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

Paul? Nope. Not Paul. Not Paula.

is rekrunner really her husband? wrote:

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

Way to champion telling the whole story by once again quoting the abstract. Let me try this again: The authors felt it important to perform the exercise of eliminating a significant positive bias by thoughtless responses from fast responders. This is a known effect, and was easily identified (see the study). Because there is no way, from this survey, for the authors to assess the likelihood or magnitude of the remaining sources of positive and negative bias, this suggestion from the authors makes sense after only after they do this exercise, when the remaining positive bias scenarios are arguably unlikely, and only negative ones remain.

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.

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.

The leaked document to German Broadcaster , was a WADA document, not IAAF document . It was a lab report from Radcliffe tests results .

Again, the lying is hard to get past. The British MP's did not get the information out of thin air .

rekrunner wrote:

Way to champion telling the whole story by once again quoting the abstract.

Let me try this again:

The authors felt it important to perform the exercise of eliminating a significant positive bias by thoughtless responses from fast responders. This is a known effect, and was easily identified (see the study).

Because there is no way, from this survey, for the authors to assess the likelihood or magnitude of the remaining sources of positive and negative bias, this suggestion from the authors makes sense after only after they do this exercise, when the remaining positive bias scenarios are arguably unlikely, and only negative ones remain.

0/10 ?Give a break rekrunner - go for run around the countryside of Wales or something and take a nice break. Casual has already put you in your place on this issue and you won't give up. How many times does have he have to explain the study methodology to you? He know's a thing or to about scientific studies.

m!ndweak wrote:

level 12 stalker of paula is....

Is there a measurement system for this? Heck

Hmm Based in this wrote:

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.

The leaked document to German Broadcaster , was a WADA document, not IAAF document . It was a lab report from Radcliffe tests results .

Again, the lying is hard to get past. The British MP's did not get the information out of thin air .

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/12121783/Paula-Radcliffe-doping-allegations-I-was-set-up-by-MPs-who-damaged-my-reputation.html

Just another gutless, weakling politician, stand on principles man. ?

rekrunner wrote:

I suspect inconsistent processes led to wildly fluctuating values, before changes in 2007 and 2009.

The timing was just jumping on the sensational bandwagon.

Do you know of other athletes who showed wildly fluctuating values due to "inconsistent processes" before the changes in 2007 and 2009?

Do you think Radcliffe had the highest off scores of all British female endurance athletes just because she alone was impacted by "inconsistent processes"?

When Armstrong's frozen samples were retrospectively tested positive for EPO and the results leaked to the press did not Armstrong and his lawyers also cite "inconsistent processes" to try to invalidate the positive test results?

Subway Surfers wrote:

m!ndweak wrote:

level 12 stalker of paula is....

Is there a measurement system for this? Heck

lol well i thought it was common knowledge that things like this only went to 10, so a level 12 is beyond anything possible...well that is beyond possible for us mere mortals.....leave it up to rek and anything is possible...except for EPO to work and paula to be a doper hahaha

rekrunner wrote:

In a nutshell:

Shobukhova had much higher blood values, but ran much slower.

Paula never had much lower blood values, and ran much faster.

Do you see the inverse relation there?

No...I don't see an inverse relation but a direct one. Shobukhova did run slower than Paula's WR (who hasn't. Lol), but in the context of individual performance, Shobukhova improved from an undoped time of 2:24:24 @ Chicago 2009 to a doped time (153 off-score) of 2:18:20 @ Chicago 2011 (~4%).

Recall the IAAF Expert Panel ruled no hematological anomalies were noted on her ABP @ Chicago 09 but substantially high Hgb @ Chicago 2011, hence the annulment of 2:18 but not the 2:24 two years earlier. And recall anti-doping expert Dr. Yorck Olaf Schurnacher has stated previously "high HGB values enhance sporting performance"

If you think 2:18:20, which was the 2nd fastest marathon at that time and would be 5th fastest all-time if it stood, is slow, then you're just trolling.

I'm sure in the Shobukhova CAS hearing, the IAAF Expert Panel didn't sit back and reflect: "hmmm...maybe we shouldn't annul her time because she ran so much slower than Paula's time" Lol.

Good thing you're not an arbitrator in these CAS hearings involving ABP hematological anomalies, no one would ever be sanctioned for abnormally high Hgb because the athlete didn't run a fast enough time. ?

She has the WR. She’s the fastest woman marathoner and will be for some years yet.

No amount of tears or moaning on this thread will change that.

Go Paula! Xxx

In hindsight... wrote:

She has the WR. She’s the fastest woman marathoner and will be for some years yet.

No amount of tears or moaning on this thread will change that.

Go Paula! Xxx

when it is all exposed years later this will be a huge eye sore with all the corruption and lies....prob not till ol seb is pushed out and someone comes in and actually enforces things and cleans up the sport...but if rek has anything to do with it then no way....if he has his way then all records 2009 and below are wiped except his idol paula....i think hers and Jarmila Kratochvílova will be the only ones he thinks should stay lolz

m!ndweak wrote:

In hindsight... wrote:

She has the WR. She’s the fastest woman marathoner and will be for some years yet.

No amount of tears or moaning on this thread will change that.

Go Paula! Xxx

when it is all exposed years later this will be a huge eye sore with all the corruption and lies....prob not till ol seb is pushed out and someone comes in and actually enforces things and cleans up the sport...but if rek has anything to do with it then no way....if he has his way then all records 2009 and below are wiped except his idol paula....i think hers and Jarmila Kratochvílova will be the only ones he thinks should stay lolz

+1

Does Paula still have frozen samples? If so, she could easily clear her name and records by having them retested with current tests/technology. If she has the samples, but does not want them retested, doesn't that tell you something??

stfu JS wrote:

Does Paula still have frozen samples? If so, she could easily clear her name and records by having them retested with current tests/technology. If she has the samples, but does not want them retested, doesn't that tell you something??

im sure they have been mistakenly destroyed, but no worries she is cleaner than Jesus Christ....

jesus walked on water, paula ran 2:15 without the nike 4%!

jesus healed the sick, paula ran 2:15 after training at altitude but wasnt really at altitutde but was SICK!

jesus ascended to heaven, paula ascended to the WR and not in BERLIN!

jesus was white, paula was even WHITER

jesus was trained by God, paula was trained by REKRUNNER!!!!

jesus turned water into wine, paula turned dehydration into elevation rbc levels!!

pretty sure paula is more bada$$!

paula for LIFE!!

m!ndweak wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Is there a measurement system for this? Heck

lol well i thought it was common knowledge that things like this only went to 10, so a level 12 is beyond anything possible...well that is beyond possible for us mere mortals.....leave it up to rek and anything is possible...except for EPO to work and paula to be a doper hahaha

I never knew, I better stop repeatedly walking past the gorgeous 16 min 5k chick's house, who just so happens to live 128.7m from my place ? ("so you need a coach?")

My place, from the beginning, middle and end, is where the Guardian link, provided by "casual obsever" took us, when a study co-author asked a big question, and the study team gave us a new answer. "Methodology"?

Here's what the WADA-IC report told us about the ownership of the "leaked document": "The IAAF database referred to had been maintained as a personal database in Excel format by Giuseppe Fischetto, who worked as a delegate for the IAAF and European Athletics (EA) from 2008 - 2012." I've seen a lot of allegations about lying -- these always looked like desperate clutching at straws to me. It looks like the British MPs got their information from the British newspapers, and were otherwise generally uninformed.

Hmm Based in this wrote:

The leaked document to German Broadcaster , was a WADA document, not IAAF document . It was a lab report from Radcliffe tests results .

Again, the lying is hard to get past. The British MP's did not get the information out of thin air .

I know many athletes exist, thanks in large part to papers written by the Australian experts, and others. Paula alone was not impacted. Armstrong tried but failed -- the results were not invalidated.

inconsistent processes wrote:

Do you know of other athletes who showed wildly fluctuating values due to "inconsistent processes" before the changes in 2007 and 2009?

Do you think Radcliffe had the highest off scores of all British female endurance athletes just because she alone was impacted by "inconsistent processes"?

When Armstrong's frozen samples were retrospectively tested positive for EPO and the results leaked to the press did not Armstrong and his lawyers also cite "inconsistent processes" to try to invalidate the positive test results?

rekrunner wrote:

Here's what the WADA-IC report told us about the ownership of the "leaked document":

"The IAAF database referred to had been maintained as a personal database in Excel format by Giuseppe Fischetto, who worked as a delegate for the IAAF and European Athletics (EA) from 2008 - 2012."

I've seen a lot of allegations about lying -- these always looked like desperate clutching at straws to me.

It looks like the British MPs got their information from the British newspapers, and were otherwise generally uninformed.

Hmm Based in this wrote:

The leaked document to German Broadcaster , was a WADA document, not IAAF document . It was a lab report from Radcliffe tests results .

Again, the lying is hard to get past. The British MP's did not get the information out of thin air .

What ever your argument , I cannot get past , lying about altitude camp , and Radcliffe promoting " transparency " make all data public during the Yegorova issue. Then she retracts this when fingers point to her, does not want her test results public. You are trying to cloud how informed the MP's were . The IAAF lab test happened , they triggers likely blood transfusion alerts , the IAAF has these results, Radcliffe has the results,Radcliffe does not want to release this data which makes her look dirty.