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

Under 16s Surrey Rugby Coach presently at Her Majesty's pleasure doing a 4-year stretch for being caught with HUNDREDS of doses of Test.

Rekrunner says she ran the time clean and we should move on. And what Rekrunner says goes...he's supposedly the expert on these issues and very overbearing with anyone who has a different opinion.

Survey Says.... wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

We just got done looking at the survey where 72% of letsrun fans thought 2:15 was done clean.

It's kind of a weird survey where 43% thought El G's WR was done clean. ?

Yeah that was fun to see. In any case, it would be quite interesting to have letsrun repeat the survey, after we learned how corrupt the IAAF was, and that likely over 44% of all championchip athletes are drug cheats, and specifically how suspicious Paula's blood tests were, to put it mildly.

casual obsever wrote:

Survey Says.... wrote:

It's kind of a weird survey where 43% thought El G's WR was done clean. ?

Yeah that was fun to see. In any case, it would be quite interesting to have letsrun repeat the survey, after we learned how corrupt the IAAF was, and that likely over 44% of all championchip athletes are drug cheats, and specifically how suspicious Paula's blood tests were, to put it mildly.

Wow!...that's mind-bogglingly: "44%" ?

On the championship athletes: Is that gold medalists or all medalists, and "championships" meaning Olympic & World Championship competitions, as well as indoor championships, national championships, etc.?

Now, I wonder what the realistic detection rate is? Lets say it's 20% (too high or too low?), then that would mean for every 10 athletes engaged in doping, WADA detects only two (2) from either a doping positive or enough evidence of doping from the athlete's ABP sufficient enough for a sanction. If near "44%" or nearing half of all championship medal winners are doping then 80% will not get caught keeping their ill-gotten achievements and all the perks that go with it.

IMO, it comes down to the detection rate with anti-doping and I don't know if my guess of 20% is accurate or not (I've heard as low as 5% and as high as 50%...any scientific analysis done on this?).

If this hypothetical is remotely accurate (20% detection rate), then there's absolutely no hope for a clean sport. With near 50% of the best of best doping (Olympic & WC caliber medal contenders) and only a 20% chance of getting caught, why would dopers be detered anytime soon?

nerdy virgin xc runner wrote:

i am skeptical of anyone who is a record holder and takes a strong anti-doping stance. they obviously want to keep their WR as long as possible. it screams closet narcissist Lance-like behavior.

.

El Guerrouj used to have anti-blood doping ribbon pinned onto his singlet when he ran.

stfu JS wrote:

Sub 2:20:00 might be possible.... ? However, there is a world of difference between 2:19:59 and 2:15:xx

It boggles my mind that people think PR was actually clean. She's beating other dopers by 2 minutes, doesn't that tell you anything? And it's not just that in isolation. Her changing stories and her sudden change of heart regarding transparency, are also red flags. Her reasoning for the results on the blood tests are a serious load of bs. The only way you would accept those excuses would be if you're either ignorant about what the data means, or you're not objective.

As I posted earlier, if she didn't have such terrible form, 2:13 may have been possible, which is all you need to know about Paula.

rekrunner wrote:

Good luck with that. All of the anti-doping professionals and tabloids alike have moved on.

Thanks. We'll see. I've always argued that things are more likely to fall apart from inconsistencies and inaccuracies in her stories, rather than just re-assessing the blood values.

rekrunner wrote:

Again the horse is dead.

Science and history have shown.............why low post-altitude pre-race values should be interpreted with caution.

Sorry, don't get this. Why should they be 'interpreted with caution'? Paula comes down from altitude in 2012.......HB = 16.2

Paula comes down from altitude in 2005........HB = around 13 (we're not sure of the exact figure, but the off-score is 92, compared with 110 the next day).

"I realise that doping is a problem in our sport and have always made no secret of my views. Indeed, I am working with the IAAF and WADA to improve the situation, and we do now have a valid EPO test. We as athletes need to work with the authorities to get blood profiling schemes up and running. My idea is that regular 3-4 week screening can help us prove the validity of our performances and ensure the sport is fair."

Isn't she an ambassador of integrity?

Are you sure? wrote:

Seriously? "School and County level teams are rife with PEDs?" The Brits of all people? What kind of PEDs are they supposedly using? This is shocking to say the least! Rekrunner has never mentioned this?

Hmmm. I wonder what I'm supposed to mention.

Someone claimed there is evidence, but presented no evidence. Am I supposed to comment/respond on yet another allegation presented without basis? Should I have mentioned it before? How is prevalence impacting performance?

What do words like "rife" mean anyway? 1%? 10%? 50%? 90%?

My focus is not on doping prevalence -- I don't doubt that the faith is deep and wide and goes to the top.

My focus is not on the performance of amateurs, children, and aging masters, but on the best performances of elites.

Age Grade Paula:

99.94%

Age Grade Kipchoge:

101.49%

/Thread

rekrunner wrote:

Are you sure? wrote:

Seriously? "School and County level teams are rife with PEDs?" The Brits of all people? What kind of PEDs are they supposedly using? This is shocking to say the least! Rekrunner has never mentioned this?

Hmmm. I wonder what I'm supposed to mention.

Someone claimed there is evidence, but presented no evidence. Am I supposed to comment/respond on yet another allegation presented without basis? Should I have mentioned it before? How is prevalence impacting performance?

What do words like "rife" mean anyway? 1%? 10%? 50%? 90%?

My focus is not on doping prevalence -- I don't doubt that the faith is deep and wide and goes to the top.

My focus is not on the performance of amateurs, children, and aging masters, but on the best performances of elites.

I mentioned you because you want to be center stage on all doping related threads. Therefore, I thought you might have an opinion on this matter (and you do reside in the UK, no?).

And you have commented on amateurs before. Recall that British journalist who is an amateur cyclist and for investigative report purposes went on a micro-dose cycle of EPO showing his improvement in VOmax, watts & time, and how he wouldn't have tripped the ABP if he was a pro athlete. You participated quite aggressively in those conservations several times in the past.

Just admit it Rekrunner - doping threads are your Kingdom and you want people soliciting your opinions.

rekrunner wrote:

Are you sure? wrote:

Seriously? "School and County level teams are rife with PEDs?" The Brits of all people? What kind of PEDs are they supposedly using? This is shocking to say the least! Rekrunner has never mentioned this?

Hmmm. I wonder what I'm supposed to mention.

Someone claimed there is evidence, but presented no evidence. Am I supposed to comment/respond on yet another allegation presented without basis? Should I have mentioned it before? How is prevalence impacting performance?

What do words like "rife" mean anyway? 1%? 10%? 50%? 90%?

My focus is not on doping prevalence -- I don't doubt that the faith is deep and wide and goes to the top.

My focus is not on the performance of amateurs, children, and aging masters, but on the best performances of elites.

I recently lost a young family member to PED abuse. This is just one example of an adult defending (advocating) PED use (someone like you perhaps) who is responsible for young coaching people in Sport:

If you can't see how elite doping influences the moral choices of young people then perhaps this subject matter isn't for you.

OK. My opinion is PED abuse is bad for elites, amateurs, young and old alike. (No, I do not reside in the UK.) I think I only mention amateurs long enough to show how it doesn't relate to elite performance. Do you mean Mark Daly or Brian Fogel? It might have helped their case if either of them actually improved in a race. The goal isn't to get away with doping, but to improve performance in a real race. And then, they would still be amateurs, and the sport would be cycling -- neither of which helps shed more information about elite running performance.

Are you sure? wrote:

I mentioned you because you want to be center stage on all doping related threads. Therefore, I thought you might have an opinion on this matter (and you do reside in the UK, no?).

And you have commented on amateurs before. Recall that British journalist who is an amateur cyclist and for investigative report purposes went on a micro-dose cycle of EPO showing his improvement in VOmax, watts & time, and how he wouldn't have tripped the ABP if he was a pro athlete. You participated quite aggressively in those conservations several times in the past.

Just admit it Rekrunner - doping threads are your Kingdom and you want people soliciting your opinions.

I'm sorry for your loss. I do not advocate PED use or abuse for anyone. Accusing innocent elite athletes of doping won't help.

Fawning Fandom wrote:

I recently lost a young family member to PED abuse. This is just one example of an adult defending (advocating) PED use (someone like you perhaps) who is responsible for young coaching people in Sport:

If you can't see how elite doping influences the moral choices of young people then perhaps this subject matter isn't for you.

That was at the IAAF World Championship in Daegu, likely underestimated, averaged over everyone including the also-rans who didn't reach their semifinals/finales.

From the Seppelt/Sunday Times leak we know that medal winners had more suspicious blood values than the also-rans, and that among the medal winners the gold medalists were the worst - not exactly surprising, as PEDs literally help by definition.

20% is too high, way too high. Go to any IAAF doping list, and count their world championship athletes on there. Daegu had over 1800 athletes, so likely more than 800 drug cheats.

Or have a look at the IAAF likely doping list. Ludicrously short because of those arbitrarily high thresholds. For example, only one German, one Brit, and four Americans. Plus, most of them got away free anyway.

Finally, look at successful hard core career dopers like Armstrong and Poistogova. Even Ramzi was only caught because he misjudged the newly increased CERA detection window.

See above. I bett under 5%. It's all propaganda, smokes and mirrors.

I don't know about "we'll see" because to see, you have to look. Everyone looked in 2015 after the Sunday Times articles. Since January 2016, since the WADA IC's report #2, no one is looking at old blood values anymore. No one is looking for inconsistencies and inaccuracies in stories anymore. That's what "dead horse" means. What's not to get? Every "space age" blood measurement in the IAAF database BEFORE consistent processes were put in place should be interpreted with caution, for many reasons that have been identified many times since 2014. It is not honest to acknowledge a half-dozen or so sources of potentially significant errors, and then pretend that doesn't impact your interpretation of the measurements. It is foolish to attempt to compare an 2012 post-altitude value with 2005 and 2003: - 2005 and 2003 measurements themselves could be incorrect - 2012 was at a higher altitude (2400m) than 2005 and 2003 (1800-2100m), and she continued to use a hypoxic device at sea level - 2012 was in February, out of season, and not in season, during competitions in August, and October

DHT123 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Good luck with that. All of the anti-doping professionals and tabloids alike have moved on.

Thanks. We'll see. I've always argued that things are more likely to fall apart from inconsistencies and inaccuracies in her stories, rather than just re-assessing the blood values.

rekrunner wrote:

Again the horse is dead.

Science and history have shown.............why low post-altitude pre-race values should be interpreted with caution.

Sorry, don't get this. Why should they be 'interpreted with caution'? Paula comes down from altitude in 2012.......HB = 16.2

Paula comes down from altitude in 2005........HB = around 13 (we're not sure of the exact figure, but the off-score is 92, compared with 110 the next day).

In this case, I'm just the messenger, passing the message of experts, and passing the message of 72% of letsrun survey respondents.

Clean & Green? wrote:

Rekrunner says she ran the time clean and we should move on. And what Rekrunner says goes...he's supposedly the expert on these issues and very overbearing with anyone who has a different opinion.

Houdini wrote:

Be Real fellas wrote:

NO WAY! Deena and Paula are both clean, period. There are obvious reasons for those values and it's not doping. Give it up already.

I agree as I think she just did something really special that day. If it was ever proven that she did something illegal, I'd lose ALL faith in any professional distance runners, bar none. But...it's just smoke and mirrors right now and I'm 100% convinced she did not cheat in any way, shape, or form.

As I said, it's all smoke and mirrors, not>>>> "smokes and mirrors" for the poster (casual obsever) who copied my thoughts almost verbatim (minus the spelling error).

Paula's readings are all easily explained. She's innocent and never took anything illegal.

Fellas, get over it.

rekrunner wrote:

In this case, I'm just the messenger, passing the message of experts, and passing the message of 72% of letsrun survey respondents.

That's a high percentage and I'm confident that LRC posters are some of the most knowledgeable in the World. One thing is for certain; her record is probably going to stand for a very long time, perhaps decades into the future. If the East African women, who are the World's best distance runners, haven't been able to touch that WR in 15 yrs, then no one will.