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

So what percentage of Russians and Kenyans are doping? If this is a generalised figure over all nations, then this might mean that if 100% of Africans / Russians are doping then 0% of non-African / Russians dope.

rekrunner wrote:

If the data is correct ... (can't say)

If "would certainly be under 1% for Hct" is correct ... (no source)

If "16.2 g/dl, along with normal ret-%" can come from altitude ... (a panel of experts found it plausible)

There is reasonable doubt.

Hmm Based on this wrote:

If this data is correct. There is no doubt " blood transfusion "...

A panel of experts also concluded "likely doping " . This is how it got in the WADA report in the first place.

Why did Radcliffe have to lie about being at altitude when she wasn't ? Once you get caught lying, to me, the rest doesn't matter.

rekrunner wrote:

2) This is not supported by their analysis.

Of course it is. Straight from the horses mouth. Why do you lie so much?

Hmm Based in this wrote:

A panel of experts also concluded "likely doping " . This is how it got in the WADA report in the first place.

Why did Radcliffe have to lie about being at altitude when she wasn't ? Once you get caught lying, to me, the rest doesn't matter.

Well, rekrunner and his Lord Coe call them "so-called experts". Tee hee.

As for Paula's changing stories, good point; CAS wrote this about Jeptoo:

CAS wrote:

The panel is of the view that there would be no need for the Athlete to constantly change and adapt her story if she did not have something to hide, i.e. that rEPO was taken in order to enhance performance.

Hmm Based in this wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If the data is correct ... (can't say)

If "would certainly be under 1% for Hct" is correct ... (no source)

If "16.2 g/dl, along with normal ret-%" can come from altitude ... (a panel of experts found it plausible)

There is reasonable doubt.

A panel of experts also concluded "likely doping " . This is how it got in the WADA report in the first place.

Why did Radcliffe have to lie about being at altitude when she wasn't ? Once you get caught lying, to me, the rest doesn't matter.

Well said. Completely ruins credibility from there on out.

Team Player wrote:

Lance probably wished he was a distance runner and not a cyclist. With no disgruntled whistleblowing teammates like Landis to rat out on you, and no federal investigators around his neck. Even loyal teammates like Hincapie blabbed to the feds.

Doped marathon runners have it so easy.

If "the Feds" were threatening repercussion for not telling the truth (that they most likely knew already), you'd likely agree that your name was Nancy if they suggested it.

Except: - A panel of experts did not conclude "likely doping". - This was not discussed in any WADA report. - She didn't lie about being at altitude.

Hmm Based in this wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If the data is correct ... (can't say)

If "would certainly be under 1% for Hct" is correct ... (no source)

If "16.2 g/dl, along with normal ret-%" can come from altitude ... (a panel of experts found it plausible)

There is reasonable doubt.

A panel of experts also concluded "likely doping " . This is how it got in the WADA report in the first place.

Why did Radcliffe have to lie about being at altitude when she wasn't ? Once you get caught lying, to me, the rest doesn't matter.

The horses words are not supported by their statistical analysis. They were able to quantify the effect of a large positive bias, due to an effect known to occur in these kinds of surveys. They did not quantify negative bias, nor determine likelihood.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

2) This is not supported by their analysis.

Of course it is. Straight from the horses mouth. Why do you lie so much?

Oh, you mean to say that Asenden/Parisotto is a panel of experts? They had incomplete information. They surely lost credibility when the WADA-IC completely rejected their opinions, noting signficant inconsistencies.

casual obsever wrote:

Well, rekrunner and his Lord Coe call them "so-called experts". Tee hee.

rekrunner wrote:

Oh, you mean to say that Asenden/Parisotto is a panel of experts?

They had incomplete information.

They surely lost credibility when the WADA-IC completely rejected their opinions, noting signficant inconsistencies.

casual obsever wrote:

Well, rekrunner and his Lord Coe call them "so-called experts". Tee hee.

Come on Rek you've got to admit the wild variation in blood values is suspicious and even the fact that somebody raised this as an issue, during a corrupt period where the Russians and many others were doping their brains out and nobody was getting caught, just says it all.

rekrunner wrote:

Except:

- A panel of experts did not conclude "likely doping".

- This was not discussed in any WADA report.

- She didn't lie about being at altitude.

What about the changing of her stories alluded to by casual?

Even by your standards, that's absurd trolling. Of course it is.

Let me try this again:

Still don't get it?

It is unlikely less than 43.6%, after sensitivity analyses. Meaning it is likely more, or are you claiming this is most likely exactly 43.6%?

Here my conclusion:

rekrunner wrote:

Oh, you mean to say that Asenden/Parisotto is a panel of experts?

They had incomplete information.

They surely lost credibility when the WADA-IC completely rejected their opinions, noting signficant inconsistencies.

The WADA-IC did what? You wish...

Plus, they had more information than what the IAAF discussed to in their propaganda/justification pamphlet. So, how can then WADA-IC judge who is correct?

Also, who was that again? WADA's previous president, who oversaw the IAAFs "anti"doping activities during the time period in question, a law professor, and a cop from interpol (who got hired by WADA right after this).

So, those three law experts made you question the expertise of these two scientists? Lolz.

rekrunner wrote:

Recall I let you give me the best examples, and you chose a world-record doper with a time nearly 3 minutes slower than Paula.

Huh? Shobukhova is the fastest confirmed doper to illustrate (faster than confirmed doper Jeptoo). When Shobukhova ran the 2:18:20 @ London 2011 (153 off-score), it was 2nd fastest at that time, and would have been the WR if not for Paula's time. It would be 5th fastest all-time if it stood. This is remarkable considering the fastest times in the women's marathon are dominated by E. Africans (no surprises there). I don't why the fact that Shobukhova is 3 mins slower than Paula has anything to with her doped time?

The IAAF flushed her 3 Chicago titles & London title for ABP hematological anomalies which included of course the 2:18:20 @ Chicago. Look at her IAAF file & Wikipedia, and her PB (undoped) is now listed as 2:24:24 @ London 2009 (no hematological anomalies noted). So, she improved ~4% over 2 yrs --- slightly higher than what some of the scientists are saying (~3.5%).

So, what does Paula always have to do with other confirmed marathon doped times? Look at the split on this thread as to whether or not Paula doped. Everyone is at each other's throats on the Paula issue. People analyzing the data and saying she's 100% doped. Other people analyzing the same data and saying she's clean & the GOAT, and all that. At least I use confirmed doping cases for illustration. There isn't any question on Shobukhova; an astronomically high off-score, anti-doping experts reviewing her ABP and concluding she doped for 3 London titles & one Boston title, titles & times annulled, over a half-million in prize money ordered to be paid back. A clear case of a doper going from the "Penthouse to the Outhouse." Lol.

So is rekrunner Paul's husband? he's got have some connection, right?

dont worry man, i have used plenty of research, same with casual and subway on multiple other threads....most of those posts were deleted and the threads were gutted to the max, with magically one handle remaining...not hard to guess who that arrogant know it all spoiled brat nah nah nah nah i wont listen to anything you say cause its a fallacy and detrimental to my argument level 12 stalker of paula is....

he could be injected with EPO run 4% faster than the dope WR and still argue, sh*t paula herself could admit publicly and he would yell at her that she doesnt know what she is talking about lolz

bottom line is there are those of use who know that EPO works and we have all done the math on the runners in question and we have seen the magical ~4% gains, we all could read the fancy bears leaks, and i was skeptical for years on mr kiprop, called it that he was one of these kenyans that was going to hurt the sport when it was released...i was banned during that time for my accusations of paula and kiprop, and it was never told to me who cried to have me banned...but then kiprop was busted and wejo let me back on.

so to help you out on your frustration on LR, here are some solid "truths" we know

- dont ever engage with rek fully, troll back with him if you will but to try and use stats, data, truth and logic it will just make you upset

- go to jamin for dating advice, or hit up his grinder account

- EPO doesnt work, neither do PEDs

- dont ever ever EVER question renato

- mrs bobble head no speed no kick pasty is faster than the superior kenyans, i know this makes a conundrum according to renato claiming kenyans to HEADS and shoulders genetically superior to every other race on the planet, but if one was to be so much better she would be CLEAN and name paula, obviously named after the great saint paul himself, makes sense..she has the gifts of the holy spirit to run that fast

- EPO in fact makes you run slower, its a fact like rek and jonO have told us so

- boots on the ground for kenya is El K, he is the man

- tea in kenya costs $32, and i will bett anyone my potato farm to prove me wrong

- jon0 knows more about physics than he does about running which is about the same % of knowledge the rest of everyone else has on nothing

- webb is always back, BABY

- hasay, have you heard of her?

- NOP is dirty in the eyes of the brojos, but rosa and the kenyans they are hush hush about

- kara has dirt on al sal but cries too much about it to ever spill beans

- and jim ryun DID run 1'39 and 3'24 in vent/calculos fantasy land.....but since this is LR where dreams become reality, i would bett that rekrunner can in FACT prove he ran those times...and did it CLEAN!!!

I suspect inconsistent processes led to wildly fluctuating values, before changes in 2007 and 2009. The timing was just jumping on the sensational bandwagon.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Come on Rek you've got to admit the wild variation in blood values is suspicious and even the fact that somebody raised this as an issue, during a corrupt period where the Russians and many others were doping their brains out and nobody was getting caught, just says it all.

This looks like pure desperation and imagination, because any real case based on all the facts and data was non-existent. We don't even need any stories, because she can be cleared objectively based on the data and circumstances alone.

Who can ya trust? wrote:

What about the changing of her stories alluded to by casual?

Looks like someone didn't read the WADA-IC report. In the battle between the IAAF and the scientists, Ashenden/Parisotto lost everything. The WADA-IC had all of the complete information available, and they retained their own experts. They had legal and scientific experts. That's how they can judge.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Oh, you mean to say that Asenden/Parisotto is a panel of experts?

They had incomplete information.

They surely lost credibility when the WADA-IC completely rejected their opinions, noting signficant inconsistencies.

The WADA-IC did what? You wish...

Plus, they had more information than what the IAAF discussed to in their propaganda/justification pamphlet. So, how can then WADA-IC judge who is correct?

Also, who was that again? WADA's previous president, who oversaw the IAAFs "anti"doping activities during the time period in question, a law professor, and a cop from interpol (who got hired by WADA right after this).

So, those three law experts made you question the expertise of these two scientists? Lolz.