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

Coevett wrote:

Survey Says.... wrote:

Since Coevett is a popular poster on this forum, I wonder what his opinion is of Paula's WR? ?

I think it's highly suspicious. But let's assume she did dope. We know that the majority of the East African elite have likely been doped to the gills for decades, yet one talented doped European girl can put the WR out of sight for them. If Paula was doping, it suggests that East African distance running dominance really is entirely due to doping (and that very few non-African elites doped, with Paula being one of them).

Besides nobody really likes Gary Rekrunner anyhow ?

Coevett wrote:

Survey Says.... wrote:

Since Coevett is a popular poster on this forum, I wonder what his opinion is of Paula's WR? ?

I think it's highly suspicious. But let's assume she did dope. We know that the majority of the East African elite have likely been doped to the gills for decades, yet one talented doped European girl can put the WR out of sight for them. If Paula was doping, it suggests that East African distance running dominance really is entirely due to doping (and that very few non-African elites doped, with Paula being one of them).

I think it's highly suspicious. But let's assume you are an idiot. We know that the majority of the East African elite have been idiots for decades, yet one talented idiot European girl can put the WR out of sight for them. If Paula was an idiot, it suggests that East African distance running dominance really is entirely due to idiocy (and that very few non-African elites are idiots, with Paula being one of them).

To add to this, it’s been proven that Covett can’t run and has homosexual tendencies.

Paula is the GOAT. The queen outlier of outliers. A dedicated unsurpassed. A total obsession with smashing the WR by the largest margin she could muster. Training 100’s of miles every week at altitude and hilly. She’s the greatest and fastest distance runner of modern times.

GOAT.

I'm not convinced your high expectations of USADA are realistic. Since USADA formed after the 1999 season, they could be forgiven for missing that year. It's also not clear to me, with all the overlapping jurisdictions, what role USADA would have played in OOC testing while Lance was training in Europe. Given that both WADA and USADA just formed around 2000, Lance and Ferrari had a couple years head-start on keeping ahead of the testers, while WADA was in its formative years, just making a legal framework, and USADA in 2003 was attempting to be compliant with this legal framework. It was around 2004, that WADA, specifically Dick Pound, started aggressively pursuing Lance. The UCI was Lance's main responsible anti-doping organization, and they viewed the acceptable boundary of doping as an athlete health issue, not performance, only targeting that athletes didn't kill themselves. Also the UCI also needed Lance to help restore their reputation, after the 1998 Festina scandal, so they were reluctant to kill their golden goose.

casual obsever wrote:

Aragon wrote:

As an interesting anecdote, his teammate Tyler Hamilton recalls that Armstrong almost hit the team Telekom car shortly before the 1999 Tour prologue when reviewing the route. Had he done so and missed the 1999 race totally, there would've been zero positives from him, only the few near positives from 2001 (Tour de Suisse) and 2002 (Dauphiné).

Yes, and he passed all of the oh-so-tough OOC tests here at home by USADA.

However, if UCI had followed the rules in 1999 and banned him because of his positive tests, instead of accepting past-dated TUEs, the Armstrong saga might never have started.

A bit like when Farah didn't open the door to his OOC tester in 2011, and UKAD accepted his lame excuse...

I never said USADA should have caught him in 1999, or in Europe. I also don't have "high expectations of USADA". You are cute.

USADA was in charge of his OOC tests during his training in Austin, for example. Year after year after year after year (I could go on)... nada, as we all know.

So - you think Lance is for UCI what Paula (btt!) or Bolt are for IAAF?

Macdaddy wrote:

Besides her incredibly damning off-scores

Those, yes, and her changing stories, and her newly formed anti-transparency stance.

Subway Surfers wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

A bit like when Farah didn't open the door to his OOC tester in 2011, and UKAD accepted his lame excuse...

I seem to recall that right after this incident Mo became virtually invincible. Just a coincidence, right?

lolz

Where is the logic in that? When plenty of super-talented people dope, one of them can still be the best, sometimes for a long time, see Armstrong.

Look at that from the other side: when plenty of super-talented people dope, how can a clean athlete be the best?

Yes I know: she can work harder than the others, or do situps... what if the other super-talented people also train hard and smart? For example, now they have the perfect training from Canova et al.

This list here is from Dr. rjm:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Coevett wrote:

I think it's highly suspicious. But let's assume she did dope. We know that the majority of the East African elite have likely been doped to the gills for decades, yet one talented doped European girl can put the WR out of sight for them. If Paula was doping, it suggests that East African distance running dominance really is entirely due to doping (and that very few non-African elites doped, with Paula being one of them).

Besides nobody really likes Gary Rekrunner anyhow ?

Survey Says.... wrote:

Since Coevett is a popular poster on this forum, I wonder what his opinion is of Paula's WR? ?

No you're not Coevett. Hilarious that you make a post about yourself and then respond several minutes later. Try to be less obvious;)

Survey Says....>>>Coevett wrote:

Survey Says.... wrote:

Since Coevett is a popular poster on this forum, I wonder what his opinion is of Paula's WR? ?

No you're not, Coevett. Hilarious that you make a post about yourself and then respond several minutes later. Try to be less obvious;)

lolz

No one cares about his opinions so he asks himself the question.

lolz

The difference is that anyone so boldly increasing their Hct within 2 days by 20% would now get banned on the spot. The simultaneous ret decrease by also 20% is additional evidence for a blood transfusion directly before the race.

Today's doping has to be much more subtle, making a 2:15 literally impossible after 2009.

Coevett wrote:

Survey Says.... wrote:

Since Coevett is a popular poster on this forum, I wonder what his opinion is of Paula's WR? ?

I think it's highly suspicious. But let's assume she did dope. We know that the majority of the East African elite have likely been doped to the gills for decades, yet one talented doped European girl can put the WR out of sight for them. If Paula was doping, it suggests that East African distance running dominance really is entirely due to doping (and that very few non-African elites doped, with Paula being one of them).

Attention all units: Be advised that racist muppet is operating in the area..

So you are expecting that USADA catches him in OOC tests in Austin. I repeat that I'm not convinced that even this is a realistic expectation, for a number of reasons, but at least because Lance was too smart.

Not only do I not think so, I can't think of a single athlete, not Paula, not Bolt, not anyone, that is or was "for the IAAF" the way Lance was "for the UCI".

rekrunner wrote:

Not only do I not think so, I can't think of a single athlete, not Paula, not Bolt, not anyone, that is or was "for the IAAF" the way Lance was "for the UCI".

Rekrunner, you never cease to entertain.

Like Verbruggen's UCI, the IAAF defends their blessed athletes.

Head of IAAF, later revealed to be hiding an international bribery/sports corruption scheme unilaterally proclaims Radcliffe clean.

You seem to ignore the fact she got 'Mr. Fixit', head of WADA labs, Martial Saugy to defend her.

You keep trying!!! It only makes Radcliffe's doping more obvious.

BTW, I owe you a pint or two Rekrunner.

Your tireless devotion to somehow finding SOME tiny thread of reasoning she's clean only makes clearer her doping and the IAAF's corruption.

rojo wrote:

J.R. wrote:

Rojo, you still haven't answered my question from a few days ago. Is it possible for a woman to run under 2:15:25 and break Paula Radcliffe's record in the marathon without drugs?

Yes. Most definitely. I expect it actually to go down in my lifetime - maybe before 2020 even.

If women start moving to the marathon like the men at 19-20.

We'll definitely see Radcliffe's WR beaten before we see a sub-2 hour marathon.

I know it equates to like 13:45 for 5k and 28:45 for 10k but women are supposed to be better at longer distances. Sage Canaday can run 2:16, Paula can do 2:15.

Sorry sage.

Sage should get paid by you and your brother. The endless beating he takes on here, seems to be a main feature of these threads. And the founders, now, use his name as folly to gin up views for this thread. Seriously, throw a LRC patch on this gear, and go all in. Sage is good for LRC. Pay him!!!!!

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

BTW, I owe you a pint or two Rekrunner.

Your tireless devotion to somehow finding SOME tiny thread of reasoning she's clean only makes clearer her doping and the IAAF's corruption.

When you have undisputed FACTS that she cheated, not your liberal innuendos, post them. Until then, stay on the sidelines hobby jogger.

rekrunner wrote:

So you are expecting that USADA catches him in OOC tests in Austin.

No I do not. Where do you get those absurd ideas from?

rekrunner wrote:

I repeat that I'm not convinced that even this is a realistic expectation, for a number of reasons, but at least because Lance was too smart.

My point is that since USADA did not catch that hard-core career doper despite witnesses etc., for several years, quite possibly "because Lance was too smart", I expect other professional hard-core career dopers to pass their OOC tests here as well.

rekrunner wrote:

Not only do I not think so, I can't think of a single athlete, not Paula, not Bolt, not anyone, that is or was "for the IAAF" the way Lance was "for the UCI".

Debatable in 2005, but in any case, Lance was certainly less important for UCI in the middle of the TdF 1999, when he tested positive, than Paula was for IAAF, when she had these absurd jumps in both Hb and RET-% in October 2003, right after her world records and world championship gold.