...... paula... CHEATS OUT..........

Manufactured public persona - emm. Do you know Paula Radcliffe, how can you analyze her - how she feels or what she does? I think if you look at the facts PR always said her protest was not directed at Yegorova, it was more that the system had allowed this situation to happen. Also if you look at the facts Yegorova was not the only athlete to have failed a test in that race.

I just feel that Radcliffe had everything to gain from that kind of public protest, it was crude, for gods sake she was laughing when she was doing it, it hardly appeared an intelligent reaction. I'm just a bit sick of this 'goody two shoes' personna that Radcliffe puts across, its bollocks. Its not about being genuine or nice, its sickly sweet. A good example is Sonia O'`Sullivan, now thats somebody who should be bitter, she has lost out time and time again to cheats, has she ever made any kind of statement? No, she just gets on with it, does her own thing and consequently appears to have a genuine love of the sport and what she does. There is no bitterness, no finger pointing and no claims against anybody, under todays new IAAF laws Radcliffe would be repremanded for making claims against other athletes. As for the protest not being aimed at Yegorova specifically, tahts bullshit, she said again and again and again in TV interviews who the protest was aimed at and why.

Im sorry, but I have to take Molfin's side on this one.

Dunes - Unless you can show outside sources to support your claims, you cannot expect us to just "take your word for it."

My own personal opinion: Even if OY was wronged by the Paris testers, PR is not the blood-seeking, malicious athlete you claim her to be. I think PR is mostly working to clean up the sport as much as possible, and if there is legit reason to believe that someone is doping (ie a drug test that is reported as positive), only then does she target that person and all other drug cheats.

As far as the IAAF's stance, this was the only thing I could find in their news archive about it:

********

IAAF lifts suspension of Olga Yegorova

IAAF Release

4 September 2001 - Edmonton, Canada - The IAAF has lifted the suspension of the Russian athlete Olga Yegorova, after receiving further information this morning regarding the validation of the testing system which led to the athlete?s positive finding for EPO at the Paris Golden League meeting on 6 July.

Testing for EPO was first conducted at a major Championships last year at the Olympics where athletes were asked to provide samples of both blood and urine. The Sydney protocol involved a screening of the blood sample to provide an indication of whether EPO was present in the athlete?s body, and this was then confirmed by a follow up urine analysis.

At this time, it remains the only means of testing for EPO that has been scientifically validated. Since Sydney, further extensive scientific research has been undertaken to finalise a single urine only test. The research is believed to be complete, but the IAAF has been informed that the test still awaits final validation. The IAAF believes that, in the circumstances, the test conducted by the French authorities on Ms Yegorova in Paris should not have been carried out.

Ms Yegorova is currently in Edmonton and has been tested as part of the IAAF?s own EPO testing programme. This programme uses the Sydney protocol of taking both blood and urine samples and the result of this test will be accepted by the IAAF.

******

The key phrase seems to be "...regarding the validation of the testing system which led to the athlete?s positive finding for EPO at the Paris Golden League meeting on 6 July."

From this it seems as though she did in fact test positive on the Paris promoters test for EPO. However, the IAAF overruled them on this because of the "validation of the testing system." Whether this means the IAAF didnt think the test was conducted properly, thereby leading to a false positive, OR the IAAF would not accept their findings because a second sample was not tested, OR any other various reasons, it is too ambiguous to tell from this article.

If anyone else can find other articles from the IAAF on this, it might help clear up the debate some (although I doubt dunes would be convinced if the IAAF wrote him a letter themselves...)

I got it,maybe.So you are talking about pointing out some one ,right?

Her cheat out card made controversy acutually ,critisized by IAAF or not a few people.I might think it was too much(don't remember well).

She is actually at difficult position ,I think.You know,though most people relating athletic think and sometimes say Ma's arymy was dirty as hell,no one cares .But if RAdcliffe says it becomes news and then look at here.becoming the targets .And remember last year,Yegorova was all attacked by the entire world,And not only RAdcliffe but also not a few other publicly outspoke her,but you know now only Radcliffe beccame the target and said by someone she is grinning and not fine or something.

And as for Sonia's attitude matter,I can understand what you are saying but

That maybe just they don't think about sports and doping well, or maybe they are just indifferent(most Japanese),maybe they don't like to stand out ,or maybe they want to act like Paula,but no one cares,or maybe they are thinking the entire sports are dirty and it's useless,or maybe they are on drugs and can't say such things or maybe they are thinking like you did. In most case,it's not so happy matter...

Because she has a big mouth and blabs all the misinformation to the press.

What PR says and does are completely different. She held up the sign to protest the better runner, Yegorova. She campaigned successfully to have Yegorova barred from certain races. She campaigned successfully to eliminate certain earnings that Yegorova would have otherwise been able to obtain. All for the personal gain of PR and to the detriment of Yegorova. PR's antics were most certainly directed at Yegorova and any other woman runner who would dare to beat her in a race.

Yegorova did not fail a test. Again you are misrepresenting the facts and what really happened.

waz wrote:

under todays new IAAF laws Radcliffe would be reprimanded for making claims against other athletes.

Exactly. They should call it the Radcliffe law.

I wonder how much of PR's earnings she has gotten at the expense of -- taken from the hands of -- Yegorova, and the other honest women runners who run with their feet.

elguapo16 wrote:

The key phrase seems to be "...regarding the validation of the testing system which led to the athlete?s positive finding for EPO at the Paris Golden League meeting on 6 July."

That is a newspaper quote, not an IAAF quote.

However, regardless of what anyone called it -

The urine test was and IS STILL NOT SUFFICIENT to stand on it's own.

This is because of the OVERLAP between normal and supposedly drug values from the samples that set up the protocol in the first place. I commented more about that on the Boulami thread.

For all you know, PR has had exactly the same range of values as Yegorova. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if she did.

So you are saying that she tested positive for EPO but the test itself is unbelievable.right?And even if not,you don't have the slightest will to find the statement you again and again referred or to help me serch for it,do you?

molfin wrote:

So you are saying that she tested positive for EPO but the test itself is unbelievable.right?And even if not,you don't have the slightest will to find the statement you again and again referred or to help me serch for it,do you?

molfin -

I am saying -

(1) the same thing the IAAF said, that Yegorova did not test positive for EPO;

(2) the testing procedures are not credible;

(3) all of this is well known and obvious;

(4) if you want to find something then go look for it.

First sorry for scattering wrong information.

I was completely wrong in that I said Yegorova had been proved not to be enhanced by EPO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/our_man_at_edmonton/1481240.stm

>>She was tested again in Edmonton - and IAAF vice-president Arne Ljungqvist has revealed that she was one of 11 athletes whose blood tests revealed red blood cell counts outside normal parameters.

>>Because EPO only remains in the bloodstream for three to four days, a negative test result would not necessarily mean that an athlete has not used it in the past.

But it does mean that any advantage would have worn off - when the red blood cell count returns to normal, the benefits are no longer there.

Please wait another topic...I wrote once,but disappeared.

>>(1) the same thing the IAAF said, that Yegorova did not test positive for EPO;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/our_man_at_edmonton/1481240.stm

Yegorova tested positive for banned performance-enhancing hormone EPO at the Golden League meeting in Paris last month and was initially banned by athletics' governing body, the IAAF. But she was reinstated on Saturday on a technicality when it was revealed that French doping authorities had failed to carry out a blood test to back up the results of her urine sample, as IAAF regulations state.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/1474020.stm

>>The world indoor 3000m champion had been suspended by the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) when she tested positive for the endurance-boosting drug EPO. The IAAF has dismissed the case because of a legal blunder. Yegorova was suspended after she tested positive at the Golden League meeting in Paris last month. "For rule and legal reasons the IAAF has no choice but to lift the ban on the athlete," said Arne Ljunqvist, head of the IAAF anti-doping commission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/english/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/newsid_1469000/1469931.stm

>>But International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) spokesman Giorgio Reineri said on Thursday: "She is suspended from the championships."The IAAF has decided to suspend the Russian despite not having completed a second test of the athlete's urine. However, it has the power to suspend an athlete after the first test if it proves positive, as Yegorova's did.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/our_man_at_edmonton/1474992.stm

Dutch-based Hermens told BBC Sport on Sunday: "We accept the technicality - that's part of the sport. But she [Yegorova] has cheated. It's proven. "The EPO test has been used by cycling, it's been verified by the UCI (International Cycling Union) but not by the IAAF and International Olympic Committee."

So I can't show the proof that IAAF deny that Yego tested positive for EPO.Because supposedly it didn't.But IAAF again and again said it had to because of the tecnnicality not because of her innocence.So let's serch for the article which said IAAF said she didn't test positive for EPO in PAri.Is it new information?I was busy and I didn't catch up with recent news.

>>(2) the testing procedures are not credible;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/our_man_at_edmonton/1474992.stm

"The EPO test has been used by cycling, it's been verified by the UCI (International Cycling Union) but not by the IAAF and International Olympic Committee."

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/2001/08/03/FFXG5I8FVPC.html

>>This comes as the EPO test is being further refined with the International Olympic Committee. The IAAF is accepting a urine-only test for the drug instead of the two-part blood-urine test adopted at the Sydney Olympics.

http://www.athletix.org/IAAFpr.htm

At this time, it remains the only means of testing for EPO that has been scientifically validated. Since Sydney, further extensive scientific research has been undertaken to finalise a single urine only test. The research is believed to be complete, but the IAAF has been informed that the test still awaits final validation. The IAAF believes that, in the circumstances, the test conducted by the French authorities on Ms Yegorova in Paris should not have been carried out.

I prefer blood and urine tests.But because it is just more of a confiramation and for law suit problems.IAAF seems not to think as you expressed in another thread.This time show me something indicate that IAAF thinks in the way you express.If you cannot,let's serch for together.

(3) all of this is well known and obvious;

(4) if you want to find something then go look for it.

About (1)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Yegorova+test+positive+EPO&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

The whole world says she tested positive for EPO .And They didn't know the obvious information.So let's enlighten them.But before that please enlighten us here.

About (2)

I showed you.But since even IAAF doesn't know such an important and obvious fact .Let's serch for useful inforamtion and enlighten it.

molfin -

It sounds like you are saying the IAAF doesn't know what they are doing.

If that's the case then why have any testing procedures at all.

Molfin/Dunes Runner - why don't you two swap telephone numbers or email addresses as you two are the only ones that are discussing this......

An "abnormal" amount or a "positive" test in this day and age means that they are guilty.

cornfed wrote:

An "abnormal" amount or a "positive" test in this day and age means that they are guilty.

Exactly and that's what I said in the first place.

PR is certainly abnormal.

Therefore she is guilty and should voluntarily leave the sport.

Yegorova did indeed test positive for the synthetic form of EPO (rEPO). The "problem" is that the French test did not meet the IAAF's current standard for EPO testing (blood AND urine). Let me repeat, Yegorova did test positive for rEPO, but the testing wasn't performed up to IAAF standards and therefore her suspension was lifted.

Secondly, Paula's strong stance has helped bring public pressure on the IAAF and WADA to make further strides toward cleaning up the sport. If more athletes were as outspoken as Paula, IAAF and WADA would be pressured into more stringent and consistent testing. It's good for our sport to have more athletes like Paula volunteering to be blood tested, etc.

Paula is arguably the greatest female distance runner of all time.She has a great deal of range and has probably found her event in the marathon.I dont think people realize what a great debut marathon that was.1:07.55 coming home are you serious,get real.She will be giving out spankings and sending out search parties come Chicago.I hope Olga Stolichnaya and the rest of the russians are there to get sum.

Yes,that's right.

So let's enlighten IAAF,but before that please enlighten us here.

And very sorry for cornfed's supposition.

But I can't .And dunes runner can't ,either.