You are more than welcome to look at the list on the IAAF website, or are you claiming that Radcliffe had a test that nobody else did?
You are more than welcome to look at the list on the IAAF website, or are you claiming that Radcliffe had a test that nobody else did?
Exactly how it works wrote:
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.
Are you suggesting that the testing protocols weren't followed in Vilamoura? Please post some evidence of this.
PilgrimS wrote:
pop_pop!_v3.0 wrote: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.
Here we are again. In theory, Seppelt/Sunday Times has lots of data on Paula and "clean" Paula refuses to let the data be discussed in detail.
Ashenden or Parisotto could clear things up if her data were non-positive. Transparency would end the whole drama. But, the IAAF refuses to support transparency.
For those that haven't seen it, parts of her official statement don't fit her biography.
https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664Bored of stupid people wrote:
Exactly how it works wrote: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.
Are you suggesting that the testing protocols weren't followed in Vilamoura? Please post some evidence of this.
No, I'm stating that COACH Canova knows more about the subject than you do.
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.
.
Answering my own question, it appears the IAAF had VERY detailed blood parameters during Radcliffe's career and somehow very rapid results.
https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664If we believe Paula's biography, Seppelt's data has granular detail on her.
If she were clean, then there would be no problem supporting a public discussion of her data.
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.
pop_pop!_v3.0 wrote:
PilgrimS wrote:The Sunday Times has at least some of the data if not all, certainly more than 3 scores.
Here we are again. In theory, Seppelt/Sunday Times has lots of data on Paula and "clean" Paula refuses to let the data be discussed in detail.
Ashenden or Parisotto could clear things up if her data were non-positive. Transparency would end the whole drama. But, the IAAF refuses to support transparency.
For those that haven't seen it, parts of her official statement don't fit her biography.
https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664
Autobiography suggests there was no EPO test? I believe she said yesterday there was one.
It would help us if she made public some more blood data
The Scot wrote:
Autobiography suggests there was no EPO test? I believe she said yesterday there was one.
Shhh!!! You aren't supposed to notice that.
There are a number of problems with her statement. Some of them can't be helped others can.
Getting specifics of when/where testing occurred from your own biography suggests someone else prepped the statement and did a terrible job of it.
Incredible journalism by brojos. Rare.
Since I'm still waiting from you the names of athletes banned following adverse results, maybe better I explain you something.
The Biological Passport became effective for IAAF in 2009. Before that date, athletes could be banned ONLY IF WAS POSSIBLE TO FIND THE ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE IN THEIR URINE.
This means that IAAF didn't ban any athlete in periods before the adoption of BP, using the exact same protocols for testing the athletes, following adverse results.
So, it was not possible some athlete was banned in the same situation of Paula in Vilamoura, for the simple reason that in the urine of Paula it was not possible to find anything illegal.
Speaking again about FACTS, is a fact your deduction was completely fruit of imagination, and wrong.
"You perhaps ought to use your own brain a little, before cooking up stories which don't exist".
Renato Canova wrote:
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°.
Looks like Paula didn't think they would blood test after the race since a WR was very unlikely to happen in those conditions... And then surprise!
From her biography she says her hemoglobin was low before the race but she didn't have that info until after the race. However, if she did know her hemoglobin was low before hand, she could rationalize it in her mind that she was blood boosting only to bring back to her normal level. Kind of the rationale for a therapeutic use exemption.
[quote]Renato Canova wrote:
The Biological Passport became effective for IAAF in 2009. Before that date, athletes could be banned ONLY IF WAS POSSIBLE TO FIND THE ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE IN THEIR URINE.
/quote]
And the athletes knew that
That's why theres so many suspicious athletes.All they had to do was avoid an epo positive test at the time
Now ,they would all be banned
Pilgrim_S wrote:
[quote]Renato Canova wrote:
The Biological Passport became effective for IAAF in 2009. Before that date, athletes could be banned ONLY IF WAS POSSIBLE TO FIND THE ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE IN THEIR URINE.
/quote]
And the athletes knew that
That's why theres so many suspicious athletes.All they had to do was avoid an epo positive test at the time
Now ,they would all be banned
Which is why she not dare discuss unfreezing samples. Let's be fair to her, unfreezing samples is not likely in many ways.
There are too many problems with her explanations to post them all at once.
Another one of many: she's trying to minimize the wild swings in her scores by comparing her score to others. That's an apples to oranges comparison. It's like comparing height or weight. Every body is different.
Another one: I'm still not sure how she can justify food poisoning, anti-biotics, heat, and dehydration THEN dropping everyone at an elite event.
Almost nothing adds up.
EPO cheats out Paula.
Wada have issued a statement pretty much confirming the tests were useless
Pilgrim_S wrote:
Wada have issued a statement pretty much confirming the tests were useless
Yeah, only because she was ahead of the game:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6742577Not guilty by a technicality!!
As per Herald Scotland:
In 2002, Radcliffe won the World Cross-Country title, London Marathon, Commonwealth and European track gold, and the Chicago marathon in world record time. During this spree, I was grilled along with other UK journalists about the credibility of her performances.
The inquirer, Stefan L'Hermitte of the French sports paper L'Equipe, proceeded to write, without reference to the opinions he had sought, that Radcliffe's performances were suspect, and insinuated that she had doped. Fluent in French, Radcliffe phoned him at home. He maintained he was entitled to the opinions he expressed, but gave what she described as "a half-hearted verbal apology".
More pertinently, Radcliffe confirmed yesterday that after she smashed the 16-year-old European record for 10,000 metres in 2002, she requested the IAAF freeze her blood samples so that future advances would permit retesting to demonstrate she was clean.
"However the issue is that once I do that, I have no control over them whatsoever, where they are stored or when they are retested.
"Frozen samples are retested on a regular basis. For example, I think I am allowed to confirm that my Helsinki '05 samples [where she won the World title] were just recently retested again with others, as better EPO tests come in. They were of course negative. What I have done is waive the 10-year rule, to confirm that my samples can continue to be retested past the 10-year threshold now in place. This is of course providing there remains enough left to keep retesting!"
300 posts in and the thread title keeps saying paul. amazing, isn't it?
Renato Canova wrote:
The Biological Passport became effective for IAAF in 2009. Before that date, athletes could be banned ONLY IF WAS POSSIBLE TO FIND THE ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE IN THEIR URINE.
So, it was not possible some athlete was banned in the same situation of Paula in Vilamoura, for the simple reason that in the urine of Paula it was not possible to find anything illegal.
You should think before typing.
Talk about freezing samples is so disingenuous.
Refrigerating is one thing.... freezing however....
Makes paulas words even more suspect