Yes, I've seen those tweets (or similar) from @theraceradio in the past.
Its no great surprise that those tweets have been deleted or ignored though, is it? Let's assume you were innocent (or at the very least, trying very hard to play innocent) would you reply to those?
Schvetsov is the hingepin in this. He is the "Healing Hans" of EPO (and presumably blood reinfusion as well).
larkimm wrote:
Let's assume you were innocent (or at the very least, trying very hard to play innocent) would you reply to those?
Yes, I would. And not only that, I would release all of the data. If you are innocent you have nothing to hide.
DC Area Runner wrote:
larkimm wrote:Let's assume you were innocent (or at the very least, trying very hard to play innocent) would you reply to those?
Yes, I would. And not only that, I would release all of the data. If you are innocent you have nothing to hide.
But (hypothetically) let's assume you are completely innocent. You have already released "data" which (as you are innocent) deals with the specific instances where someone is accusing you of cheating. And then those who don't believe you are innocent still complain that the data is insufficient.
Do you think "Sod them, they won't believe me no matter what I say, and we'll just continue in this cycle of me publishing innocent data, and them drawing incorrect conclusions from it. I'm better off saying nothing at all"?
In general, I subscribe to the "innocent, nothing to hide" perspective. I would (personally) wear a tag which lets the Government know where I am at all times. I would happily consent to having to carry an ID card on me so that any official can demand to know who I am and check up on me. I am happy for all of my emails to be retained by security services so that they can be happy I'm not some sort of subversive. They can see all of my browsing history as it has no criminal content. I'd be happy for them to fit a tracker to my car so if I speed I can be instantly fined.
But I accept that I'm in a minority when it comes to these thoughts and from various quotes etc from the IAAF and Paula too they also believe that full disclosure isn't helpful, partly as it just creates a never ending cycle of suspicion.
Paula is indeed in very big trouble!
Call me negative, but I tend to think that most successful track athletes are PED users unless they can prove otherwise.
If anyone thinks this is pessimistic, subjective fantasy ... then take a peek at the names in the second table in this link:
http://sportslistoftheday.com/2012/07/31/usain-bolt-and-the-top-20-fastest-men-in-history/
It could just be the sprinters, of course.
larkimm wrote:
But (hypothetically) let's assume you are completely innocent. You have already released "data" which (as you are innocent) deals with the specific instances where someone is accusing you of cheating. And then those who don't believe you are innocent still complain that the data is insufficient.
This is very, very dishonest.
-Paula hasn't released "data." She's released select data points intentionally misrepresenting them. It turns out the only thing it did was strongly suggesting she was doping.
-Many of the claims she made in 2015 don't fit prior years facts.
-Somehow, Martial Saugy, the head of the Swiss WADA certified lab decided to step in and declare her clean. Martial Saugy and doping coverups are pretty synonymous at this point.
-Paula's made it clear she will make it rain litigation if her values are published without her consent.
This would have been over months ago if she was clean.
She perfectly now releasing the whole data set will do nothing but prove her doping regimen!
2:15 marathon... come on!
Imagine if Kimetto was the world record holder and the next best time was still Dinsamo at 2:06'50... That's the nonsense of Paula's performance... it's such an outlier..., it screams blood doping and some other « medical » peparation!
Open your eyez Larkimm! Do you still pretend Lance was clean?
Plus, almost every sub 2:20 women performnces were aided ones.... Shobukova, Jeptoo and so on....
Paula did not release her suspicious blood test data, as it was leaked by other sources. She never wanted any of her blood test results released...and you can see why. All that Paula has released is changing explanations for the suspicious blood test data that was already released by others. Several other British runners voluntarily released their blood test data, and not one of them showed ANY suspicious blood results, while Paula has at least 3 suspicious blood tests....and possibly more....
The reason there is never-ending suspicion is because there has been never-ending corruption and lies. How can you trust going through the usual channels when the IAAF Director of anti-doping is under criminal investigation for taking over $200,000 in bribes to cover up positive doping tests? ....and you agree with the IAAF and Paula that full disclosure isn't helpful...so I guess that shows how much of a Paula fan you are......If I was the IAAF or Paula, I also would not think that full disclosure would be helpful...because I might then be in big trouble......
.....Talking about big trouble...... I see that Italian Elisa Desco (EPO positive ban a few years ago), a 2014 Skyrunner World Championship race winner, just raced in the US at the North Face 50M race...and LANCE ARMSTRONG is BACK!!!.....WINNING the Woodside Ramble 35K trail run just this last weekend!!!.......Go Lance!!!!!...... Go Paula!!!!.........Oh boy, this is really getting crazy......
At least you and me know what's really going on in the dark zone and grey areas of elite sport and athletics!
Larkimm is living in a fantasy world where Paula is, as a clean athlete, 4 minutes faster than massive drug cheats over the marathon!
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:
EPO cheats out Paula. Or, is it transfusion cheats out?
EPO and blood transfusions
Leonid shetsov Albuquerque
just sayin wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:EPO cheats out Paula. Or, is it transfusion cheats out?
EPO and blood transfusions
Leonid shetsov Albuquerque
Albuqerque is the focal point... Why a GB athlete would traval that far to train if it's not for Shetsov's magic touch!
Yes, I remember Leonid Shvetsov, a 2:09 marathoner three times, Russian national record holder in the marathon, course record holder(up and down courses) at Comrades 89K, medical doctor by training(interesting), retired in 2009, never tested positive himself, and is now back in Russia coaching Russian distance runners (also interesting), rumored to be Eddy Hellebuyck\'s (EPO positive in 2004) EPO supplier in Albuquerque back then, so the timing is right, and Paula trained in Albuquerque back then, but is there anything to directly link Paula to Shvetsov?....since he isn\'t admitting anything and he says the needles people saw were just for vitamin B12 injections......so nothing to see here according to Shvetsov......
larkimm wrote:
Yes, I've seen those tweets (or similar) from @theraceradio in the past.
Its no great surprise that those tweets have been deleted or ignored though, is it? Let's assume you were innocent (or at the very least, trying very hard to play innocent) would you reply to those?
Haha. I love this. Whoever RaceRadio is turns out to be right about 90% of the time, eventually after all the nonsense dies down.
You just keep pretending chip.
larkimm wrote:
I maintain that some of this "deep research" is flawed (e.g. the Vilamoura temperature debate) and the researchers are often seeing what they want to see. Equally I could be guilty of that too, I'm sufficiently self aware.
Well. Considering that the measured data at the weather stations were 21 - 23 C, while Paula claimed 30 C, and you found reporters' estimates as 22 and rising/22 and rapidly rising, I think you see what you want to see.
For me as an experimental scientist, measured data go over journalists' impressions. But by all means, side with the journalists.
In any case, Paula withdrew that dehydration excuse after it was proven to be false, remember. So your critic is not only unjustified, it is also irrelevant.
She is now down to the last resort of any cheater: "faulty equipment".
larkimm wrote:
When someone credible comes forward with specific allegations against Paula backed up with real evidence I'll be quite content to hear it and debate it (if necessary - it could be an open and shut case).
We already had two credible experts point out how suspicious her values were. Further, they weren't exactly convinced by the IAAFs counter arguments.
In any case, maybe letsrun can help here. Wejo? How about you organize three independent experts for a mock trial, without any Coe or Paula buddies or anyone involved in the corruption/cover up affair, who get access to all her data including her statements. They can then discuss the case, and vote whether or not she should have been banned. Or maybe better (less black and white): agree/vote on a number from 1 - 5, how likely she was doped.
However, Paula would block any such clarification attempt, for she has always vigorously been against transparency. Lol.
larkimm wrote:
DC Area Runner wrote:Yes, I would. And not only that, I would release all of the data. If you are innocent you have nothing to hide.
But (hypothetically) let's assume you are completely innocent. You have already released "data" which (as you are innocent) deals with the specific instances where someone is accusing you of cheating. And then those who don't believe you are innocent still complain that the data is insufficient.
Do you think "Sod them, they won't believe me no matter what I say, and we'll just continue in this cycle of me publishing innocent data, and them drawing incorrect conclusions from it. I'm better off saying nothing at all"?
In general, I subscribe to the "innocent, nothing to hide" perspective. I would (personally) wear a tag which lets the Government know where I am at all times. I would happily consent to having to carry an ID card on me so that any official can demand to know who I am and check up on me. I am happy for all of my emails to be retained by security services so that they can be happy I'm not some sort of subversive. They can see all of my browsing history as it has no criminal content. I'd be happy for them to fit a tracker to my car so if I speed I can be instantly fined.
But I accept that I'm in a minority when it comes to these thoughts and from various quotes etc from the IAAF and Paula too they also believe that full disclosure isn't helpful, partly as it just creates a never ending cycle of suspicion.
If you're going to hold up signs "EPO cheats out" and make a spectacle of it, you put yourself in a position of removing as much doubt as possible.
She hasn't and that in itself is suspicioius.