I think part of the problem is that athletes like Paula and Mo live in a bubble where their perception of the views of the public are badly misinformed. They assume the public and a lot of the media are stupid. When you put out tweets like this...
@paulajradcliffe
A lot of people were deceived. The Nike I know represents the spirit and ideals of true athletes and would never condone doping. ...
.... you have to be deluded... rich but deluded.
No bounds wrote:
I think part of the problem is that athletes like Paula and Mo live in a bubble where their perception of the views of the public are badly misinformed. They assume the public and a lot of the media are stupid. When you put out tweets like this...
@paulajradcliffe
A lot of people were deceived. The Nike I know represents the spirit and ideals of true athletes and would never condone doping. ...
.... you have to be deluded... rich but deluded.
Is this the same Paula who gave a cold shoulder to Shalane , after Shalane questioned NOP practices?
Radcliffe is hiding her ABP for one reason, and one reason only - she's a doper. I'm very disappointed, because I used to believe in her. Maybe she thought she had no choice in order to compete against the Didoper Africans. Nevertheless, she clearly is a doper.
I also agree with the person who posted about Fleshman; it really is insufferable, and she should shut up about her 'mansplaining' unless she wants people to label her as 'womansplaining' everytime she makes a comment. It is sexist of her, and uncalled for; a way of minimising someone else's opinion merely because of their sex. That's SEXIST and BIGOTED.
I don't even care so much anymore that she obviously was doped to the proverbial gills, it's the "Lie about it until you're in the grave" aspect that to me is appalling.
It is impossible to be bigoted towards a white male in any way. They invented it so they can’t use it as a shield. White men, especially white men in the USA, are evil and deserve to be fully sanctioned by the UN and have their entirety of their stolen wealth redistributed to those from whom the stole it. This doesn’t include gay white men, BTW as they are victims just like the rest of the minorities who have been subjugated to white rape for their entire lives.
YMMV wrote:
I don't even care so much anymore that she obviously was doped to the proverbial gills, it's the "Lie about it until you're in the grave" aspect that to me is appalling.
Agree entirely. I just wish they'd off her from BBC sport commentating, so I wouldn't have to see her every time something of interest comes on with athletics. She's a bloody terrible commentator anyway.
Michael Johnson is an excellent, balanced commentator though - wish they'd [BBC sport] bring him on more.
Fleshman and Radcliffe have a business partnership. Radcliffe is acting as some kind of rep for Picky Bars in the UK.
from his website 'I am also an ambassador and scientific advisor to Virgin Active and adidas' makes sense why he attacks nike athletes then when Adidas has had tyson gay ect ps he is not a scientist now or an expert in doping his phd is in Exercise Physiology studying fatigue, the brain and the limits to performance.
THE sport in the U.K. Is run by a small inner circle who control everything, the sport's TV coverage, the events that are covered, athlete management, influence in the governing body.... with so many 'mutual' benefits.
YMMV wrote:
I don't even care so much anymore that she obviously was doped to the proverbial gills, it's the "Lie about it until you're in the grave" aspect that to me is appalling.
I agree but hopefully Ross can keep going and drag this one out so that PR does eventually get officially busted. When someone who has made millions from the sport and has an address in Monaco because they do not want to pay their taxes, you can be sure that they have been dishonest in many other areas in their life. These types of people need to be taken down.
Ross reminds me of David Walsh back in 1999 who was obsessively going after Armstrong. He did not have many people officially sharing his point of view but eventually after doggedly pursuing the case for almost 10 years he finally gained momentum and following and Armstrong was officially taken down almost 15 years later.
Ross may well have a tougher job as there will less witnesses in distance running as opposed to cycling which is a team sport but he needs to keep pegging away and hopefully more information will be leaked.
Walsh fan wrote:
YMMV wrote:
I don't even care so much anymore that she obviously was doped to the proverbial gills, it's the "Lie about it until you're in the grave" aspect that to me is appalling.
I agree but hopefully Ross can keep going and drag this one out so that PR does eventually get officially busted. When someone who has made millions from the sport and has an address in Monaco because they do not want to pay their taxes, you can be sure that they have been dishonest in many other areas in their life. These types of people need to be taken down.
Ross reminds me of David Walsh back in 1999 who was obsessively going after Armstrong. He did not have many people officially sharing his point of view but eventually after doggedly pursuing the case for almost 10 years he finally gained momentum and following and Armstrong was officially taken down almost 15 years later.
Ross may well have a tougher job as there will less witnesses in distance running as opposed to cycling which is a team sport but he needs to keep pegging away and hopefully more information will be leaked.
Hey people, what ever happened to all the blood bags taken from Dr. Fuentes office during the doping raid? Isn't it funny how that happens (along with the raid and arrest of Jama Aden) and years later no action is taken, nothing mentioned. The perps can bribe the judges to do nothing and the public then forgets.
tidonnalunnamunna wrote:
Radcliffe is hiding her ABP for one reason, and one reason only - she's a doper. I'm very disappointed, because I used to believe in her. Maybe she thought she had no choice in order to compete against the Didoper Africans. Nevertheless, she clearly is a doper.
Yes, I agree. The only reason why she hasn't released all of her data is because she has something to hide. Why not let Ross and some experts have a look at it? This is the best way to exonerate her. Hiding her data is never going to help clear this up. She has preached transparency but when it came time for her to be transparent she shuts it down. This is hypocrisy at its finest.
Paula is not coming across well.
rojo wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
As internal IAAF emails showed, Saugy was the IAAF's "cleaner." Someone tests positive that's valuable to the IAAF had their samples sent from the testing lab to Saugy in Switzerland. Saugy would then proclaim "lab error" and the positive is swept away. The same IAAF that was bribing athletes to not start a case on a positive sample.
Can you please provide a link to an article with this email? I don't recall this.
And if all of that is true, then how do you explain the following? Why wouldn't the #1 expert want to sit down with her?
http://cdn.letsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/5.png
Here's the link to the email:
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/nick-davies-admits-accepting-payment-papa-diack-2013/Little unclear what is really meant with the reference to Saugy, but given that Dolle was on the take and Saugy was later implicated in destroying samples (
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/the-destruction-of-samples-and-martial-saugy/) then you have to wonder.......
Rojo - in return for these links ;-) a question - back in 2015 (I paraphrase) you could swear that Paula was clean but that you were certain that she would publish more data about her results and you were looking forward to it coming out because that was the right thing to do. What do you think about the fact that nothing has come out and we are still none the wiser?
On a final note, Ashenden most likely wouldn't sit down to discuss anything with Paula because the Sunday Times lawyers wouldn't let him - he was an integral part of their story and their bit of the IAAF - the allegation that they had done nothing to follow up susupicious tests - was flawed
Or it could be this simple.... who would pay him for his time and legal expense.
Another interesting tidbit is that Paula tweets "No law suits were ever threatened, aggressively or otherwise. They couldn’t be printed as they weren’t true" after Ross says she threatened lawsuits.
I've read a direct quote attributed to Paula where she most definitely did threaten a lawsuit about this. Anyone else remember this?
Walsh fan wrote:
I agree but hopefully Ross can keep going and drag this one out so that PR does eventually get officially busted.
Not with Coe pronouncing that "Everyone knows Paula is clean." She has the backing of the federation, just like Armstrong did.
It must be nice to lie with impunity knowing the federation will never sanction you.
DC Runnerman wrote:
Another interesting tidbit is that Paula tweets "No law suits were ever threatened, aggressively or otherwise. They couldn’t be printed as they weren’t true" after Ross says she threatened lawsuits.
I've read a direct quote attributed to Paula where she most definitely did threaten a lawsuit about this. Anyone else remember this?
Radcliffe was outed by a British Parlament member .... I believe
" Last month the Sunday Times alleged that 12 athletes from Britain had abnormal off-scores – which are calculated by using an equation that involves an athlete’s haemoglobin and reticulocyte levels – in the 11 years before the London 2012 Olympics including “a successful athlete who on three occasions recorded off-scores that had a less than a one-in-1,000 chance of being natural”. The paper 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.”
Bingo!
It's hard to believe that I once held Lauren Fleshman in high esteem. Guess I bought into the Girl Power thing.
She has not merely jumped the shark with her rhetoric since retiring (or more accurately, since offering weasel-words in response to the NOP scandal hitting the news). She has launched herself clear across the Pacific and crashed into the Himalayas.
She has to make herself a part of every damn thing that comes along. And the smartest, most important part.
LetsRun.com wrote:
dsfasdsadfasf wrote:
I'm 34. I honestly have no idea how to read Twitter conversations in a way that makes them intelligible. I don't know if that's because they aren't intelligible or because I don't know how to Twitter.
If I scroll down on your post, I don't see anything that Paula says.
If I click the link and scroll through various comments on Tucker's Twitter, I see that Paula Radcliffe says something about asking questions creating noise (I don't understand the context) and that she hasn't made her values public because it would help cheaters evade detection.
If I scroll through Paula's Twitter I don't see her comments on others' posts?
Please summarize.
We 100% agree. We don't know how to do it either so we have taken screen shots and embedded them into an article that yu can scroll through in about 15 seconds.
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2018/02/miss-twitter-war-ross-tucker-paula-radcliffe-catch/If we are missing any relevant tweets or if you know what started all of this, please email us at
letsrun@letsrun.com.
The one question we still have is where Tucker’s first tweet below came from and why Radcliffe responded to it.
Update: We figured out how it all started and updated the article. The exchange began when Tucker quoted a tweet of Radcliffe’s from a separate thread in which Radcliffe explained why she chose not to release her full athlete biological passport data (ABP) in 2015. Tucker called Radcliffe a hypocrite, and the argument escalated from there.
Thanks.
Having read the conversation, I feel like this really highlights how poor Twitter is as a medium for discourse:
-Why is it so difficult for Tucker to focus on the explanation that releasing her values would make it easier for people to get away with doping? Either this is possibly true, or it isn't. Either doping authorities asked Paula to not release her values, or they didn't. This shouldn't be too difficult to conclusively determine after a decade of asking her about it.
-Tucker's discussion of statistics alarms the statistician in me: "When the probability that a hematological value is not due to doping is about 1 in 1000, and only then with multiple flags and data points." I don't know how the biological passport works, and I mean, 1 in 1000 *sounds* pretty stringent, but if there are dozens or hundreds of tests per athlete (dozens of tests times a handful of markers) and thousands of athletes in the system, then false positives are going to happen all the time. Tucker should know this. Looking at multiple flags might help, but only if they're uncorrelated. Ultimately the decisions are apparently left to a human panel of experts, which doesn't really seem transparent to me either. I did some digging and found this (start on page 50):
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-abp-operating-guidelines-v5.0-en.pdf. The biological passport sounds like it's designed to modulate the testing frequency rather than make an outright determination of positive/negative tests, which seems like it might help improve the use of testing resources.
-Lauren Fleshman's comments seem out of line. Do you believe in the biological passport, or don't you? If you do, then you can't be worried that Rudisha's results might be anomalous because he's the greatest of all time. The fact that Paula is a woman is irrelevant. If you don't believe in the biological passport, then that's a fair stance to take. As a layperson I'm not sure what to believe.
I want to ask further questions about the biological model. It identifies people who are outliers. Does that mean if everyone is doping then the outliers will be clean athletes? Or is the model trained on clean athletes (do they exist?) or ordinary people?
Personally, I don't even care who is doping (because I think everyone is), I just want to see how prevalent they think doping is, and that might be possible to figure out from the statistical distribution of test results. *If* you believe in the biological passport model and the need for transparency, then looking at the entire distribution of p-values should give us an estimate of the fraction of people who are doping (but won't tell us who they are). You should be able to do this by considering the entire distribution of probabilities spat out by the biological passport's adaptive model. Not just the unlikely events, but the likely ones too. All of them. If nobody were doping, then the null hypothesis would be true and the histogram of p-values would be uniform (actually, I wonder how they trained the model in the first place). Since some fraction of people are doping (because duh), if you believe in the adaptive model then you are likely to get lots of people with low probabilities, even if they don't cross the probability threshold for significance. The distribution would look like this:
http://genomicsclass.github.io/book/pages/figure/multiple_testing-pval_hist2-1.pngSome of those tests won't cross the probability threshold for significance action on their own, but the entire distribution will shift to the left in such a way that you should be able to get an estimate of the number of tests that came from dopers overall, even if you don't know who the dopers are. This is related to the "false discovery rate" in statistics. In the figure, the fraction of the area of the curve above the solid horizontal line (at 90ish) would be equal to the fraction of people doping. We just wouldn't be sure who they were.
