Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

Ben S wrote:

May be - my understanding from a Gerard Hartmann article last week is that PR approached David Walsh a few months ago to write her side of things and he refused as the ST was running with the doping story. I think he'll allow PR to give her view of events, but I don't see him refraining from criticisms where he sees them - his own reputation is on the line as well as hers.

No,he said that's not true on his twitter account

Hartmann is the same guy that also backed up Lance Armstrong after he had been stripped of his TDF titles. The guy really needs to take his head out of the sand or keep his gob firmly shut. After I read LA Confidential and watched the Armstrong Lie I cannot fathom how anyone could have sympathy for Lance.

I heard Hartmann give an interview when he was releasing his book a few years back and aside from spending the interview name dropping about all his high profile clients he can certainly talk a good talk.

Check out this article of Hartmann defending Lance

http://www.limerickpost.ie/2012/08/30/hartmann-stands-by-armstrong/

some interesting quotes !!

"When asked if he had second thoughts about continuing to display the Armstrong gifts now that the cyclist’s reputation lies in tatters, he replied:

“No, I have not even considered it. Lance is something of an enigma.

“I have no doubt but that he crossed the line and was part of a systematic and very scientific system of performance enhancing drug use. He was part of a culture that was professional cycling at the time, and within the peloton the use of performance enhancing substances was the norm.

“Nonetheless, he brought joy to the world – to win the Tour de France seven years in-a-row was a wonderful achievement. Think of the time, dedication and training he had to put in.

“From a moral and ethical point of view, I deplore athletes who take drugs.

“However, it is well documented that his Tour de France competitors also took drugs. Lance stuck to his guns when the accusations were flying around about him…the fact is, he never tested positive.

“I question the policing system. "

"When it was put to Hartmann that Armstrong- also banned from the sport for life- refused to co-operate after four former team-mates were about to testify against him as part of the United States Anti Doping Agency investigation, he responded:

“Look, the man battled against cancer and had all kinds of allegations levelled against him…there is only so much a person can take. The time came, I suppose, when he wanted to get on with life”.

Hartmann and Armstrong remain friends since they first crossed paths in 2004, when he was a consultant to sports firm NIKE, and Armstrong was sponsored by them."

Don't know what to believe wrote:

NIKE

golden circle

I wonder how many of Hartmann's clients were/are sponsored by Nike.

WADA wrote:

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=6742577

Not guilty by a technicality!!

I read the WADA statement. Anyone know more about this Independent Commission. Sounds like they can make comments on specific athletes. I read it very differently than you.

Fan-o-Sport wrote:

Talk about freezing samples is so disingenuous.

Refrigerating is one thing.... freezing however....

Makes paulas words even more suspect

What are you saying?

If Paula has frozen samples and will waive the statute of limitations that is a huge step in being a clean athlete.

All in all we just need more info released. We're all trying to comment on one data point without any context. Also I'd like to see her values around her world records. Presumably they are not suspicious (because they weren't one of the leaked 3 discussed). So how would the people super suspicious of Paula explain those?

Runfootdoc wrote:

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.

People need to get informed. Much of the speculation makes no sense.

1) Blood testing could not be used against athletes until 2009 so there wouldn't be much reason to fear a blood test.

However, Renato Canova has posted on here that athletes were blood tested before the world road champs and it was common practic so they would know they would get tested.

2) Anyone who blood boost are cheating. You can't rationalize that one away.

Anomalous blood tests were used to trigger urine tests well before 03. This is why the list is so damning to IAAF. There were many many (not just Paula's) cases in which athlete's blood levels were such that urine tests should have been performed but weren't.

Regardless of whether Paula was doping, there should have been a follow up test.

In any case, you're quite wrong about blood tests not being used against athletes. They had plenty to fear.

This is a joke, how long were Shubukova's ridiculous levels on the books for before they acted? They were trying to kill any negative stories, but this is out of the box now, Sunday times are building a case.

lego wrote:

This is a joke, how long were Shubukova's ridiculous levels on the books for before they acted? They were trying to kill any negative stories, but this is out of the box now, Sunday times are building a case.

Omerta is the term that is gaining increasing use when discussing this stuff:

Link wrote:

Anomalous blood tests were used to trigger urine tests well before 03. This is why the list is so damning to IAAF. There were many many (not just Paula's) cases in which athlete's blood levels were such that urine tests should have been performed but weren't.

Can you point me to the info that says that they weren't? My understanding of the IAAFs position on the "suspicious values" data is that they knew about the values, and they investigated them through targetted testing of athletes on the radar (or convened a panel to hear and decide on whether irregular values warranted targetted testing etc). Which is why I am happy with Paula's position - she got some odd results, the IAAF followed its process and (silently to the outside world) concluded that there was nothing which warranted further investigation. We won't know this because the IAAF or WADA never report findings of "innocent" to us, because of the damage to an athlete's reputation simply by being associated with a potential investigation.

Um, bobblehead is a doper.

EPO cheats out !

Also if it was possible to do something better, I can't agree with many arguments of several posters.

IAAF well knew Shobukhova was probably doped, but I want to remind again that there are two ways only for banning one athlete :

1) To find the illegal substance in the urine (and in this case, nothing was found)

2) Using the Biological Passport.

In this case, for avoiding big legal problems, we need to have not less than 10 blood tests, in the case of somebody such as Shobukhova (winner of two jackpots) also more tests, because she could be very strong under the legal point of view.

Due to the reduced number of blood tests in Russia (probably manipulated for avoiding the possibility to have in short time enough values in order to create a reliable BP), IAAF / WADA needed to wait 3 years before acting in legal way.

Really, in this case I don't see many responsibilities of IAAF, which needs to give instead responsibilities to the National Federations.

Ashenden and Seppelt have said that the IAAF just swept these blood tests under the rug, as referenced here:

I suppose that's not proof, but, at least in Paula's case, it seem that it's now strongly in her best interest to release subsequent exculpatory tests. Like if her 114 triggered the need for a urine test, which she then passed, why not say so? I know that some - including Wejo - believe Paula when she says she's not releasing more detailed information because doing so would hurt the sport by enabling dopers. To be honest, though, I have seen a good explanation as to why this might be. I guess she can argue that 114 is now a level that other athletes can get away with since she did. But that's not consistent with her claims about how she got away with it (hot day test too close to the finish - which isn't allowed anymore). On the other hand, if releasing these 3 numbers does no harm then why didn't she just do it earlier?

Paula seems now to be right where Lance was before the dam broke. The only difference is that Lance had screwed over lots and lots of people who had the power to bring him down. It seems Paula has been more careful about making dangerous enemies. Instead she has lots of very influential friends.

Link wrote:

I suppose that's not proof, but, at least in Paula's case, it seem that it's now strongly in her best interest to release subsequent exculpatory tests. Like if her 114 triggered the need for a urine test, which she then passed, why not say so?

Isn't that just what Paula is asking the IAAF to do though? Whilst I can see a reason for an athlete knowing / being aware of their blood data (an innocent reason, just being aware of their biological health), I can't see that an athlete would "know" the results of their urine tests, except by default - if no-one has come knocking on their door with a letter telling them they have recorded an illegal value, they must assume that all their tests are coming back clean.

Paula may have a diary of OOC testing done in and around the periods when the unusual results came back. And perhaps she should tell us about those dates, or meetings / hearings she had with IAAF.

But the IAAF won't be coming out with personalised data any time soon, so whilst I agree it would stop the discussion and "scandal", I can't see it happening!!

But Paula already released part of her blood values, so she isn't trying to protect other athletes or abide by the recommendation of the IAAF. How the F do you think sky news got them? From the Sunday times or IAAF??? It's a completely farce that they were leaked.

She won't release the whole set because she's doing a cost benefit analysis with her reputation.

Benefit: there's very little benefit to releasing the whole set. Th people demanding this from her mostly think she's guilty, and the "average grandma" that Wejo refers to thinks she's clean and isn't demanding it.

Cost: if she releases the whole set and experts analyze and conclude that it's extremely unlikely she reached her blood values without doping, it will be back in the media and the average grandma will see and maybe flip their stance.

She's trying to maximize her utility in preserving her reputation. Not protect the sport.

ABP cases have been successfully brought with as few two tests. You are right in some way to say that more tests would give a stronger case, but as with Shobukhova, they didn't need to, they had a strong enough case, but, as has been shown, tried to hide it.

Except... wrote:

She's trying to maximize her utility in preserving her reputation. Not protect the sport.

?? Coe already publicly stated she's never testing positive. Everybody that matters wins. The very few that follow along closely enough recognize the thorough corruption. They are so few that it doesn't matter.

Wejo, you need to revisit her biography. If the words in it are even a little true, she and Seppelt have very detailed blood scores. The kind of very detailed blood scores that can be used by Ashenden or Parisotto to model, in a WADA compliant manner, the likelihood of her doping.

Problem #496 with her statement: she compared her topline off-score with other athletes. That's just not how that works. If clean, there would be some variation between her off-scores. Her off-scores spike. Whoops! Comparing across athletes is misleading. Whomever prepared the statement probably knows this.

She's refusing to permit public discussion of her scores. If she was clean, the detailed blood parameters would show it and this would have been over months ago.

EPO cheats out Paula.

so the 3 scores are based off of blood tests, correct?

and would be followed by urine tests, if policy was followed, correct?

and Paula says she had a blood test before the half-marathon and then it appears she had a urine test after?

I can no longer keep straight what tests she did or did not have limiting to the half marathon. Can someone re-explain what tests she actually had and which are the basis of the off score.

In the blood test data published by the Sunday Times (here:

) there is no ABP test registered for Shobukhova in 2009 (when IAAF's bio passport testing started) prior to the data when the disqualification of results starts, which is 9 October 2009 (2 days before the Chicago Marathon). She ran and won the London Marathon in 2009. IAAF doesn't seem to have ABP tested her there.

She also ran and won both the London and Chicago Marathons in 2010, without any sign of ABP tests for her at those races.

Shobukhovas OFF-score 9 October 2009: 152.8!

IAAF's reacton: no ABP blood testing of Shobukhova when she is in London in April 2010?? This is more than IAAF not getting access to test in Russia.