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

And once they developed a better test for EPO, turned out he was on EPO:

First, how much did Paula levels fluctuate? We don't know, because she won't release all her info.

SmelltheSanka wrote:

nothing but pure guts wrote:

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???

irregular blood values? we all can have irregular blood values when being tested AFTER a tough race/workout. give me a break, she's truly not guilty of taking anything.

Don't worry, that's just another sad character of that "type" deeply hurt that whites have now conquered the only thing they had left - the marathon.

trackie. wrote:

SmelltheSanka wrote:

irregular blood values? we all can have irregular blood values when being tested AFTER a tough race/workout. give me a break, she's truly not guilty of taking anything.

Don't worry, that's just another sad character of that "type" deeply hurt that whites have now conquered the only thing they had left - the marathon.

Says trackie.>>the racist. Do you not see the irony in your racist post? Wow!

Look up the old threads about Ramzi and Kiprop. People claiming they are clean and calling people names for questioning how legit they are . . . and turned out they weren't clean. Me personally, I do not see how this is a question. Is Paula clean? If you believe she is clean, I have some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Look up the old threads about Ramzi and Kiprop. People claiming they are clean and calling people names for questioning how legit they are . . . and turned out they weren't clean. Me personally, I do not see how this is a question. Is Paula clean? If you believe she is clean, I have some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.

Prove it. You can't. When you prove it, come talk to me. She's clean and always has been.

New Ocean Front Property in Phoenix wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

Look up the old threads about Ramzi and Kiprop. People claiming they are clean and calling people names for questioning how legit they are . . . and turned out they weren't clean. Me personally, I do not see how this is a question. Is Paula clean? If you believe she is clean, I have some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.

Prove it. You can't. When you prove it, come talk to me. She's clean and always has been.

The marathon world record-holder’s three “suspect” off-scores, used to measure any abnormality in an athlete’s blood, were 114.86, 109.86 and 109.3. At the most basic level, a score of 103 can trigger suspicion from the doping authorities.

If she is clean she won't have any problems providing us with more info to get a more complete picture. But, if she does release more data the jig will be up.

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;)

Huh? You're weird dude, of course I'm not Coevett - this is one of many handles that I use. What have you been smoking? ?

Too funny and this shows how you're not very perceptive. Not knowing if "Coevett" has ever commented on Paula, I wanted to solicit his opinion on her WR performance - nothing more...nothing less. He responded back and I read his answer - no big deal.

You need to chill out dude and bury this Coevett vendetta - it's just doping threads where people have a multitude of opinions. Don't take it personal - go out and get a run and brew afterwords ?

Sand Dunes wrote:

Look up the old threads about Ramzi and Kiprop. People claiming they are clean and calling people names for questioning how legit they are . . . and turned out they weren't clean. Me personally, I do not see how this is a question. Is Paula clean? If you believe she is clean, I have some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.

Hell...I got a few people in my Masters club that argue with me insisting that Ramzi was clean! These weirdos tell me he was framed because the IAAF didn't want another Morrocan dominating the 1500 after EL G set the WR and won all those gold medals.

People get so emotional & attached to their heros - it's like watching a NFL game at a sports bar. I've seen fights galore because someone said so & so is a chump or uses PEDs. Lol.

I think a lot of people like Paula because she's very attractive and is probably an inspiration to other female runners.

Sand Dunes wrote:

If she is clean she won't have any problems providing us with more info to get a more complete picture. But, if she does release more data the jig will be up.

She'll never, ever release her data because the jig is up. Strangely, on an issue like this Lance Armstrong is more open and trustworthy than Paula.

You guys are beating a dead horse. The need for releasing data dried up after the WADA IC failed to take the tabloid troll bait.

Here is a recap of various opinions:

- Letsrun survey 2014: 72% believed 2:15 was possible "clean".

- Drs. Ashenden/Parisotto: Maybe we accused Paula, maybe we didn't. In the spirit of complete non-transparency, they specifically refused to make their opinions on athletes known, even to the IAAF. They made it known to the WADA-IC who found the fundamental premise of their reports was flawed.

- Dr. Saugy: 2-hour rule not respected means increased likelihood of confounders/false positives.

- Dr. Schumacher (and many others): confirms 2-hours is necessary to bring blood values down to pre-exercise baselines.

- Antonio Cabral: 90 minutes.

- My 1st grade math teacher: 90 minutes is less than 2 hours.

- Ross Tucker: Maybe Paula's explanation is plausible, maybe not, but need more data.

- UKAD: it is not even a case of "case closed" -- there was never any case to open/answer.

- IAAF: Ashenden/Parisotto frequently contradicted their own research.

- IAAF: 2003 sample not suspicious in 2003, would not be suspicious today, and has plausible errors introduced by the process.

- IAAF: 2005 sample not suspicious in 2005, would not be suspicious today, and has plausible errors introduced by the process.

- IAAF: 2012 sample reviewed by an expert panel and dismissed noting high altitude was plausible.

- WADA-IC: The IC was provided with no explanation for the differences in approach and cautions expressed by the (scientists Ashenden/Parisotto) .... The differences are quite significant.

- WADA-IC: It was ... improper to group "suspicious" results and "likely doping" into a single category.

- WADA-IC: We can't be bothered with correcting misstatements in the press -- we're working here on the real issues.

- WADA-IC: The IAAF acted properly on the blood samples. The IAAF was pro-active in anti-doping and developing the ABP. The IAAF was by far the most active ADO using the ABP, thus being the poster boy' for other ADOs.

- WADA-IC and WADA IC retained experts: IAAF Rebuttal was scientifically sound.

- Paula's opinion and changing stories: Doesn't matter, because there was never any case to answer. The questions lack proper foundation.

- Paula's changing stance on transparency: Paula once offered to give doping test results to the public, but pre-2009 blood values are not doping tests results, but raw data prone to errors and misinterpretation. The expert opinions (test results, if you will) of the raw data are public. Athletes should not be pressured into making personal private data public, and certainly not under tabloid gossip circumstances lacking proper foundation.

rekrunner wrote:

a- IAAF: Ashenden/Parisotto frequently contradicted their own research.

b- IAAF: 2003 sample not suspicious in 2003, would not be suspicious today, and has plausible errors introduced by the process.

c- IAAF: 2005 sample not suspicious in 2005, would not be suspicious today, and has plausible errors introduced by the process.

d- IAAF: 2012 sample reviewed by an expert panel and dismissed noting high altitude was plausible.

a- but they did not, see their rebuttal.

b- while that sample in itself was suspicious (and even the IAAF target-tested her after that), a lot more damning is the huge (over 20%!) increase in Hb concurring with a proportional decrease in ret-% (not explainable with hemoconcentration!) within days.

What did the IAAF say about that? Nada, because they weren't interested in presenting the whole facts, they just wanted to pretend that there is nothing to see there.

c- interestingly pretty exactly same story as b, both regarding the values and the lack of mentioning by the IAAF.

d- here as well the IAAF didn't discuss that the high Hb of 16.2 g/dl needs to be compared to Paula's baseline of < 14 g/dl, and that the ret-% were higher than in all four cases of b and c - and it should have been a lot lower, were the 16.2 just an altitude effect.

What did the IAAF say about that? Nada, because they weren't interested in presenting the whole facts, they just wanted to pretend that there is nothing to see there.

She is the GOAT! Stop hissy fitting.

GOAT!!!!!!!

No, she's clean and always has been. You're looking for a pile of poop from an empty bladder:). Paula never lied, she simply got tired of the harassment and said enough is enough. Paula ran a legit 2:15 and it's just too hard for most of you to accept. She is nothing like Lance, give me a break.

When she ran both world records, Chicago and London, she was indeed clean...runners can be far too cynical. Shame upon thee who think otherwise. She took all the tests. They didn't ban her, so why bring it up 15 years later?

a) But they did. This was confirmed by the WADA-IC. See also WADA-IC's report #2, with no further Ashenden/Parisotto rebuttal. b) Neither the Sunday Times, nor Ashenden/Parisotto, mentioned the pre-race values, therefore, the IAAF did not rebut them specifically in their response to the Sunday Times. Nevertheless, the IAAF said more than Nada. The IAAF said comparisons between two pre-2009 samples was improper: "the values recorded for those fourteen samples cannot properly be compared with each other, and so it is simply not possible to assume that differences reported between a value in one sample and the same values in other samples in the profile are reliable." Your huge jumps have many possible causes. Hemoconcentration is one of the causes, but there are more. Ashenden told us in 2006 RET% can change greatly based on machine brand. Even the scientists Ashenden/Parisotto realized that such comparisons were improper, and didn't do them, limiting their analysis to YELLOW and RED assessments based on off-scores. c) same story as b) d) The IAAF did not discuss these things, because you don't need to compare 16.2 to some false notion of a baseline, nor any misguided notion that the baseline is less than 14 -- this is a nonsense argument based on a non-standard. Hb goes up with altitude, and stays up for weeks after returning to sea-level. It goes up more with even higher altitude. That's a no-brainer. RET% goes up, possibly even higher than normal, then down, possibly even lower than normal, then returns to normal in response to an altitude stay followed by a return to sea-level. Every non-expert can make the same determination that the panel of experts made. It's also foolish to attempt compare these out of season values in February to in season values of August and October, for reasons the IAAF also made clear, in their scientifically sound rebuttal.

No...I don't think Hgb stays up for weeks after returning to sea level. I've posted studies on this before - there's one in particular with Kenyan elites that I'll try to retrieve and post for you. Also on the RET%: I didn't think they increased much in response to hypoxia at altitude? I recall seeing some studies on this also - what do you think? Isn't the RET% not increasing signficantly in response to altitude training one element used to rule out the altitude training excuse in ABP hematological cases?

All these complex relations and movements are best left to the experts, who decided altitude was a plausible explanation. I don't think I would trust armchair interpretations from no-name forum dwellers, over a panel of experts, citing a recent stay for 23 days at 2400m, some 8 days earlier, plus an altitude tent at sea level.

Passport Era Doping wrote:

No...I don't think Hgb stays up for weeks after returning to sea level. I've posted studies on this before - there's one in particular with Kenyan elites that I'll try to retrieve and post for you. Also on the RET%: I didn't think they increased much in response to hypoxia at altitude? I recall seeing some studies on this also - what do you think? Isn't the RET% not increasing signficantly in response to altitude training one element used to rule out the altitude training excuse in ABP hematological cases?

Someone please provide links to ANY proper scientific studies to exonerate Miss Radcliffe:

TO FURNISH THE PROOF THAT ALTITUDE-ELEVATED Hgb REMAINS HIGH FOR WEEKS AFTER RETURNING TO SEA-LEVEL.

If there are no scientific studies available to substantiate this thesis (or if counter-claiming studies exist that disprove it) then there can only be ONE (AND ONLY ONE) CONCLUSION and all other rhetoric and postering is a smokescreen.

lolz lolz lolz

this is the exact thing you do, mr hobby jogger ex pat with something science degree....there are people with Phd's and multple papers published that you discard....and all you are is an armchair level 12 stalker of paula....leave things to the experts and stop trying to explain what YOU think is going on if you dont want anyone else to do it....its pretty annoying mr hypocrite lough