Paula is a real good manipulator. She knows what to say and do. She holds up "epo cheats out" signs and talks out against doping as part of her manipulation. This lie detector thing goes hand in hand with that strategy. Ultimately she is just acting really defensive because she knows she's a fraud. She's the female lance Armstrong.
Clerk wrote:
I feel like I've done this post before, but people come and go from threads like these not realizing they shouldn't post without some background info.
Off-scores are not a unit of anything. There is no legal threshold between doping and not doping that can be seen in off-scores.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COkLrVEUsAAQfxF.pngThat chart shows how off scores are determined. The egregious off-scores are the possible combinations of ret% and Hgb which could only be obtained through doping.
Combinations with very low ret%, for example, could only be obtained when the body has stopped making new red blood cells, indicating a transfusion. Or, a combinations with a very high ret% could only have been obtained through exogenous EPO causing the body to create huge numbers of new blood cells beyond normal. Same thing with high Hgb; it could only be obtained through doping.
There is a different chart for altitude, because some of the middle values of ret% and Hgb% have been agreed to be obtained naturally, at altitude.
And finally, the 1-1000/1-10,000 thing can be a distraction if you don't know what you're looking at. Those odds represent the certainty that a certain off-score is due to doping. These are most useful in the legal context of results management and sanctions, where there is a concern over false positives. It is not a tool with which to view off scores. It is not a filter through which to decide doping or not, it is a legal heuristic. Deciding that 1-1000 means the athlete is okay but 1-10000 the athlete doped is purely arbitrary, but done in order to translate the science into practicable legal terms.
So I will take a deeper look at what the Daily Mail says, but lets review where we stand so far, knowing only the three data points, and some background info from Paula.
To summarize my post from the third page of this thrad:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=6740196&thread=6739631#6740196-Pre-race, her off score was 82
-We know from her statements that before that race, she had an Hgb of 12 (from her autobiography:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COmn9jqUkAAROV5.jpg:large)
- Inferring from the chart, her ret% was about 0.4%
-Paula's Vilamoura Half Marathon post-race blood test is one of the high off scores (114.9). Looking at the chart, that off-score was produced by a ret%0.4 and Hgb of 15.3 g/dL, (Off-score = 115.0).
So we're left wondering whether the conditions that changed her hgb concentration from 12 to 15.3 are possible clean? (Her ret% wouldn't have changed, even with a transfusion, as the body reacts slowly in making that adjustment)
She says that she became dehydrated. That is a normal reaction to hot weather racing, and a normal cause for hgb concentration to increase.
Here's what should be expected though. In a study of hot-weather running, on average, a 4% loss in body mass (water) is 1.6 g/dl of increased hgb concentration. The extreme in the study was 2.2 g/dl. According to the off-score and an assumed unchanged ret%, Paula's changed by 3.3 g/dl. (An elite can expect to lose 2-3 L of water typically, even 5L)
-She said in a statement that her Hgb increased by 2.8 g/dl.
-Even that represents a huge loss in plasma volume (The volume change to get from a concentration of 12 to 14.8 means that her post race volume is 81% of what she started with).
So we're left with Paula being in dire medical straits. But she still won the race, and by the largest winning margin, ever. Her assertion that her off-score was produced by the level of dehydration shown by the numbers is not comparable with the performance she put up that day. She could not have performed as well as she did, while dehydration causes her hgb to change so drastically.
So where did the extra hgb come from, if not by changed concentrations? I wager a transfusion.
This post got long, so I'll post a part two later.
Clerk: copying and pasting Ross Tuckers blog post and then changing the outcome to suit your agenda is not really showing much credibility on your part especially when the other info you posted shows how little you do know.
Firstly, the 0.4 %ret was a hypothetical data point that Tucker used to show how the off-score is calculated, we don't actually know Radcliffe's retic count was, this shows me that you have no idea how to calculate an off-score and used Tucker's hypothetical situation without understanding it. You also said that %retic does not change after a transfusion, this is completely untrue as it does immediately upon the infusion. %ret is a percentage of total blood volume and when you infuse more mature oxygen rich RBC's, the total volume of reticulocytes relative to total volume decreases thus making the percentage of reticulocytes smaller. Basic stuff.
You also say that it was impossible for her to perform like she did in Vilamoura in a dehydrated state, not quite impossible. While dehydration does affect aerobic endurance, how do you know what percentage of Vo2 max Radcliffe was running at? You do not know how aerobically fit Radcliffe which makes the point moot and pure speculation.
Radcliffe could be doped to the gills or not but have no understanding of the data and there is not enough public data to make such conclusions even for experts. You have no idea what you are talking about so stop with the plagiarism and pretending to be an expert.
Paula realized early on that if she was the one doing the pointing, nobody would be looking at her. Let's remember what she wrote in attacking another suspected EPO cheat:
"[Yegorova] tested positive for the blood-boosting substance EPO, but the result was overturned because the French testing authorities did not adhere to IAAF protocol."
"We routinely spend our time giving drug tests, yet the system wasn’t capable of detecting the most effective and abused doping products. Finally, when somebody was caught, she got away with it because protocol had not been followed. How could clean athletes sit back and do nothing? To have accepted Yegorova’s presence without protest would have been akin to saying doping didn’t matter. To me, to have sat back and done nothing would have been not to have the courage to stand up for what I believed in; it would have given the impression that we athletes were happy with how things were, when the truth was that we weren’t."
Now, 15 years later, Paula is claiming that non-adherence to protocol invalidates her suspicious tests.
Paula is trying to escape on the same technicality that she skewered Yegorova about.
So, Paula: how can clean athletes now sit back and do nothing? If were were to accept your presence without protest, it would be akin to saying doping doesn't matter.
If you have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, release your relevant data to impartial experts. We're not happy with how things are.
Did Paula cheat? I don't know, nobody except her and her (very) inner circle know the answer to that one.
Was there a "case to answer"? Yes, clearly.
Has that case been answered? Partially. It immediately struck me as a liitle strange that the "defence" of a spell of altitude training seems to have been dropped- perhaps because her known whereabouts at the relevant time didn't support this defence?
It also struck me as a bit "off" that the IAAF should go so far out of its way to clear one particular athlete whose blood values have merely been questioned; will we now see similar detailed examination of all the other "suspicious" values? Or is it a case that Paula simply cannot, ever be found to have cheated, for the greater good of the sport, naturally.
It is also Paula's misfortune that at the moment nobody believes anything that the IAAF says!
Taking on the cheats wrote:
Paula is trying to escape on the same technicality that she skewered Yegorova about.
Nonsense. Yegorova had a positive test which was subsequently resulted in no ban because the testing protocol was not properly followed.
Paula has never had a postiive test!! (I know, I know - that's what Lance always said, yada, yada, yada....)
Its getting really boring now, but whatever the keyboard jockeys here might think the reality is that Paula's record (in all senses) stands and has been subject to intense scrutiny - and nothing adverse has turned up.
Clerk wrote:
She deserves the criticism she is getting, because she is purposefully obfuscating and misdirecting.
+1
And you didn't even mention her 100% false claim that the half was run at 30 degrees C. Hilarious that the IAAF's investigation then resulted in 29 C! This is so obviously a lie that I am wondering whether they put it there on purpose as a wink-wink.
@larkimm: no worries, Paula got away. Like ElG and Junxia. Well not quite exactly like them, because she is the only one of those 3 who recorded blood values above the threshold (at least three times with varying excuses).
This is funny: you're now using the technicality of one having "a positive test" and the other having "suspicious results that should've been followed up on" to distinguish Yegorova from Radcliffe. That, in itself, is a technicality.So if that's your approach to life, then by all means proclaim Paula clean.Many of us have a much more nuanced view of the world--not as black and white. We want to know details of what happened. Especially when the entity that has been doing the scrutiny has an established record of looking away when given enough money.
larkimm wrote:
Taking on the cheats wrote:Paula is trying to escape on the same technicality that she skewered Yegorova about.
Nonsense. Yegorova had a positive test which was subsequently resulted in no ban because the testing protocol was not properly followed.
Paula has never had a postiive test!! (I know, I know - that's what Lance always said, yada, yada, yada....)
Its getting really boring now, but whatever the keyboard jockeys here might think the reality is that Paula's record (in all senses) stands and has been subject to intense scrutiny - and nothing adverse has turned up.
Technically you're right wrote:
This is funny: you're now using the technicality of one having "a positive test" and the other having "suspicious results that should've been followed up on" to distinguish Yegorova from Radcliffe.
That, in itself, is a technicality.
Nonsense. A test in which the presence of rEPO is detected, but which failed to have the other side of the protocol (the bloods) done is nontheless a test in which rEPO has been detected.
OTOH an offscore (or a few of them) which has triggered further targetted testing (which the IAAF report clearly says it did) which resulted in no positive tests and which, with the "plausible" factors taken account of, is not a technicality. Its the absence of a positive test!
Look, I'm not so naive as to assert that I know that Paula's offscore results and the plausible explanations for them definitely exonerate her of doping. I don't know that, I can't (and neither can you assert that you definitely know she was doping). What I believe to be true however is that the IAAF, acting impartially and properly, followed up Paula's offscore results appropriately and have concluded that they have not found evidence of a doping case to answer.
My belief in that is reinforced by the fact that the IAAF have put themselves out on a limb in their analysis and explanation of how they have reached that position. I think it would utterly implausible, unless this were an episode of the X-Files, to think that the IAAF would put themselves in such a vulnerable position at this time for the sake of a single athlete if they weren't absolutely, 100% certain about their position.
Feel free to call me naive, but I really don't see how it can be seen in any different way without conjuring up conspiracy theories that even Dan Brown would reject as being laughable.
To summarize:
Prevent dopers getting valuable info
Protect other athletes
My children
Paris terror attacks
Dehydration
Blackmail
Faulty equipment
Bad timing of test
Sickness
Altitude
MRI lie detector test
Data is complicated
Data can be misunderstood
Lord Coe
IAAF
" What I believe to be true however is that the IAAF, acting impartially and properly..."
Thanks for the laugh this morning. Half my sip of coffee went through my nose!
IAAF builds it's brand on a handful of superstars. These stars must be protected at any cost, or the IAAF brand goes down with them, just as the NBA would lose millions if Lebron or Kobe were disgraced, but even more so as the IAAF is not nearly as robust, financially.
Paula is one of those half-dozen or so protected athletes. No questions asked as far as burying embarrassing details. The other athletes are subject to the bribery system. In Shobhukova's case, she had to pay the Big Man himself to get the same cover.
Treads For wrote:
Clerk: copying and pasting Ross Tuckers blog post and then changing the outcome to suit your agenda is not really showing much credibility on your part especially when the other info you posted shows how little you do know.
Firstly, the 0.4 %ret was a hypothetical data point that Tucker used to show how the off-score is calculated, we don't actually know Radcliffe's retic count was, this shows me that you have no idea how to calculate an off-score and used Tucker's hypothetical situation without understanding it. You also said that %retic does not change after a transfusion, this is completely untrue as it does immediately upon the infusion. %ret is a percentage of total blood volume and when you infuse more mature oxygen rich RBC's, the total volume of reticulocytes relative to total volume decreases thus making the percentage of reticulocytes smaller. Basic stuff.
You also say that it was impossible for her to perform like she did in Vilamoura in a dehydrated state, not quite impossible. While dehydration does affect aerobic endurance, how do you know what percentage of Vo2 max Radcliffe was running at? You do not know how aerobically fit Radcliffe which makes the point moot and pure speculation.
Radcliffe could be doped to the gills or not but have no understanding of the data and there is not enough public data to make such conclusions even for experts. You have no idea what you are talking about so stop with the plagiarism and pretending to be an expert.
I appreciate you're looking out for the journalistic integrity of my post and the due credit of Ross Tucker, but if you're going to fire the plagiarism bullet, don't miss.
Clerk wrote:
I feel like I've done this post before, but people come and go from threads like these not realizing they shouldn't post without some background info.
Said posts:
9/9/2015 11:57PM
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=6739337&thread=6736219#6739337(And posts on the previous page)
9/10/2015, 2:27PM
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=6740196&thread=6739631#6740196I feel like there were more, but they're spread over a few threads.
My newest post in this thread also discusses information not included in Ross Tucker's post:
http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/When was that published? September 11th.
You're right though. We don't know Puala's ret%. We can figure it out, though, because the definition of off-score as used by the ABP is dependent on that chart of hgb and ret. There is not other way to get that off score than that combination of ret% and hgb.
Second, yes, I assumed there was no transfusion. Reductio ad Absurdum. My goal was to show how unlikely her scenario, that she did not blood dope, is. Thank you for understanding that the scenario assumes no transfusion. I stand by my conclusion that that scenario is not possible.
Yes, you're right that a transfusion changes the ret% in that it changes the toal volume, and composition of that blood. But given that in several liters of blood, the number of ret is around half a percent, it is a nominal change, especially when transfused blood will bring in its own new retics. It is an important point, but one that does not change my conclusion.
Finally, one of those links above shows studies for how much dehydration affects perforamane. Not sure what you want to say about VO2, as we're talking about race performance, not lab testing.
Nothing you have pointed out invalidates the conclusions drawn. I'll take the "not an expert" as a compliment, as that puts me in good company with the way that label has been thrown around in these discussions.
larkimm wrote:
What I believe to be true however is that the IAAF, acting impartially and properly, followed up Paula's offscore results appropriately and have concluded that they have not found evidence of a doping case to answer.
Lord Coe, is that you?
Seriously, if you're going to believe the IAAF at face value, then we have every right to call you hopelessly naive.
I'm not trying to be mean, but given what we've learned about bribery and extortion at the IAAF regarding doping tests, how can we believe they are anything but self serving?
This latest rebuttal is timed on behalf of Coe being grilled by the politicos. Holding up Britain's golden girl is a way to make him look kind and gentle.
And Paula wrapping herself in the tragedy of Paris is--well--just plain exploitative. In her eyes, people who attack the IAAF are worse than terrorists. What a whackjob.
Truth In Advertising wrote:
Whew, faulty equipment. And I was thinking she'd been eating red meat and sweet potatoes prior to downing her daily dose of Extenze. Maybe it was the same equipment that popped Bernie???
Wejo,
did Paula pay you in any form whatsoever to write this glowing review of her side of the story presented in a Tabloid? Enquiring minds want to know.
Sincerely,
Banned in the U.S.A.
Where did I put a glowing review of what she said? I tried to relay what she said to the Sunday Mail. Also in the past as I have said I am compromised on this one as I know Paula personally, and paced her to her world record. As I tried to point out, Paula won't be cleared until WADA or some independent group clears her. The IAAF has no credibility.
I told Paula and Gary from the beginning that I thought all of her blood values would come out eventually so might as well get them all out there. That is where they had a difference in opinion and when they told me some info in confidence/off the record that I have respected. The indication I got from them was that more info would come out and they thought her name would be cleared. It doesn't help in the interim that one of the two parties that really could clear her (IAAF, the other being WADA) has lost all credibility in the interim.
We don't follow the Flotrack model of taking money from entities and not disclosing it. Trust is ultimately all we have with you. So no, I haven't been paid, but think how much I could make if I was from entities that didn't want bad news published on them. That is why it is essential something that is paid for is disclosed.
And I am not sure what the offer of the one million for the MRI brain scan entails. I do know that Vicetor Sailer (pro race photographer) who thinks everyone has cheated emailed me probably 6 months ago with a link to MRI lie detectors and said that was our only hope for a clean sport. I have no idea how they work or what they cost, but I'm glad for clean sport Paula says she'd take one.
Clerk wrote:
I wrote this on Paula and Hartmann for another thread a while ago:
Clerk Wrote:
First part is going to be a little off-topic, but I want to make this point right away: Who the **** is he to say Paula is "an athlete who wanted it badder and was willing to dig deeper and prepare harder and more meticulously than anyone else." I'll come back to this in a bit...
Some more context: I that I think he is a tool. I don't want to assume that Radcliffe employs him as part of her a media juggernaut, and won't take that arrogance he displays as a reflection of her character. But he is a joke.
So first, here is his academic background :
http://www.hartmann-international.com/Articles/1/The-Irish-Midas.aspxThe blend of physical talent and intelligence earned him a scholarship to the University of Arkansas, where he studied business. On his return to Ireland he got himself a National Certificate in Exercise and Fitness at the University of Limerick, much to Patrick ' s [his father's] anger.In 1989 he returned to the United States and completed his post-graduate course at the Florida Institute of Natural Health where he qualified as a physical therapist. He did his practical experience at the University of Florida in Gainesville
And one perspective on that background:
https://thesportsphysio.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/all-thats-wrong-with-sports-physios/In this interview this ‘physio’, and I use the term ‘physio’ carefully as I understand that he is not a fully qualified physiotherapist, and has not been trained on any recognised or accredited course.
I fact the best I can find on Mr Hartmann qualifications is a soft tissue masseuse course he did in the USA back in the 90’s. But apparently this doesn’t stop him calling himself a physio due to a legal loop hole in Ireland where he currently works.
Anyway, this ‘Physio’ goes on to describe a daily routine of hours and hours of soft tissue massage for Paula, claiming to realign joints and bones, fix and correct muscle imbalances and imperfections, and a pre race routine of acupuncture and joint adjustments, and how this is “no stress for me, no stress for the athleteâ€
As I read this article I feel myself becoming more and more agitated. All I think about is how this ill educated poorly trained, so called therapist masquerading as a healthcare professional can and probably does adversely affect this elite level, highly talented and hard working athlete he has the honour and privilege to work with.
The blog is some rando with a type writer, but let's go down that path.
Building dependence is a big marketing strategy, in anything. But a lot of best health and wellness practices are the opposite of marketing: an effective intervention should decrease dependence. But look at some athlete's testimonials:
She [Radliffe] revelled with very intensive deep tissue massage—three hours a day of very deep tissue work
It was often between three to four hours. Five would be extreme if something was acting up, broken into two treatments, and I can’t think of any other athlete who required that amount. It was driven by Paula saying “this is what I need; this is what works for me,â€
I [the journalist] asked Reilly, a former 29:15 10km runner, what Hartmann ' s secret was. Surely he would know? But he merely sighed and said: " You know, I honestly can ' t put my finger on it. "
Douglas Wakiihuri, the Kenyan who won world and London Marathon titles in the late 1980s, once sent a thank you message to his daktari, which read: " I will always run to your healing hands. "
Here's what that blog has to say on building dependance: "Yes healthcare professionals are there to assit and help athletes, but their primary responsibility is to instill a sense of robustness, toughness, and strength, both mentally and physcially with all they they work with. Simply put they should be making these hard working, dedicated, talented people feel invincible, impregnable, indestructible, basically like f**king superheroes,"
I don't know who that blogger is, but the message is still true. It is a very similar situation to Dr. Hans-Muller. It's not science if no one else can do it..
Hartmann drove me to the airport (the only thing he seems to do at less than 100 miles per hour), and on the plane home I asked myself if I had solved this medical mystery.
The answer was: probably not. Gerard Hartmann remains an enigma
It's not science if no one else can do it.
I'm going to skips the research articles, because those won't be helpful to us (the research doesn't have a full understanding of the mechanisms of why massage works, but of course many findings linking it to improved recovery/performance). A practitioner, Patrick Ward, is a good resource for distilling science into practice. Here's what he has to say:
http://optimumsportsperformance.com/blog/soft-tissue-techniques-for-athletic-recovery/Unfortunately, most therapists have a one-size-fits-all approach to therapy and, no matter what your complaint or need is, you are going to come in, lie on the table and get a deep tissue massage
(Sounds like Hartmann)
And his reference chart for different interventions:
http://optimumsportsperformance.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Screen-Shot-2014-10-18-at-8.07.11-AM.pngIn the first group, we are dealing with athletes who have a high level of fatigue and exhaustion. This may come from a period of overreaching or overtraining. Additionally, within this bucket are athletes that have a high level of anxiety (and perhaps may show a higher amount of sympathetic dominance). For the athletes with these complaints our treatment options are to help them attain a more relaxed state. For this, I favor longer massage sessions (60-90min) with a lot of slow compression and long holds of skin stretching. These techniques tend to be very relaxing and provide a therapeutic effect. The suggestion of placing the athlete prone is to decrease the amount of visual input (as well as the urge to talk or speak) and to attempt to get them to shut down for a moment and maybe even fall asleep on the table. Additionally, working on the neck and paraspinals in this prone position seems to evoke a sense of relaxation and have a calming effect on the system.
n the second group we see one of the most common reasons why athletes seek out massage – soreness. The massage technique suggestions for this complaint come from some of the research discussed on my last article as well as the research I discussed in an article two years ago from Crane et al. Both articles explained a massage approach for muscle damage dealing with 5-10min of gliding strokes to the affected muscle region. I also put into this section things like contract relax stretching or pin and stretch modalities as method to engage the athlete, get them to move around a little bit, and, in the process of creating movement with human touch, allow them to perceive themselves as “less soreâ€.
The final group is one of mobility or “tightness†as well as treatments geared towards maintenance of mobility and tissue quality. The aim of dealing with the athletes in this group is to have a good understanding of where their movement system is currently (what is their baseline) and then determining when they are below their norm (oftentimes, following intense competition or training, the individual may tighten up or stiffen up and lose some of their normal movement). Also, knowing what is normal for the athlete in the sense of tissue quality (tone) and what is abnormal, for that individual, can be extremely important and helpful in guiding your treatment approach. Within this group the modalities selected are more active, engaging the athlete to move and be a participant in the treatment. Thus, things like pin and stretch techniques or active stretching/mobility techniques can be very valuable. Additionally, Dr. Andreo Spina’s work, Functional Range Release, can be extremely helpful for engaging the resistance barrier, applying tension to the tissue, and using things such as PAILs and RAILs to actively engage the athlete with movements into and out of their limited range
Hartmann describes a single intervention: digging in. But for a daily routine, it is clear that digging in is the opposite of what an athlete needs. Relaxation would help so much more. Certainly, an injury or cramped muscle needs it, and the injured athletes that fly in for a special session get what they are looking for. But this comment on the first blog post sums up the issue best:
It would seem Paula has unfortunately surrounded herself with a poor pit crew. But on the other hand maybe she chooses them. Smacks a bit of the Tiger Woods displaced sacrum saga and the idiots he had “helping†him. Not having ever met the woman I can’t comment on her personality, nature etc. Paula is obviously a phenomenal athlete. I liken her 2.15 marathon to a male sub 2hr marathon. But her psyche is something I’m not aware of. Even though her treatment protocol is maddening, maybe she wants that safety net even though I’m sure it has a negative impact. I was reading an article yesterday about Paula’s final marathon preparation for London and her pathway back. There was a period it said of training in Kenya where she got some Achilles soreness. Now blind Freddie would have just calmed her down, looked at the current training volume, adjusted things a little, eased her back in. But no, they threw everything bar the kitchen sink at her from all over Europe.
and even better:
Well said Adam and something that needs saying! It’s seems I spend most of my time trying to undo the mess left behind by this so called care. No one seems to be able to see the negative effects this has on athletes, IMO Paula would of won an Olympic medal but her perceived fragility couldn’t handle the pressure and she ‘broke’, her magnets and other voodoo providing no help when things really mattered.
And stemming off the first comment about Paula's pit crew, here it is (From the Hartmann interview):
"working with a dietitian, a homeopath, an exercise physiologist, physical therapist, osteopath, and collaborating all of that with her husband, Gary, and her coach. "
(I'm going to let the homeopathy angle speak for it self...)
That is a dependent athlete. That is a fragile athlete. She is not the toughest personality in the sport, she is the most delicate personality in the sport. She needs these people. And they couldn't come through for her when it actually mattered. Paula can punish herself, and is willing to suffer, doping or not. Pain tolerance does not fix doubt. Pain tolerance does not fix ineffective supporting personnel. Pain tolerance doesn't keep you healthy. But that this "pain tolerance" somehow translates into an effective athlete is a myth that is repeated over and over and over.
It has to stop.
Clerk, I appreciate the research and you taking the time to write such a lengthy post. As a former coach (and athlete), I can say figuring out what actually cured an athlete and what didn't can be hard. An injured athlete tries on a new shoe or goes and sees a new doctor and they get healthy. They immediately credit the shoe or doctor when it's quite possible they just cured themselves.
So I get what you are saying but it sounds like you are a medical professional who is just upset that Hartmann is famous. Marketing works in sports just like it does in business. Is an iphone that much better than other phones? No but people pay for it. Is Dr. Andrews that much better than all of the sports docs out there? I doubt it but no athlete wants to take the chance. They all credit him.
Your idea that Hartmann is some total quack who decided to create an elaborate cover dating from 14 years ago reads out of a conspiracy movie.
Weldon and I went to Hartmann in the spring of 2002 for treatment. He was raving about Radcliffe then. He refused to put her picture up on the wall as he said he wouldn't do so until she won Olympic gold. He said she was the toughest woman ever, etc. Interacting with her for a week, it was pretty clear her level of dedication was higher than anything we'd witnessed.
I found him to be knowledgeable. I mainly went to accompany weldon but also wanted treatment on my hamstring. He said, "I'm not worried about your hamstring. I'm much more worried about your achillles. That may never heal" I ended up needing to have surgery on my achilles 7 or 8 years later.
You write:
Clerk Wrote:
First part is going to be a little off-topic, but I want to make this point right away: Who the **** is he to say Paula is "an athlete who wanted it badder and was willing to dig deeper and prepare harder and more meticulously than anyone else."
So the answer is he is the one to say it. He had a practice with lots of patients. Why can't he single out one that he thought was tougher than everyone else? Coaches do this all the time. Analysts, etc. It's part of life. People have favorites.
Does this mean she's clean? No. Does it mean he's not a quack? No. But it's a crazy great conspiracy if you believe he was planting all of this 14 years ago so when a scandal broke in 2015 he'd be the cover. Remember in 2001, there was no ABP or anything.
-Rojo
Well, I'm just wondering what pop-pop's statement "The good news here is Seppelt has the data. Ashenden and Parisotto have an answer that Radcliffe doesn't like." could mean. There's an implication that they will come out sometime with the "real truth" about Paula, or else, why would it be good news? Since Dec. 2014, is there one single comment from any of them regarding Paula? Does Ashenden and Parisotto really have an answer that Radcliffe doesn't like? What is it? Did they ever say? Unless someone can provide a quote, this statement looks like wishful thinking.I completely agree with you that Seppelt, Ashenden, and Parisotto did not concern themselves with Paula at all. They seem to be more concerned with Russian and Kenyan doping, and the lack of effective and timely sanctions from the IAAF. Seppelt has the data, but only talks about Russians, Kenyans, and the IAAF. Similarly Ashenden and Parisotto talk about "life threatening" blood levels and the health of athletes -- maybe I'm wrong, but I highly doubt they are concerning themselves with Paula's marginally excessive off-scores.This leads me to wonder if Paula should have been involved at all, and question the motives of the Times for dragging her into the discussion, when the other principles were concerned about much bigger things.People keep clamoring for Paula to release all of her data. But then what? To correctly interpret it, you need the doping control forms, and other external context. Then you need to compare to all the data of others. Will the public clamor for all the data of everyone? Not just the handful of clean athletes, but also the dirty ones who have been caught, and the marginal ones in between. And you need to have a good idea of how to interpret the data in context, and evaluate the uncertainty of the data you are looking at.Frankly, I don't trust the public to be able to make an educated judgement, and the ones who can already have the data.
Clerk wrote:
rekrunner wrote:And yet their silence is deafening.
I haven't seen any direct quotes, so someone provide a link if it exists, but Seppelt, Ashenden, and Parisotto have been completely silent about Paula from the beginning. It looks to me like it was only the British tabloids who dragged her name into it, perhaps for their own selfish reasons.
It really doesn't matter what Paula tells the public, and most certainly, the public does not need the data, and would anyway lack the expertise to correctly interpret it. The ones who can already have the data.
They are not interested in Radliffe. They looked at all the data, and saw many issues. Their concern is bigger than one athlete. Their concern is that the IAAF called their perspective a deceleration of war. Their concern is that the system they created is not being implemented properly. Their concern is that they saw many cheats, and the IAAF failed to act.
Further, while talk of a super-injunction from Paula Radcliffe prevent discussion seem to not be true, this was
The paper (Sunday Times) quoted the athlete, now known to be Radcliffe, as denying any cheating, threatening legal action and telling it: “You print it and I sue you [and] you won’t be getting any money back in future like Lance Armstrong, I promise you that.â€
Their silence is deafening? Why? Because they're not constantly writing on the UK's golden girl? No surprise given that the facts speak for themselves, she is a ticking bomb, and they have bigger fish to fry. Get your head out of Radcliffe's ass. They've been the loudest voice against the IAAF since these stories broke.
Then how is it "good news that Seppelt has the data" and that "Ashenden and Parisotto has an answer that Radcliffe doesn't like"?How do you know they have an answer if they haven't given it?
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:And yet their silence is deafening.
I haven't seen any direct quotes, so someone provide a link if it exists, but Seppelt, Ashenden, and Parisotto have been completely silent about Paula from the beginning.
Why would they want to be drawn into endless, expensive litigation that ends up being a PR battle they would lose?
Do they pay much for Internet Community Coordinators posting your nonsense?
Fair enough. You're right in that I'm being overly aggressive. My original intent (if I remember) was to look into a "Paula had the best support staff" line, and I got carried away and focused on Hartmann.
I stand by my opinions of him, but won't make any other connection to Paula's cleanliness other than to crack at the myth of "best support staff" as a possible reason for her performances. (As far as one can prove doping without a positive test, one way is to break down the scenarios that a performance could be achieved, cleanly.)
Calling him a quack may have been too far; I don't know anything more about him than what I posted.
I do know that creating a dependent relationship is problematic for someone in this kind of field (and many others), and I think there is plenty of reason to think that Paula's mental fragility is tied to this kind of dependance (as opposed to an innate toughness), but that is a separate topic.
larkimm wrote:
What I believe to be true however is that the IAAF, acting impartially and properly, followed up Paula's offscore results appropriately and have concluded that they have not found evidence of a doping case to answer.
Impartially? Coe said Ms. Radcliffe is never testing positive.
What does the PR agency pay for you to post this nonsense?
Did you miss the fact that Radcliffe's data is a part of a much larger set of data that showed widespread doping, on podiums, in international elite competition? During this same period, the IAAF hit their numbers and sanctioned 2-3% of all athletes in their testing pool.
EPO cheats out Paula.
rekrunner wrote:
Well, I'm just wondering what pop-pop's statement "The good news here is Seppelt has the data. Ashenden and Parisotto have an answer that Radcliffe doesn't like." could mean. There's an implication that they will come out sometime with the "real truth" about Paula, or else, why would it be good news?
Do you even read Seppelt's articles? Let's review:
-Seppelt has lots of test data including Radcliffe's values.
-The UK media property did their due diligence and contacted Radcliffe. -Radcliffe was ready to lawyer up to keep her data secret and hasn't backed off.
-Meanwhile, Radcliffe and the IAAF have published explanations that do not fit many other basic facts.
-Coe unilaterally declared Radcliffe is never testing positive.
If Radcliffe's scores were normal-ish all of this would have been over months ago. They are not normal and Radcliffe and the IAAF keep digging a deeper hole including dredging up the infamous lie detector test.
EPO cheats out Paula.
Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto only agreed to analyse the leaked blood data if all the athletes’ names were kept anonymous. It was an accident that Paula Radcliffe name was revealed.
Only when an athlete is officially charged with a doping offence will their name be publicly revealed. Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto are behaving like professionals, so they will never publicly speak about the investigation into Paula Radcliffe’s blood data.
“… Her test results were so ‘abnormal’ that it is claimed there was only a 1 in 1,000 chance that they were natural.†This is the reported statement by Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto about Paula Radcliffe.
Therefore,
“23. In terms of the level of deviation that warrants opening a disciplinary proceeding, values beyond the 99.9th percentile threshold (‘1 in 1,000’) have conventionally been largely accepted by WADA and international sport federations as being fair to athletes while still effective in detecting dopers.11 However, this threshold was excluded from the 2013 (4th) edition of the ABP Operating Guidelines, leaving open the possibility to pursue disciplinary proceedings at lower thresholds.
24. Nonetheless, in the specific context of imposing an anti-doping rule violation, an inference that the abnormal blood values were caused by doping is solely the responsibility of an adjudicator. Only that decision maker can reach a verdict after the totality of the evidence is weighed. So for instance, the athlete must be invited to offer a competing explanation for the abnormal values, and three experts must unanimously reject the athlete’s explanations. This evidence in its entirety will be the basis for the adjudicator to determine guilt or innocence.†-
Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto believe a disciplinary proceeding is required for Paula Radcliffe. They have never said that she is guilty. That can only be determined after the disciplinary proceeding.
The reason why the IAAF and UKAD have cleared Paula Radcliffe is that they argue that blood data before 2009 is not acceptable in a doping sanction.
“Let me be clear and reiterate what has already been stated by the Independent Commission as it relates to the ARD and Sunday Times reports regarding athletes’ blood values: no information in the leaked database from before 2009 – which was before the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was introduced – could ever be considered as doping, legally or otherwise.†-
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-09/statement-from-wada-director-general
Therefore, the IAAF and UKAD argue that there is no evidence against Paula Radcliffe. There is no case to answer.
The extenuating circumstances that Paula Radcliffe has given are not the reason why the IAAF and UKAD have cleared her.
