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

It is not safe. Not even close.

are they really different? wrote:

Isn't it safe to say now that the Kenyans are doping just as much as the Russians given all the positive tests they keep throwing out these days? Looking at Team Sky I would say that the Brits, in cycling at least, are implying that it is impossible to win unless you are taking high doses of asthma medications ...

Interesting list. Is it safe to say USA is as bad as Russia, and the whole country should just be banned?

lolz 4 posts in a row...rek dude take a break, do some IT work or whatever it is you claim you do.....sheesh you have no life bro

its interesting you wrote that like you did rek....you claim you are an "expat" but you constantly defend paula and the UK...and this part again exposes you

if you claim you are an american living in europe why didnt you write

Is it safe to say "the" USA is as bad as Russia, and the whole country should just be banned?

or

Is it safe to say "we are" as bad as Russia, and the whole country should just be banned?

no one in the US says USA, and you as bashing the US like el K....interesting

rekrunner wrote:

This question only makes sense if you've already concluded the assumption being questioned, that EPO is a highly effective PED for elite runners in the marathon.

To answer that question, you must address all the causes of elite performance.

The answer may be different for female marathoners and male sprinters.

How? wrote:

How does any ** clean ** athlete DOMINATE other athletes who rely on PEDs who themselves and are supremely genetically-predisposed for marathon running?

Ben Johnson similarly demonstrated the benefit of drugs when he dominated Lewis and Christie.

PEDs are (by definition) Performance-Enhancing Drugs of ANY form. This is not a debate about whether EPO is effective.

So not only has Miss Radcliffe matched doped elite athletes, but she has OVERTAKEN them and smashed them by MINUTES!!! Just IMAGINE Carl Lewis not only matching drug-filled Ben Johnson, but SMASHING him by the same margin (as Johnson had actually beaten him). Impossible!

Can't imagine a clean athlete of the pedigree of Carl Lewis every managing that, and Radcliffe isn't in the same class as Carl Lewis.

How? wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This question only makes sense if you've already concluded the assumption being questioned, that EPO is a highly effective PED for elite runners in the marathon.

To answer that question, you must address all the causes of elite performance.

The answer may be different for female marathoners and male sprinters.

PEDs are (by definition) Performance-Enhancing Drugs of ANY form. This is not a debate about whether EPO is effective.

So not only has Miss Radcliffe matched doped elite athletes, but she has OVERTAKEN them and smashed them by MINUTES!!! Just IMAGINE Carl Lewis not only matching drug-filled Ben Johnson, but SMASHING him by the same margin (as Johnson had actually beaten him). Impossible!

Can't imagine a clean athlete of the pedigree of Carl Lewis every managing that, and Radcliffe isn't in the same class as Carl Lewis.

its pointless to argue with rek, he has lied and denied so many times and then posts 10 times in a row with quotes within quotes till it becomes so annoying people stop posting on the thread...then the thread dies and he thinks in his mind that he won or something...then pops up on some other thread and hijacks it and beats it to death till that thread dies...or in some cases he gets bashed or scolded or proven wrong to brutally and all the sudden peoples posts get magically deleted and posters get banned, and the thread is then gutted with magically only his comments remain for pages, causing that thread to die as well, again making him think he won.

casual and subway interact with him still but these days i avoid trying to interact with him because he acts like 5yr old spoiled brat and too many times my comments have been deleted and then banned. just not worth any ones time to engage with a troll of his magnitude...but if you insist dont say we didnt warn you lolz

How? wrote:

60 minutes Part Deux wrote:

Simple, she was actually THAT much better. It happens dude in all walks of life where someone has a genetic makeup that tops all others.

How did Michael Phelps win 28 medals, 23 of them Gold? How come no one could stop him? With your logic, he had to be on drugs of some sorts.

No one will ever know for sure, but until there's 100% indisputable proof, she's innocent.

So she was better than all the other highly-trained elite athletes that were on drugs? So she must have been other-worldly better. Nah.

I can't imagine Carl Lewis beating Ben Johnson on drugs. EVER. And Miss Radcliffe isn't a Lewis- like prodigy. Not by a country mile.

To answer your question, yep---she was better than all the other highly-trained athletes that were on drugs.

We disagree, period. I believe she took nothing illegal but was simply a gifted workhorse in long distance running. I think with the weather that day, the pacemaker(s) and her opening splits, that she locked on that pace and got into a very good rhythm and maintained it the whole race to do something Beamonest on a special day.

If it were proven wrong, then I'd have no problem saying that I was wrong. But until that day, I believe she did it without the help of PED's.

It's fine, you can rip me to shreds, no big deal to me. I run 7 days a week, and am happily married with 2 kids, this thread nor this forum is my life or my battle. You have the right to disagree as do I.

Have a great day!

congress abstract wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Here, cited in full, is the complete Results part of the abstract of the peer-reviewed original work (WCA: Word Championships in Athletics 2011; PAG: Pan-Arab Games 2011):

[quote]ResultsThe estimated prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6% (95% confidence interval 39.4–47.9) at WCA and 57.1% (52.4–61.8) at PAG. The estimated prevalence of past-year supplement use at PAG was 70.1% (65.6–74.7%). Sensitivity analyses, assessing the robustness of these estimates under numerous hypothetical scenarios of intentional or unintentional noncompliance by respondents, suggested that we were unlikely to have overestimated the true prevalence of doping.

You are wasting your time. Triple first-class PhD super statistician Rekrunner has already explained that scientists do not present the important part of their results in the abstract of a scientific paper ....

Ha! ? now that is the joke of the month.

I was a fan of Radcliffe until she failed the Biological Passport test and tried to blame the findings on dehydration. Like she's the only one that was susceptible to dehydration.

I always theoried that she dropped out of Athens because she had to get off the juice and lost all of her confidence. I think she blamed that one on Advil.

Total headcase. ZERO Olympic Gold.

casual obsever wrote:

Other facts: she did not pass any "retrospective testing". She also was no outlier prior to 2002 and post 2005. In these four magical years though, after turning 28, she ran her 5000 m and 10000 m PRs (remember Munich 2002?) and two marathon world records. After she got target-tested for the 2nd time (in 2005), and the EPO test became more reliable, she couldn't even run a 2:22 anymore (2006 - 2012).

Right - the marathon is her specialty. But only until 2005. Also, which other elite runner ran a 5000 m PR while in marathon training at age 30?

Also if she was a cyclist or a cross-country skier, she would've been banned pre ABP.

Isn't it amazing how people produce amazing performances out of the blue, then they get tested more regularly and they go backwards, just when there are so many financial incentives to keep performing as they had been.

lkjlkj wrote:

I was a fan of Radcliffe until she failed the Biological Passport test and tried to blame the findings on dehydration. Like she's the only one that was susceptible to dehydration.

I always theoried that she dropped out of Athens because she had to get off the juice and lost all of her confidence. I think she blamed that one on Advil.

Total headcase. ZERO Olympic Gold.

World Championships Gold in 2005. What's the difference, she was tested there as well. Not seeing your point as if the Olympics are an end to all ends. I respectfully disagree.

lkjlkj wrote:

I was a fan of Radcliffe until she failed the Biological Passport test and tried to blame the findings on dehydration. Like she's the only one that was susceptible to dehydration.

I always theoried that she dropped out of Athens because she had to get off the juice and lost all of her confidence. I think she blamed that one on Advil.

Total bobbleheadcase. ZERO Olympic Gold.

Slight adjustment if you don't mind.

rekrunner wrote:

EPO is a highly effective PED for elite runners in the marathon.

Finally you admit it, hallelujah!

Of course the Olympics are the be all, end all for Paula Radcliffe. Have you ever read her book?

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.

Think I heard someone say that about Kiprop once.

ljlj wrote:

Of course the Olympics are the be all, end all for Paula Radcliffe. Have you ever read her book?

I didn't ask what it was for her or what she said in her book, you said it. You wrote zero olympic gold. She won WC Gold the year after, that counts for nothing? She was tested there and passed. Her accomplishments are many.

Sorry, I wouldn't judge any athlete in any field by an event that happens once every 4 years, that's harsh. She had a great career and like many, she had injuries and they happened at bad times.

If you yell at your kids one day and you realize afterwards that you were totally out of hand, does that title you as a bad Dad for life? Not to me.

More precisely, you asked a loaded question, namely whether I linked to the Guardian where something was said that wasn't said. So no, I did not.

Those are the words of the journalist, not of the team. The team actually wrote what I cited verbatim in the abstract, namely nothing like that.

Your 30-31% occur only as a - unlikely - hypothesis under certain assumptions in the discussion part of their work, neither in the abstract nor in the conclusion. Note the words "even" and "assuming" and "conservatively" and "(a)" and "(b)" and "would":

Straight from the horses mouth. This is the absolute lowest number possible, considered to be unlikely.

For the 10th time: the statements likely more than 43.6% and at least 30 - 31% do not contradict each other. Obviously the authors considered likely more than 44% to be the important take home message here, and the other one rather unlikely.

Take home message: no freaking way that only 30% are drug cheats!

Source ?

Fact check:

1) First author is Ulrich.

2) Correspondence author is Pope Jr.

3) Last author is Simon.

4) Petróczi is 4th of 9 authors, not exactly a special position.

Just wondering here... wrote:

lkjlkj wrote:

I was a fan of Radcliffe until she failed the Biological Passport test and tried to blame the findings on dehydration. Like she's the only one that was susceptible to dehydration.

I always theoried that she dropped out of Athens because she had to get off the juice and lost all of her confidence. I think she blamed that one on Advil.

Total headcase. ZERO Olympic Gold.

World Championships Gold in 2005. What's the difference, she was tested there as well. Not seeing your point as if the Olympics are an end to all ends. I respectfully disagree.

For whatever reason, the IAAF never tested her positive and never was going to test her positive. Just like cycling, the federation seems to pick favored athletes and protect them at all costs. (ex. Bolt, Paula, Mo) Pretty typical never testing positive but coming into a competition too hot is always strange things like "forgetting your shoes."

Cycling does the same thing.

The world championship in 2005? Oh the irony, that's when she was caught for (at least) the second time with such absurd blood values. And thereafter she never broke 2:22 again.

Also ironic: rekrunner himself said that UCI protected Armstrong back in 1999, but of course the evidently corrupt IAAF under Diack would never do such a thing.

Lolz