What don't you people understand?
"Athletics is about more than drugs, blood and urine"
Lord Coe
What don't you people understand?
"Athletics is about more than drugs, blood and urine"
Lord Coe
pop_pop_v2.0 wrote:
no yes or no answer wrote:As if you and all the other message board commandos would know how to read the blood data. You would simply point at some piece of data you know nothing about and call it absolute proof that she cheated.
Sorry your argument is a fail. Facts are facts and blood score analysis is not a secret. I love the subtle personal attack though.
No media outlet would contact Parisotto and Ashenden for a story. None at all. Ever. Of course, according to Paula, Parisotto and Ashenden are two-bit hacks.
You better look into that.
And there you go. A perfect example of you knowing nothing about blood data but yet ready to convict based on 'facts are facts' when you do not know what the facts are.
omertà wrote:
odd that she and the ST are now discussing test scores that they both are declining to release
True.
I'm still in the Paula-is-clean camp but her silence, her refusal of public scrutiny and her legal threats are rapidly starting to add up against her.
But I think she was right in that ST was dishonestly/dishonorably discussing her without naming her. This game of "prominent runner" and now "London marathon winner" is just childish.
Neutral Observertard wrote:
Pop pop doesn't joke. He just says that Paula cheated over and over and over again.
A marathon runner walks into a bar and the bartender say....
...
.....
......
why the long race?
Stating the obvious for those who insist on pretending otherwise.
BTW, my screen name has been taken. I guess I should have registered it..
When there's smoke, there's fire
To paraphrase an argument I read on one of the cycling doping boards earlier ... she is minutes faster than any other woman to ever run the marathon, now just imagine how much faster she would be if she were boosted to the max!
Seriously quick wrote:
To paraphrase an argument I read on one of the cycling doping boards earlier ... she is minutes faster than any other woman to ever run the marathon, now just imagine how much faster she would be if she were boosted to the max!
What could bekele have done with epo
no yes or not answer wrote:
And there you go. A perfect example of you knowing nothing about blood data but yet ready to convict based on 'facts are facts' when you do not know what the facts are.
Facts:
EPO era
IAAF is okay with doping
IAAF does not process suspicious/positive tests.
Paula pulls a WR out of a hat like a bolt of lightning on a clear day.
And not just any WR. She passes her male pacer like they are standing still to set a record known dopers still can't touch.
Shows up to discuss doping today, because, she's not the British marathoner with suspicious values that will not be named.
Continues to contradict her "EPO cheats out" at every possible turn.
Don't let the facts get in the way of faith!!
Changed my mind, First Wejo posting in her defense, now this vague statement by Paula . Now I believe she is dirty.
sdfasdfsdf wrote:
When there's smoke, there's fire
At least get it right!
I believe her, too.
But I also believed Floyd Landis, with his very well documented declarations of innocence and reams of data "proving" the truth. It was all very convincing.
And then he admitted he cheated.
This isn't going away.
Just posted by Britain's 'The Telegraph':
"Paula Radcliffe invited suspicion with her lack of transparency"
And a couple more:
Paula Radcliffe defends herself against claims of doping, but does it stand up to scrutiny?
Paula Radcliffe insists she is not guilty of doping
PS - There is nothing tabloid about the Telegraph or Ben Bloom
Those two Telegraph articles are pretty transparent in their intent. The thing is the UK media will not let this rest and they are smelling blood.
Releasing the statement as she has just makes it look as though she has had reason to take extensive legal recourse to try to direct the storyline, and all of it is a million miles away from transparency.
This does not end well and she looks guilty as hell now.
Not much worthwhile content in the articles
emuleduke wrote:This does not end well and she looks guilty as hell now.
People who want to believe she "looks guilty" will believe she is guilty. People who want to believe otherwise will still believe otherwise.
If someone is able to refute what the WADA-recommended 'expert' wrote below, then there will be real meat on the bone in this story.
“Evaluation of Profile [redacted] - Review of Blood Data from 2001 -2008 I looked carefully the data which are part of the profile [redacted]. To my knowledge, they were obtained through several technologies. Moreover, data obtained for example in Vilamoura in 2003, with bloods collected before and right after the half marathon, ran in hot conditions, are typically showing effects of confounding factors. The increase of 2.8 in Hb (and no significant effect on ret%) is due to a drastic hemo-concentration caused by the specific race conditions. This post-race value, as most of the others, today would not be validated, and then not be implemented in a real biological passport.
"Therefore, I consider that any interpretation of this profile, which would be done by ignoring the confounding factors cited above, is abusive.
"Furthermore, any interpretation of these data implemented in an individual and longitudinal blood profile between 2001 and 2008 can be considered to my eyes as intellectually dishonest and scientifically biased.”
Seriously quick wrote:
To paraphrase an argument I read on one of the cycling doping boards earlier ... she is minutes faster than any other woman to ever run the marathon, now just imagine how much faster she would be if she were boosted to the max!
2:12 with EPO (assuming that she didn't do it during her career)
2:10 with EPO and good running form (no head-bobbing, no elbow-swinging all over the place, etc)
This "EPO cheats out" bragadoccio is coming to an end.
And Oprah is preparing her comeback with this story.
Part of the issue is that Paula for years showed no restraint in accusing people of doping or when they had convenient explanations. Now she is suddenly preaching restraint and/or have convenient explanations.
I guess when the shoes on the other foot it doesn't feel so nice.
According to Renato, Bekele w/ EPO could have done
5000m- 12:37
10000m- 26:17
Because a higher RBC-1 count does not enhance performance
What happened to Me? wrote:
Part of the issue is that Paula for years showed no restraint in accusing people of doping or when they had convenient explanations.
Examples of her accusing people who haven't failed tests?