block Not how it works

Follow larkim

Block larkim

Follow Renato Canova

Block Renato Canova

Follow larkim

Block larkim

Follow Not how it works

Block Not how it works

Follow Renato Canova

Block Renato Canova

Follow Pilgrim_S

Block Pilgrim_S

Follow Not how it works

Block Not how it works

Follow Renato Canova

Block Renato Canova

Follow larkim

Block larkim

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.