This is brilliant. Bobble Head Bingo. A new drinking game to play every time she's interviewed.
just sayin wrote:
To summarize:
Prevent dopers getting valuable info
Protect other athletes
My children
Paris terror attacks
Dehydration
Blackmail
Faulty equipment
Bad timing of test
Sickness
Altitude
MRI lie detector test
Data is complicated
Data can be misunderstood
Lord Coe
IAAF
There is zero doubt that bobblehead radcliffe is a doper. She should be in prison.
rekrunner wrote:
Well, I'm just wondering what pop-pop's statement "The good news here is Seppelt has the data. Ashenden and Parisotto have an answer that Radcliffe doesn't like." could mean. There's an implication that they will come out sometime with the "real truth" about Paula, or else, why would it be good news? Since Dec. 2014, is there one single comment from any of them regarding Paula? Does Ashenden and Parisotto really have an answer that Radcliffe doesn't like? What is it? Did they ever say? Unless someone can provide a quote, this statement looks like wishful thinking.
I completely agree with you that Seppelt, Ashenden, and Parisotto did not concern themselves with Paula at all. They seem to be more concerned with Russian and Kenyan doping, and the lack of effective and timely sanctions from the IAAF. Seppelt has the data, but only talks about Russians, Kenyans, and the IAAF. Similarly Ashenden and Parisotto talk about "life threatening" blood levels and the health of athletes -- maybe I'm wrong, but I highly doubt they are concerning themselves with Paula's marginally excessive off-scores.
This leads me to wonder if Paula should have been involved at all, and question the motives of the Times for dragging her into the discussion, when the other principles were concerned about much bigger things.
People keep clamoring for Paula to release all of her data. But then what? To correctly interpret it, you need the doping control forms, and other external context. Then you need to compare to all the data of others. Will the public clamor for all the data of everyone? Not just the handful of clean athletes, but also the dirty ones who have been caught, and the marginal ones in between. And you need to have a good idea of how to interpret the data in context, and evaluate the uncertainty of the data you are looking at.
Frankly, I don't trust the public to be able to make an educated judgement, and the ones who can already have the data.
While I agree with you that in general, the public doesn't know what to do with the data, that doesn't mean it should be kept private. The public doesn't know what do do with day-to-day stock prices, but it is published, and journalists analyze and filter it for consumption. But it starts out in the public domain. Same with other information: weather data, crime rates, housing prices, etc.
As for your "then what" question, I think that is why some are hesitant to release information. For clean athletes, the "then what" is benign; the off scores released by british athletes didn't raise any eyebrows, so the "then what" was nothing.
And you're right, many times the "then what" of public information is unsatisfying because it doesn't progress in actionable ways: Cyclists Chris Horner showed horribly suspicious BP data after winning a GT at 41 years old. There was no debate that it was suspicious, but was not acted by governing bodies. Same thing with Lance Armstrong's 2009 values, which were indicative but only got a small mention in the reasoned decision.
It is frustrating that even when dirty laundry is aired, the "then what" isn't much.
Many journalists' end goal is to catch somebody in a lie or contradiction, but that is so un-actionable in a real sense. Except for a perjury, Marion Jones-type scenario, revealing dishonesty to the public doesn't matter in terms of eligibility or sponsorships.
But that should stop it from happening. Armstrong was brought down by a trickle of information. Russian doping was brought out by a tickle of information. Target testing is guided in part by these kinds of suspicions. The information needs to be out there.
She's Filthyн wrote:
There is zero doubt that bobblehead radcliffe is a doper. She should be in prison.
EPO cheats out, Paula. EPO cheats out.
Radcliffe is a million times worse than Lance. She and Coe should both be incarcerated for fraud and theft.
I think we will still witness the unraveling of Paula Radcliffe in the near future. It will all come out in her final bid to secure as much retirement wealth as possible in a tell-all book, media, etc.
None of that seems to address my only question to you -- what you mean by "good news".I didn't read any Seppelt articles. I thought he just did documentaries. Were they in English or German? Do you have a link? Do you have any relevant quotes from Seppelt? Something that explains why you said it was "good news" that Seppelt, Ashenden and Parisotto know the truth, but won't say anything?I saw quite a few of Seppelt's documentaries, focusing on Kenya, Russia and the IAAF, but again, nothing about Paula, despite possessing all the blood data.While I can understand legal threats against the UK media, under British libel laws, I'm not sure to what extent Seppelt and ARD are exposed to the same level of legal threats. Are they subject to the UK's strict libel laws? Are Germany's laws as strict?So far Coe is correct, as the blood samples collected fall short of testing positive, according to the rules at that time.We learned from the IAAF report that the 2003 and 2005 values, were within acceptable parameters in effect at the time.Let's see what WADA says in part two, if anything, concerning if the IAAF's behavior wrt Paula's blood test results was adequate, or if they should have done more.
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Well, I'm just wondering what pop-pop's statement "The good news here is Seppelt has the data. Ashenden and Parisotto have an answer that Radcliffe doesn't like." could mean. There's an implication that they will come out sometime with the "real truth" about Paula, or else, why would it be good news?
Do you even read Seppelt's articles? Let's review:
-Seppelt has lots of test data including Radcliffe's values.
-The UK media property did their due diligence and contacted Radcliffe. -Radcliffe was ready to lawyer up to keep her data secret and hasn't backed off.
-Meanwhile, Radcliffe and the IAAF have published explanations that do not fit many other basic facts.
-Coe unilaterally declared Radcliffe is never testing positive.
If Radcliffe's scores were normal-ish all of this would have been over months ago. They are not normal and Radcliffe and the IAAF keep digging a deeper hole including dredging up the infamous lie detector test.
EPO cheats out Paula.
Ashenden's response to the IAAF obfuscation exercise.
The problem with making the data public (besides the fact that it's personal health data) is the public is blood-thirsty for any semblance of evidence that "proves" their prejudices.If you release "all" the data to the public, then it has to be "all" the data of all athletes, to gain a true perspective. It's not enough to demand only Paula release all of her data, without some way to compare it to cheaters and non-cheaters alike. The public needs to understand and accept precedents and the frequency that other athletes might have blood samples disregarded for many of the same "non-doping" reasons coming up now. This would reduce the skepticism that "something smells fishy".Let's pretend for one second, simply for illustration, that Paula's blood values were wildly fluctuating for some significant combination of all the non-doping reasons given: inconsistent blood drawing procedures, standing vs. sitting vs. laying down, different brands of measurement devices, altitude training, oxygen tents at sea level, illness, antibiotics, dehydration, etc.Now look at the irreparable reputation damage initiated by the Sunday Times publications of mere hints and suspicions concerning an unnamed famous British athlete.It should be sufficient that independent experts analyze all of the known data at the time, and give their expert opinions. Ashenden's and Parisotto's opinions would qualify, if they had factored all of the external context too, executing the procedures of a real ABP panel.You could argue that UKAD and the IAAF are not independent -- and I will not argue otherwise. I think this is a real issue that national doping agencies and national sports federations have potentially conflicting interests.In Paula's case, WADA's next report is the best hope for independent confirmation, or rejection, of UKAD's and IAAF's conclusions about Paula.
Clerk wrote:
While I agree with you that in general, the public doesn't know what to do with the data, that doesn't mean it should be kept private. The public doesn't know what do do with day-to-day stock prices, but it is published, and journalists analyze and filter it for consumption. But it starts out in the public domain. Same with other information: weather data, crime rates, housing prices, etc.
As for your "then what" question, I think that is why some are hesitant to release information. For clean athletes, the "then what" is benign; the off scores released by british athletes didn't raise any eyebrows, so the "then what" was nothing.
And you're right, many times the "then what" of public information is unsatisfying because it doesn't progress in actionable ways: Cyclists Chris Horner showed horribly suspicious BP data after winning a GT at 41 years old. There was no debate that it was suspicious, but was not acted by governing bodies. Same thing with Lance Armstrong's 2009 values, which were indicative but only got a small mention in the reasoned decision.
It is frustrating that even when dirty laundry is aired, the "then what" isn't much.
Many journalists' end goal is to catch somebody in a lie or contradiction, but that is so un-actionable in a real sense. Except for a perjury, Marion Jones-type scenario, revealing dishonesty to the public doesn't matter in terms of eligibility or sponsorships.
But that should stop it from happening. Armstrong was brought down by a trickle of information. Russian doping was brought out by a tickle of information. Target testing is guided in part by these kinds of suspicions. The information needs to be out there.
"In Paula's case, WADA's next report is the best hope for independent confirmation, or rejection, of UKAD's and IAAF's conclusions about Paula."
???
WADA has already confirmed that Paula Radcliffe has no case to answer.
But from that response, it is still not clear if he is talking about Paula at all.It's clear from Wada report part 1, that the IAAF failed to follow up on Russians, and from his previous open letter, that the Russians had very high, life threatening levels of red blood cells. (Off scores of 150+ for women, compared to Paula's 114).Maybe something similar will come out about the Kenyans, and maybe even Paula, in Wada's "wow factor" part 2. We'll have to wait until more "facts" come out.Amazingly, Ashenden wants to condemn the IAAF for not exceeding their authority, pushing beyond legal boundaries, based on the "life threatening" blood values alone.
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:
Ashenden's response to the IAAF obfuscation exercise.
https://twitter.com/danroan/status/670539823707463680
???I thought only UKAD and the IAAF confirmed that, and WADA's opinion (that the IAAF duly followed up in Paula's case) was still pending.For sure, if WADA says nothing, or has already said no, the case is hopelessly closed.
1000 wrote:
"In Paula's case, WADA's next report is the best hope for independent confirmation, or rejection, of UKAD's and IAAF's conclusions about Paula."
???
WADA has already confirmed that Paula Radcliffe has no case to answer.
Personally I'd like to see all the data out there and let whoever wants to analyze it.
Even though you couldn't be sanctioned prior to 2009 and the testing wasn't standardized (has anyone discussed the low value Paula had, that she said shows the equipment likely wasn't standardized?), I still think people can draw conclusions from it.
Unfortunately, the IAAF has no credibility right now. The head of their doping program mays soon be in jail. Their response didn't acknoledge this. Try and give us something that the group putting out the report was not the old regime. Plus in their response, they led off by telling us what any scientists should believe. That was insulting. I still need to read their response.
I'd trust Ross Tucker to look at it. I'd love to see what Ashenden says and Parisotto.
Having said that I had to laugh when Robert noted to me on linkedin that Parisotto is a "Consultant to the Russian Anti-Doping Agency."
https://au.linkedin.com/in/robin-parisotto-1634954
Now maybe they wanted an honest guy telling them who was dirty so they could figure out how to beat the test and everything was above board, but it is kind of funny one of the guys helping point out all the Russian positives weren't acted on was a consultant to the agency doing the covering up.
The bigger point is I don't trust one person to just give us a verdict. This stuff is complicated. So let's hear from an independent group of multiple experts.
“Let me be clear and reiterate what has already been stated by the Independent Commission as it relates to the ARD and Sunday Times reports regarding athletes’ blood values: no information in the leaked database from before 2009 – which was before the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was introduced – could ever be considered as doping, legally or otherwise.†- https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-09/statement-from-wada-director-general
lets no forget farsh's off scores .........
Breaking news ...
Seppelt to pay big bucks to get confession from
Rashid Ramzi .....
And the iaaf coverup of cera use before 2008....
All ramzi has to say is that was taking stuff in 2005, 2007
at worlds and passed tests for a ped that stays in system for months.
ie , was never tested or covered up .
even though would lose titles would sell out iaaf
as he was the only top athlete they sold out with deal he could
keep worlds ...
down goes bekele........
Boom ,,, goodbye lord coe ........
goodbye mr coe .,take paula with ya .
Paula Radcliffe's problem is that she does not want anyone to think that she was a doper that got away with it. Paula Radcliffe already knew from day one that she could never be charged because of the limitations put on the ABP.
In my opinion, she was blood doping, and she is going to get away with it.
If the incriminating blood tests were after 2009, then unquestionably a disciplinary proceeding would have been started against her, and Paula Radcliffe would have been given the chance to give her extenuating circumstances, but it will never get to this stage.
rekrunner wrote:
The problem with making the data public (besides the fact that it's personal health data) is the public is blood-thirsty for any semblance of evidence that "proves" their prejudices.
This is a typical personal attack suggesting anyone who disagrees with rekrunner's views is not credible because their views are "extreme."
If Ashenden and Parisotto state the likelihood doping were low, then that is fine. We're done. End of thread. More respect to Ms. Radcliffe as a once in a century athlete, likely GOAT.
Instead, we get a collection of misrepresentations and factual errors.
A few more points:
Paula can use the altitude excuse no matter where she was located, even if not at an altitude location, because she can say she was using an altitude tent, even if she was at a sea level location.
However, altitude is irrelevant in the half marathon world championship race. The problem is the huge magnitude of change in the OFF score from 82 pre race with a hemoglobin level of 12(borderline anemic) to an OFF score of 114.9 post race with a hemoglobin level of 14.8(towards the upper level of normal range for females which is 12-15g/dl.). The excuse of dehydration can only explain an increase in hemoglobin of about 1.6-2.2g/dl, while Paula has an increase of 2.8g/dl in her hemoglobin level from a race in which she beat the rest of the world's best female runners by over a minute while anemic, and simultaneously developing a level of dehydration that seems very unlikely could be achieved in a just over an hour long race.
This is not very likely. Paula in her new interview recognizes this, and CHANGES HER STORY AGAIN, to IT MUST BE A LAB ERROR IN MY PRERACE NUMBERS. If a Russian athlete tried to use this excuse, we would all laugh them out of town! If every athlete, when confronted with very suspicious blood results, can use the IT MUST BE A LAB ERROR excuse, then we can just throw out every positive test for every athlete that has ever tested positive in history.
If it was a lab error, then let's see the results of other runners tested the same day at the same lab, to see if their OFF scores and Hemoglobin levels were also in error and whose numbers would also be decreased too much. If so, this would help back up Paula's scenario. She says in her interview that it was too long ago and the equipment has been changed and we can't go back and look. I think we can. Was Paula the only athlete tested on that day at that lab? I doubt it. The IAAF probably has the numbers of the other athletes.
If not a lab error, then the most likely explanation of her blood results is an autologous blood transfusion. As there was no ABP then, she still gets off with no positive test, and gets to keep all her results, awards, and money... but her reputation is ruined forever.
It is also disingenuous for her to say that her suspicious results were not near important races, as this test was at the World Halfmarathon Championships, and another suspicious test was within a week before the 2005 World Championship Marathon where she won the gold medal!
These are not important races? Are you kidding me Paula?
1000 wrote:
“Let me be clear and reiterate what has already been stated by the Independent Commission as it relates to the ARD and Sunday Times reports regarding athletes’ blood values: no information in the leaked database from before 2009 – which was before the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was introduced – could ever be considered as doping, legally or otherwise.†-
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-09/statement-from-wada-director-general
That's great. Publish and permit discussion of Ms. Radcliffe's test data.
She's clean so it's no problem. Right?
EPO cheats out Paula.
rjm33 wrote:
However, altitude is irrelevant in the half marathon world championship race. The problem is the huge magnitude of change in the OFF score from 82 pre race with a hemoglobin level of 12(borderline anemic) to an OFF score of 114.9 post race with a hemoglobin level of 14.8(towards the upper level of normal range for females which is 12-15g/dl.). The excuse of dehydration can only explain an increase in hemoglobin of about 1.6-2.2g/dl, while Paula has an increase of 2.8g/dl in her hemoglobin level from a race in which she beat the rest of the world's best female runners by over a minute while anemic, and simultaneously developing a level of dehydration that seems very unlikely could be achieved in a just over an hour long race.
This clinches it for me. 82 to 114.9. I can see why she changed stories on the altitude and dehydration to now attack the 82.