...... paula... CHEATS OUT..........

Ah,indeed if positive test for EPO in IAAF rule(not in dictionary define) is defined as 'first show abnormal cell counts in blood and second excessive EPO is found in urine.'Then you are right.

And Yegorova showed abnoraml blood cell counts at world championship and further tested,but as long as from ,excessive EPO or rEPO is not found from her urine except in Pari,her level of EPO which disappears from the body 3 days after injected ,in her body when tested is probably not so different from any other athletes'.You are probably right.

molfin you are talking a lot of mumbo jumbo.

All of Yegorova's test results have been in the range for normal.

The CHEATS are those like PR -- and certain news agencies and web sites -- that distort the truth.

In her case discrediting better runners for her own personal gain.

If indeed it is CHEATS OUT then PR needs to get out of the sport.

Right now the CHEAT is still competing and making money at it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/our_man_at_edmonton/1481240.stm

>>Controversial Russian 5000m runner Olga Yegorova could yet face expulsion from the World Championships after another doping test showed irregularities.

>>She was tested again in Edmonton - and IAAF vice-president Arne Ljungqvist has revealed that she was one of 11 athletes whose blood tests revealed red blood cell counts outside normal parameters.

>>Yegorova is obvious," said Ljungqvist. "It would have been irresponsible not to send a sample at all."

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Yegorova+test+positive+EPO&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

The whole world says she tested positive for EPO .And They didn't know the obvious information.So let's enlighten them.But before that please enlighten us here.

Dunes, you have hereby made the list of the Top Ten stupidest shits on this board, and believe me, it's an elite list. Go peddle that BS elsewhere before we all vomit on you.

I see that buttmunch and wejo both use the same terminology of "bs".

No intelligent response forthcoming?

Look, I don't even have time to do some big ass investigative response. It doesn't take that to know that you're a twisted dude with some major ax to grind. Maybe Paula could've handled things better last year, but that's it.

can't believe this is still going on.

Look at the history.

The IAAF lifted the suspension due to the fact that the French test did not follow the IAAF protocol. It was not because she was innocent. Innocent can mean a lot of things. Innocent, she didn't do it; and innocent she didn't get caught.

The IAAF can't legally suspend someone due to a test that doesn't meet their protocol. Here's where you are deceived. The IAAF, at the time, didn't allow for Urine only tests. Protocol had blood, then urine tests. The French just did a urine test, which, as their testing had shown, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilt or innocence. But the IAAF's testing of urine only tests at the time had not satisfactorally concluded the urine-only tests worth.

Don't equate not being found guilty with innocence.

Further, why the hell are you bringing this up now? Olga, all of the sudden is just a regular runner again, go figure. She hasn't done anything worth noting this year, except dodge Paula and Szabo at Monaco and Oslo. She's missing Grand Prix meets. Further, after running 8:23 3 TIMES last year, she hasn't raced the distance once this year. Hmm. Why not dunes?

She's running like crap that's why. Anyone heard of any off-season injuries?

This debate is too old and a year too late.

It was within the range for normal. When the small samples were done that set up the protocol there was a large area that overlapped between "normal" and "positive" for EPO.Yegorova's sample was within that range of normal. That is why the guidelines were set up for further testing. To find out if it was really normal or positive.In all tests her results were always in the range for normal.They were never positive for EPO.>Some facts here : in order to test positive for EPO on the urine test, the athletes urine-EPO must be of over 80 % rh-EPO (synthetic). An EPO user stops the self-production of EPO. Yegorova got caught red-handed on that one urine test. I don`t care if she just failed that one test. It was an technical error that cleared her. No more. There is simply NO WAY to fail (have over 80 % synthetic EPO in the urine !!) even one of the urine tests if you have not used EPO. Her tests were NOT in the normal range. And there exists no overlapping normal/postitive. HopperPs : who said Radcliffe had a sudden improvement ? In the 30.20s in 100 degrees/Seville 99 - from the front. Drops 20 sec in three years.

Hopper wrote:

Her tests were NOT in the normal range. And there exists no overlapping normal/postitive.

You are mistaken.

I have seen the studies that set up the protocol and there was and is a wide range of overlap.

Besides that the selected borderline was an arbitrary range and by no means precise.

If it was so easy as you have said then it would be clear cut and very easy to define. But it is not so simple.

And again, the urine test has still not been approved as a stand alone test because it is not accurate as a stand alone test.

DUNES RUNNER?..YOU ARE AN ASS!!!!!!!!!!!

You have not made one good point!!! The obvious question?..are you Russian?!?!??! That is the only explanation for your bias. She tested positive, plain & simple, and simply got lucky to get off. PERIOD!!!!! ACCEPT REALITY!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe Radcliffe is cheating too?..that is a whole other question. Right now there is no proof or solid basis for saying that she is. Who knows?? Maybe her altitude tent is helping her as much as the EPO helps your Russian cheater (the Russians, by the way have a LONG history of doping, just like the East Germans. You should be ashamed for supporting their cheaters. Support their clean athletes, there are a few out there I am sure). I repeat?..NOT ONE GOOD POINT WAS MADE BY YOU. Your list of athletes who have run better than Radcliffe?..HA, HA, HA!!!! That is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time. A ?who?s who? list of cheaters. You should have throwN in Ben Johnson and FloJo!!!! The Russians are a disgrace and a bunch of cry-babies. They almost walked out of the Winter Olympics because they FIXED the skating results & got caught, SUCKED at hockey and blamed the officials, and then had one(was it more??) of their X-C skiers BUSTED for EPO (probably one of Yegorova?s pals). Cheating cry-babies!!! There is no video-tape of OJ killing anyone, but guess what?!?! HE DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I know there are those out there that think he did not. And that is because, like you, there are people out there who CAN NOT ACCEPT REALITY?..ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE OF ?THEIR PEOPLE? IS GUILTY. It is a really horrible quality to have??now go run yourself silly in the Dunes and think about it??you need deal with reality!!

>>

I have seen the studies that set up the protocol and there was and is a wide range of overlap.

Then you have to show that especially when you posted countless wrong information,twisted facts,mind boggling speculations and people find you the most untrustworthy here and don't believe what you say without whatever the proof.

>>And again, the urine test has still not been approved as a stand alone test because it is not accurate as a stand alone test.

Yeah maybe not accurate by 1/10000 probablility .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/our_man_at_edmonton/1474992.stm

"The EPO test has been used by cycling, it's been verified by the UCI (International Cycling Union) but not by the IAAF and International Olympic Committee."

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/2001/08/03/FFXG5I8FVPC.html

>>This comes as the EPO test is being further refined with the International Olympic Committee. The IAAF is accepting a urine-only test for the drug instead of the two-part blood-urine test adopted at the Sydney Olympics.

http://www.athletix.org/IAAFpr.htm

>>At this time, it remains the only means of testing for EPO that has been scientifically validated. Since Sydney, further extensive scientific research has been undertaken to finalise a single urine only test. The research is believed to be complete, but the IAAF has been informed that the test still awaits final validation. The IAAF believes that, in the circumstances, the test conducted by the French authorities on Ms Yegorova in Paris should not have been carried out.

Dr.Graham Traut(I'm not sure about spelling) who is one of the members who invented EPO test of blood sample,said in 2000 when it was anounced that EPO testing protocol was invented and begun from Sydney,that it was about 1/10000 of probability to mistake in each blood test and urine sample(in each both A sample and B sample or only one sample?),but combination of them made it near 0.

prefer blood and urine tests.But because it is just more of a confiramation and for law suit problems.

No. To the best of my knowledge I am humanoid.

Well that one doesn't work so think again.

Of course she is cheating. And it's not a question, it's the answer. To get CHEATS like PR and others like her out of the sport -- so the real runners can compete.

Maybe she's Russian?

Could be. And I think she's using at least an 80% rTent. So why aren't they banning her.

Most medical establishments, and hence doping, are in the US and UK. Be careful to not mix up "winning" and "doping". They are not the same thing.

You need to reread what I said, which is to get the CHEATERS out of the sport. Which means since PR -- the CHEAT -- CHEATS -- so get her out of the sport.

That one must have been good cause it make you laugh HA HA HA.

Maybe he was sleeping in an altitude rTent?

Hey just who are you calling "their people".

altitude tent,altitude training<<

epo .... natural training effect

All runners are clean.....The ones who have cheated get caught. There is nobody left though

My post was strange.sorry

altitude training,altitude tent <<< blood doping < rEPO <<< darbopoetine

When the good runners are banned, there will be "nobody" (PR) left.

Sorry - can you please clarify?

Do you think Paula Radcliffe is a cheat because;

A. she made a protest about Yegorova

B. because she is on drugs

C. both of the above

or something else?

dunes runner wrote:

Most medical establishments, and hence doping, are in the US and UK. Be careful to not mix up "winning" and "doping". They are not the same thing.

Please, it is a PROVEN fact that the Eastern Block countries and the USSR had systematic programs to enhance their athletes? performance by using drugs. I am from Norway where XC skiing is on the biggest sports. During the last 5 years at least 3 high profile Russians have been banned from the sport due to the use of performance enhancing drugs. The ratio of former Eastern Europeans/Russians being banned for doping is much higher than any Western European country???yes, that is a fact!

Just last year all the top male Finnish skiers (which had been training with the Russian team) were banned for EPO use. The skiers banned were world and Olympic champs.

Through the 70s and 80 many East German women had some incredible world records in track and field, are you telling me they were clean as well?

Also, how is Paula a cheat????..please explain.

-Is she the only one that was protesting against Yegorova? No

-Has she EVER tested positive? No

-Has she taken a stance against doping and did she volunteer to freeze her blood tests so they can be scrutinized in the future when better technology becomes available? Yes

-Has she shown steady improvement throughout her career? Yes

-Is she a ?one hit wonder? like the Chinese? No

-Is she bringing attention to a sport that DESPERATELY needs it? Yes

-Clay