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

You think I keep trying to defend Paula, when I was always defending the IAAF. Nothing about Coe believing Paula was clean was unilateral. Among every anti-doping organization with jurisdiction, there was universal consensus that the evidence against her was not damning enough to even open up a case. My stance on the IAAF's actions, and any baseless allegations of protecting doped athletes, are completely consistent with the WADA-IC's report #2, which found: - the IAAF acted reasonably on the blood data, and were generally extremely active in anti-doping - the fundamental premise of the expert scientists Ashenden's and Parisotto's reports were incorrect, not to mention their significant differences between their public statements, and their peer-reviewed research - the WADA experts and the WADA-IC found that the IAAF rebuttal of the Sunday Times accusations was scientifically sound This idea that the IAAF protects doped athletes look to me like some kind of irrational defense mechanism, after what was so gripping in the British press, and readily accepted among non-critical anti-fans of athletics, failed to gain any traction at all among any anti-doping organizations, or the WADA IC investigation. Not only did Dr. Saugy, properly identify the existence of confounding factors, but plenty of the peer-reviewed research from Ashenden/Parisotto explained rather well the risks of false positives in the early days of blood collection, for example, when collecting blood within two hours of a race, or analyzing blood with various brands of equipment in an uncertain state of calibration. When if finally came down to it, the WADA-IC didn't even deem the case of Paula important enough to address explicitly. Indifference seems a stronger response than an explicit denial, as it suggests the question posed was simply not important. The only statements that appear to apply to Paula, are statements that the WADA IC didn't feel an obligation to correct the wrong statements of the Sunday Times and other newspapers. The same can be said for the experts Ashenden and Parisotto, who fought hard against transparency, when they refused to make their own reports public, specifically refused to give a copy to the IAAF, and only gave a copy to the WADA-IC on the condition that their reports would be destroyed immediately after the WADA-IC reports were completed.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

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.

Saugy? Yeah he's reliable....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swiss-lab-chief-disputes-usada-claim-on-lance-armstrong/

http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/the-destruction-of-samples-and-martial-saugy/

From you? What do you expect from USADA besides "nada"? Do you fault USADA for not getting Lance sooner? Whatever your expectation is, USADA had absolutely no basis to act before getting the collective testimony of many former teammates. As can be seen in WADA reports, OOC tests generally don't catch very many dopers. The big benefit of OOC tests, is it acts as a deterrent. It may not eliminate doping but helps reduce it. Lance was extremely important to the UCI in 1999. They were desperately in need of a "feel good story", after the 1998 Festina scandal, and Lance's amazing comeback from cancer story was it. This is not just my opinion, but the UCI's, which you can find in their CIRC report. Paula was not so important to the IAAF that they would need to cover up for her, to save their own reputation, assuming their was even a need, which is a bad assumption as the 2003 and 2005 values did not exceed the blood thresholds in place at that time, and the 2012 OOC value was determined that the recent high altitude was a plausible explanation.

She was on all the reindeer milk.

rekrunner wrote:

You think I keep trying to defend Paula, when I was always defending the IAAF.

.

[/quote]

Say no more.

I always felt the need to demonize Saugy was one of a series of desperate attempts to help fabricate a scandal outside of the failed extortion/bribery attempts. Putting reliability of other topics aside, determining the existence of confounding factors, which would invalidate the samples, was obviously correct. This doesn't require any experts to make the same determination. The CIRC also addressed, and rejected any notion that Saugy improperly taught Armstrong how to avoid EPO detection, contrary to Tygart's interpretation of a head-nod. The only real "mark" against Saugy is the destruction of another labs samples that they re-tested, reported, stored for some months, informed WADA they would destroy, and then destroyed, lacking any timely response.

Sugar plum fairy wrote:

Saugy? Yeah he's reliable....

OK -- I'll repeat the same. My stance on the IAAF's actions, are completely consistent with the WADA-IC's report #2, which found: - the IAAF acted reasonably on the blood data, and were generally extremely active in anti-doping - the WADA experts and the WADA-IC found that the IAAF rebuttal of the Sunday Times accusations was scientifically sound

Subway Surfers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You think I keep trying to defend Paula, when I was always defending the IAAF.

Say no more.

that's quite an eye-opening list

well I'm open-minded to being convinced Paula was doping/blood-transfusion but first I need to know what women marathoners under 2:20 that are "trusted" in comparison?

Deena Kastor broke 2:20 back in 2006 when shoes were okay but not great

Hasay barely broke 2:21 in 2017 and needed vaporflys

no other American woman has even come close to those records

is Deena a suspect for doping too? (gosh I hope not as she is a personal hero)

so on the world stage, what other women's times below 2:20 are "trusted" in comparison to Paula?

Just want to single this out -- this whole summary is complete nonsense.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

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

rekrunner wrote:

As can be seen in WADA reports, OOC tests generally don't catch very many dopers.

Exactly my point. As I said from the very beginning. But you had to pretend I expected USADA to do better, for whatever reason.

Even the roid users Gatlin and Gay and Wilson were only caught in competition.

Sugar plum fairy wrote:

Saugy? Yeah he's reliable....

http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/the-destruction-of-samples-and-martial-saugy/

"the WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratories in Moscow and Lausanne had destroyed athlete samples, against the specific instructions of WADA."

"it has now emerged that Martial Saugy previously acted as a paid consultant for the Local Organising Committee of the Sochi Olympic Games and/or the Russian Ministry of Sport."

"Sample code stickers: Athletes reported that ‘plastic bags were not used to wrap the A and B bottles samples after sealing and there were different ways by which the extra sample code stickers were discarded’. During the Games, the IO also observed ‘that the stickers could be removed from the Sample Collection Forms, indicating a possibility that the sample code could be transferred to another athlete, potentially seriously compromising the integrity of the process.’"

"Some samples were ‘shipped directly to the [Moscow] Laboratory’ without going through one of three logistics depots, known as ‘The Hub’, "

"USADA CEO Travis Tygart accused Saugy of giving Lance Armstrong “the key” to beating the test for erythropoietin (EPO) back in 2002. Saugy has always denied the accusation.

According to the February 2015 Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC) report, that accusation arose from a meeting that purportedly took place between Armstrong and Saugy following the controversial case of Danish cyclist, Bo Hamburger."

logic it out wrote:

that's quite an eye-opening list

well I'm open-minded to being convinced Paula was doping/blood-transfusion but first I need to know what women marathoners under 2:20 that are "trusted" in comparison?

Quite a few, actually.

Note that rjm's list didn't include the 2:19 runners, and is a bit outdated now.

I give it a shot:

1 2:15:25 Paula Radcliffe 2003 – 3x flagged blood values

2 2:17:01 Mary Keitany 2017 – likely doping

3 2:17:56 Tirunesh Dibaba 2017 (Aden/EPO?)

4 2:18:11 Gladys Cherono 2018

5 2:18:20 Liliya Shobukhova 2011 (banned for EPO)

6 2:18:31 Vivian Cheruiyot 2018

7 2:18:34 Ruti Aga 2018

8 2:18:35 Brigid Kosgei 2018

9 2:18:47 Catherine N'dereba 2001 – pre ABP

10 2:18:57a Rita Sitienei Jeptoo 2014 – banned for EPO

11 2:18:58 Tiki Gelana 2012

12 2:19:12 Mizuki Noguchi 2005 – pre ABP

13 2:19:17 Roza Dereje 2018

14 2:19:19 Irina Mikitenko 2008 – pre ABP

25 2:19:30 Feyse Tadese 2018

26 2:19:31 Aselefech Mergia 2012 - suspicious ABP

27 2:19:34 Lucy Kabuu 2012

28 2:19:36 Deena Kastor 2006 – pre ABP

29 2:19:36 Yebrqual Melese 2018

20 2:19:39 Sun Yingjie 2003 – pre ABP

21 2:19:41 Yoko Shibui 2004 – pre ABP

22 2:19:41 Beyenne Tsegaye Tirfi 2016

33 2:19:44 Florence Kiplagat 2011

34 2:19:46 Naoko Takahashi 2001 – pre ABP

35 2:19:47 Sarah Chepchirchir 2017

36 2:19:50 Edna Kiplagat 2012

37 2:19:51 Zhou Chunxiu 2006 – pre ABP

38 2:19:51 Birhane Dibaba 2018

39 2:19:52 Mare Dibaba 2012

30 2:19:53 Worknesh Degefa 2018

31 2:19:59a Bizunesh Deba 2014

One could add the Rosa connections though, but I gotta go now.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

As can be seen in WADA reports, OOC tests generally don't catch very many dopers.

Exactly my point. As I said from the very beginning. But you had to pretend I expected USADA to do better, for whatever reason.

Even the roid users Gatlin and Gay and Wilson were only caught in competition.

Or you could take testosterone lozenges or lightly rub in androgel immediately after testers visited and you will never get caught.

I interpreted this as a criticism of USADA because in the past you've been critical of USADA's competence, for not catching Lance earlier.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

As can be seen in WADA reports, OOC tests generally don't catch very many dopers.

Exactly my point. As I said from the very beginning. But you had to pretend I expected USADA to do better, for whatever reason.

Even the roid users Gatlin and Gay and Wilson were only caught in competition.

rekrunner wrote:

I interpreted this as a criticism of USADA because in the past you've been critical of USADA's competence, for not catching Lance earlier.

casual obsever wrote:

Exactly my point. As I said from the very beginning. But you had to pretend I expected USADA to do better, for whatever reason.

Even the roid users Gatlin and Gay and Wilson were only caught in competition.

PAULA RADCLIFFE IS INNOCENT!!!! There is no way that she took anything illegal, ever!!!!!! Let it go!!!!!!! She released everything, stop it and leave the lady alone, she's simply the best!!!!!!!!

I agree with this 100%.

Nothing has ever been proven to be "illegal".

She ran 2:15:25 on hard training and guts.

Accept it and move on, she's a notch above the rest.

Yes, all of these findings are hogwash. She has never been proven guilty of anything, yet they rip her apart on letsrun every chance they get.

traransirrum wrote:

I agree with this 100%.

Nothing has ever been proven to be "illegal".

She ran 2:15:25 on hard training and guts.

Accept it and move on, she's a notch above the rest.

You know who else trained their a$$ off and had guts?

He never tested postive for EPO, he only got caught because of irregular blood values . . . I wonder who that sounds like???

nothing but pure guts wrote:

traransirrum wrote:

I agree with this 100%.

Nothing has ever been proven to be "illegal".

She ran 2:15:25 on hard training and guts.

Accept it and move on, she's a notch above the rest.

You know who else trained their a$$ off and had guts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hf3KOgFhwU

He never tested postive for EPO, he only got caught because of irregular blood values . . . I wonder who that sounds like???

No way dude, she's innocent, you're all just jealous.