Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

It appears that Mizuki Noguchi from japan may be the clean world record holder if we rule out paula and the east Africans

Wejo remember this post about AS. Has Nike come out to defend Paula ?

"Down the road we are open to ideas about coming up with campaigns for people to switch shoes if Nike does not address this issue. Imagine if everytime a high school kid did not buy a pair of Nike shoes they tweeted out #fairsportnike with a picture of the shoe they bought instead. The shoe companies can make a big difference for fair sport and the only way we can make that happen is by putting some financial pressure on them. I think enough people do care about fair sport. Nike isn't the only one who comes up short in this area, but they are the biggest and directly linked in these allegations. So for now we are unveiling the countup clock but we are open for ideas."

A few points:

1) She is not refusing to permit public discussion of her scores. We are discussing them right now. No one has released her full blood profile that is the issue.

2) Let's turn this around. Paula has put her name out there and the Sunday Times still has not written anything specific accusing her. They said generically an athlete had 3 values over 1/1000. Sky News has generically said she did not. I personally think she should release everything, but I think the Sunday Times has an obligation as well. Come out with something specific or say we were in error. They have her blood values. Go back to the leaker who didn't want any names out there and say, "we want to release all of Paula's data."

With the grandma in England there isn't a lot of benefit of releasing something now as what has she been accused of?. With people like you and me and scientists I think there is a benefit, but it may not be as great as we all think.

I think that may be a bit simplistic.

There is no debating the one test in Portugal is an anomaly. Renato Canova has written it was hot. Paula wrote about Portugal in her biography, said she was sick, and taking antibiotic. She even discussed her blood values in the book were way off. Now the guilty people have to believe she was somehow worried that these blood values that were private and couldn't be used against you would be leaked down the road so she wanted a cover. A simpler explanation is it was so unusual and they mentioned it to her so she included it in her book. David Welsh who works for the Sunday Times co-wrote her book so he'd have a good feel on that one. She easily could have not mentioned it in the book right?

One way or another the values were so off they got written about in the book. Is releasing the stuff going to make this go away? It might be we end up with people like yourself saying the value is suspicious and people like myself saying dehydration, antibiotics explain it. The whole point of the ABP is that one score can't damn someone right unless you are super dirty. No one is saying she is super dirty.

My argument would be we could see all her other blood values. If they were normal and consistent even if Portugal was a one-time spike I think a lot of people would be put at ease. I want more data and analysis to come out but Paula has indicated more may come and the Sunday Times is waiting as well so we may have to be more patient.

Timer wrote:

Wejo remember this post about AS. Has Nike come out to defend Paula ?

"Down the road we are open to ideas about coming up with campaigns for people to switch shoes if Nike does not address this issue. Imagine if everytime a high school kid did not buy a pair of Nike shoes they tweeted out #fairsportnike with a picture of the shoe they bought instead. The shoe companies can make a big difference for fair sport and the only way we can make that happen is by putting some financial pressure on them. I think enough people do care about fair sport. Nike isn't the only one who comes up short in this area, but they are the biggest and directly linked in these allegations. So for now we are unveiling the countup clock but we are open for ideas."

Nike saying something defending Paula doesn't mean anything.

I think Nike has an appalling record when it comes to clean sport. All the shoe companies do nothing but in the Salazar case I think Nike has even more of an obligation.

With the Nike Oregon Project investigation there is evidence and admission to androgel experiments were carried out I think on the Nike campus. There is an allegation the Nike lab director may have known of testosterone doping going on. Multiple people said Alberto Salazar broke prescription drug laws. This all involved people working on the Nike campus. Yet did Nike launch an investigation?

With Paula there is no direct link to Nike and actually not a specific allegation in print from anyone yet. If Nike said however, "all our athletes will post their blood values, we're going to give $50 million a year to clean sport" imagine how much better the situation would be.

Yes I agree , thanks for updating. Wasn't sure if Nike was involved yet.

I don't follow the first point you made. By choosing not to release her ABP (on the advice of WADA blah blah), like others have done, she has prevented any conclusions from being drawn. This would include the absence of a conclusion based on her profile. By drawing attention to and attempting to excuse away isolated values, in this state of the proceedings, she has shown that she has not understood the point of ABPs; using the same data, that she doesn't want people to judge her on, to build a case for her own integrity is hypocritical. The consequences of her contextualised ABP being released into the public domain is clearly the worst case scenario for Paula, rumour and speculation is the least of her worries. Stinks.

no smoke wrote:

I don't follow the first point you made. By choosing not to release her ABP (on the advice of WADA blah blah), like others have done, she has prevented any conclusions from being drawn. This would include the absence of a conclusion based on her profile. By drawing attention to and attempting to excuse away isolated values, in this state of the proceedings, she has shown that she has not understood the point of ABPs; using the same data, that she doesn't want people to judge her on, to build a case for her own integrity is hypocritical. The consequences of her contextualised ABP being released into the public domain is clearly the worst case scenario for Paula, rumour and speculation is the least of her worries. Stinks.

I'm not following you now.

One point of order. I haven't seen anyone's full ABP. Only off-scores which is a partial picture.

If you haven nothing to hide I am all about releasing everything.

If there isn't more of an exoneration of Paula it would leave many people with questions. A full data damp is what most of us want, but if independent people come out and say they've looked at it and she has nothing to answer for then that would suffice. Speaking to Paula in Beijing I was confident more will come out.

Right now we've had a) her scores are below a generic cut-off and b) blood taken within 2 hours after a race isn't used anymore.

I think some people are saying about b) - who cares, release the data and we'll decide for ourselves.

It's clear now that she doesn't want the full set of data. Is it because she's protecting other athletes and complying with the IAAF? Clearly not, she obviously released those 3 scores to begin with, but then claimed the Sky "leaked" them (how would they have gotten them in the first place?) with the convenient title: "Blood tests that cleared Paula Radcliffe". They had to be "leaked" and not released by Paula because it would contradict her original rationale for not releasing them.

Paula would rather end it like this, with X% of people thinking she's guilty and the inverse thinking she's innocent. Not ideal for her, but clearly she feels that X could increase if her full set is released (from experts publishing their analysis of the probability her blood values could have fluctuated like they did without doping), which is what the prior poster is trying to say. By her actions, she feels this is the best scenario right now. Releasing the scores would be a worse scenario, and that has nothing to do with going against the IAAF's request.

It doesn't matter how many people "feel" that she is guilty. It doesn't matter if rotten tooth granny in London starts wondering if bobblehead is guilty. The fact is, she is guilty. And she needs to be in prison for fraud and theft.

wejo wrote:

My argument would be we could see all her other blood values. If they were normal and consistent even if Portugal was a one-time spike I think a lot of people would be put at ease.

Including me. I'd be happy to find out her scores were remarkably consistent. It would make her the GOAT for many, many generations. Not kidding.

I take umbrage with your claim Ms. Radcliffe is permitting discussion.

Some anonymous joker (me) on some forum that's not hosted in the UK that doesn't have her data is not an international media property linking her with her data from Seppelt's cache of scores. One is not the other and it's obvious.

There are way too many problems with her actions to suggest anything other than she's hiding her own doping. Meanwhle, Farah publishes values and there's not much to talk about.

If Paula were clean, this would have been over and done months ago. Maybe she is and she took the worst advice ever for months on end. But, I doubt it.

IAAF won't ever sanction her anyway, so she's Marion Jones clean.

She lied about the frozen samples, she lied about releasing the numbers, she lied about doping. And the Brojos who idolize her lied about shutting down this site.

We also have two blood doping experts saying that there was clear evidence a London Marathon winner doped.

Her off scores are not below a generic cutoff. They are all above the 1/1000 threshold for sea level samples. She has not provided info about where she was, except that "they were at altitude" and "I had just come from altitude." (Which is as valid as "I have a naturally high hematocrit." or "I have naturally high testosterone). One of them is in fact above the 1/1000 altitude threshold.

And the validity of her dehydration/post-race timing statement is seriously in question. As has been shown, the level of dehydration that would make that blood score possible is not congruent the most dominating half marathon win ever.

And yes, B is the right answer. At this point, there is no benefit to Radcliffe's secrecy. She cannot pretend that there is. Instead, her deliberate choice is to obfuscate, and mislead the discussion. It is much easier to discredit discussions like this if they take place with incomplete information. That is why

is only a shade of the truth: she is not permitting legitimate discussion of her scores, both through the availability of information, and the avenues through which that discussion happens. (Remember the "I'll sue you and you won't get your money back"? statement)

EPO Cheats Out !

Radcliffe Out !

She doesn't want her full profile released because you can imagine the SPIKES in her blood data that would correlate to doping.

The SPIKES in her blood data is what is going to undo her.

wejo wrote:

A simpler explanation is it was so unusual and they mentioned it to her so she included it in her book. David Welsh who works for the Sunday Times co-wrote her book so he'd have a good feel on that one. She easily could have not mentioned it in the book right?

So weird.

Wejo,

To the best of your knowledge, did Paula ever get blood samples frozen like she volunteered to do? Have you ever asked her about them?

humdidum wrote:

The British cyclist Jonathan Tiernan-Locke was banned after his first ABP test ever, gave an OFF-score of 155.8. The test was done 22 September 2012, and UCI opened case against him ca. a year after that, on 3 September 2013. In the meantime more tests had been done, but the reasoned decision doesn't give any details. It's understood that the later tests showed results within the normal range. He was banned for one freaky OFF-score.

It's interesting that the rider in question provided an explanation for the abnormal score, attributing it to severe dehydration resulting from binge drinking. But the panel were not convinced by this explanation. His off-score fell below a probability of 99.9999%, which probably influenced the panel's thinking.

I guess the question in PR's case is how a similar panel would react to an off-score falling below a probability of just(?) 99.9%.

I have a couple of questions:

#1 If most of the rest of the field are taking PED's, should we really think so ill of Paula if she simply followed suit? It should be recognised that something like 80-90% of the top male sprinters of the last 25 years have at some point tested positive for PED's, so is it not reasonable to think that distance running - with its huge marathon payouts - is similarly tainted?

#2 recollecting the recent BBC documentary on Salazar, if an athlete follows a disciplined regime of micro-dosing, will their off-scores ever attract attention?

I don't disagree that everyone else was doped and don't blame her more than anyone other doper. I think a lot of us would have doped in that situation. But if she did dope she's a huge fraud. She shamed cheaters publicly and, if it's true, she deserves the same treatment.

a question : if PR used EPO, should not her VO²Max have increased??