Mary Keitany Sets the Women's Clean WR!!! 2:16:59

I would gladly bet my house against Radcliffe or Keitany (or any elite in professional sports) being clean. There is hardly one sport where doping has no efficacy. Shambolic testing, proliferation of doping expertise, and soft partisan adjudication makes cheating particularly easy these days. The very idea of clean sport is a joke.

TaintedGlove wrote:

I would gladly bet my house against Radcliffe or Keitany (or any elite in professional sports) being clean. There is hardly one sport where doping has no efficacy. Shambolic testing, proliferation of doping expertise, and soft partisan adjudication makes cheating particularly easy these days. The very idea of clean sport is a joke.

That's bold - I personally wouldn't make that bet. But regardless: I, like you I imagine, wish there was actually effective testing and wish there was a way to separate the cheaters from the non-cheaters.

So now I'll change gears and ramble on ...

Since there aren't supremely effective drug testing or cheat testing systems what do I get from the elite level of this sport? What do I gain by looking at fast people and thinking

- they're fast without cheating.

- cheating does exist, as evidenced by positive drug tests, biological passport examinations, admissions of guilt, whistle blower evidence, and well run investigations (assuming these things are all trustworthy accurate and honest)

- they're faster with cheating / they would be faster if they cheated

- certain groups of elite world class athletes probably are cheating based on what I know about the history of their country / training group / positive drug test results

- certain elite world class individuals probably are cheating based on the pair of facts that (1) they are so unbelievably good, and (2) cheating does indeed exist

- most elite world class athletes probably are cheating (or are not cheating, depending on my opinion)

I don't like cheaters. Does elite level cheating it affect me personally in my day to day life? Not at all. Does it irritate me. draw me into thinking about it all the time, and make me feel very strongly that effective methods to catch cheaters neet to be developed (instead of going the opposite way and just letting cheaters cheat and giving everyone the option to cheat)? Absolutely. Why? I don't know

I didn't pick any articles, you provided them in your reference link. I was just quoting from the very material you supplied. If you have an issue with that, provide a reference that actually supports your position, not undermines it. You are a joke.

Recap of your discourse on this thread, quotes are direct quotes.

---------------------

You: "She was proven 100% to be blood doping"

WTFBBQ: prove it

You: "It's been posted on this forum many times...."

I: Prove it. Also I provide a link for the google search "paula radcliffe blood doping". One would think, if proof of her blood doping exists, this google search could bring up the proof.

You: explained what first two links from my google search show. You identify the second article (Telegraph) in particular and say it "does address the blood values problem". You fail to acknowledge that the same article also refutes the blood values problem and in the end leaves it as a question.

I: explain that you still have not proven that "She was proven 100% to be blood doping" and in fact that you didn't read the whole Telegraph article, which is still my contention.

You: tell me to provide a reference that supports my position.

----------------------------------

The reference that supports my position is there is an dearth of proof that Paula Radcliffe blood doped. There are blood values, claims that the blood values make her guilty of blood doping, claims that the blood values are inaccurate, accusations, counters to the accusations, and doubts. But there is no proof. You said "She was proven 100% to be blood doping". Prove it. Provide the proof to back up your claim. Instead of calling me names, avoiding the issue, or acting like it's not worth your time to prove it... just prove it. Prove me wrong, please! Give me the proof that she blood doped so that we can all get rid of a cheater.

My suspicion is that you'll tell me I have no proof that she didn't blood dope, that you'll provide some sources indicating suspicion or accusations of blood doping, or best case you'll disappear.

If you provide the proof or even something just slightly more convincing than what is already well known and well documented about Paula Radcliffe and her blood values then I will join in the roast of her and the celebration of taking down her ineligible results. But where is the proof?

Fijc wrote:

Blood scores are not proof of doping. Do you really not understand that?

Here you have it folks.

The blood tests don't prove anything, so we might as well get rid of them.

From the science of sport:

At some point, the off-score gets so high, it is strongly indicative of doping (the 1 in 100, 1 in 1000 thing). For example, Shobhukova had an off-score of 153 (yikes). The off-score can also be so low that it suggests doping, and these “cut-offs” or limits are known.

Radcliffe’s values (115, 110 & 109) lie either just below (2) or just above (1) the off-score upper limit WHEN TAKING ALTITUDE INTO ACCOUNT.

That is, there is a different ‘cut-off’ to deal with altitude cases, because altitude is known to affect the blood. So a normal cut-off of 103 is increased to accommodate this recognized possibility/explanation.

Anyway, the point is that Radcliffe is NOT a Shobhukova type example, though her numbers are still high.

Where it gets tricky, however, is that off-score values are ONLY PART of the picture, which is why releasing 3 off-scores is not conclusive of anything, even if they are close to those cut-off limits.

That’s because the whole premise of the passport is to measure CHANGE over time, and so a value can be “normal” and thus not flagged by itself, but when that value is looked at relative to others, it may be marked anyway.

Because of this, a ‘spot’ off-score of 100 might be more suspicious than a value of 110, if the preceding values were 70 vs 105, respectively. The biological passport software does have an adaptive component that works out a sequence score, but we’re dealing here with “spot” off-scores.

Perhaps even more importantly, it helps to know how that off-score is generated – you can produce the same off-score with different combinations of Hb & Ret% (which would, in theory, allow you to mask doping by manipulating half the equation to hide the other half), so really, isolated off-scores tell you nothing other than you’re not dealing with Shobukhova-level doping here!

In fact, off-score alone is like power output in cycling. At some point, it’s so high it screams DOPER. But when lower, it doesn’t prove non-doper, and you instead need to appreciate the nuance. So only releasing part of the data seems to be to actually obscure that, which is ironic because it makes this issue so much MORE DIFFICULT to understand (which was Radcliffe’s justification for keeping it out of the public eye in the first place).

All the facts – easy! Half the facts – impossible!

What would help to test each of Radcliffe’s explanations (altitude, illness, hydration) is the specific values (Hb & Ret%), not just an off-score, and to do so over a longer period.

Each of her explanations is a hypothesis (“Dehydration after running in the heat has increased my Hb concentration and triggered a high off score”, for instance. Or “A period of altitude training has elevated my Hb and suppressed Ret production to produce a high Off-score”).

These “hypotheses” are entirely testable, and if they pass the test, believable, and on top of it all, she’d be playing open cards, which is worth a great deal in the climate of mistrust.

I still feel that her explanations are POSSIBLE, and complete data would make them PLAUSIBLE, and that equals trust. But the half-truths & opaqueness make it less plausible, at least to me (opinion). It’s the ACTION, not necessarily the data, that speaks loudest.

I really shouldn’t do this because it’s a waste of time, but you seem so earnest. I'll give it one last try.You brought up a couple of Telegraph articles to support your position. The first one doesn’t deal with the issue we are discussing so we can discard it. The second one contains a recap of the blood doping accusations. The rest of the article consists of Paula’s statement trying to explain herself. That’s it – no assessment of her attempted defense, no journalistic discussion, just a one-sided, unvetted, unreviewed, uncommented statement.In the statement she brings up four issues. The first is post-race dehydration. This is valid, because dehydration can increase HGB values. Presumably, her 30% HGB jump came after running for 67 minutes in the low 70s under scattered clouds. The interesting thing is that over the years there were many other runners who were tested post-race, but apparently none of them ever had those kinds of HGB anomalies. How does that happen? Does Paula sweat more than other runners? Can you think of any rational explanation? And then we have the issue of the anomalous erythrocyte ratio. That ratio is not affected by dehydration. How did all those old blood cells suddenly appear in her bloodstream?The second pillar of her defense is her altitude training. Unfortunately, hypoxia does not increase HGB counts in a matter of a couple of days, it takes weeks. How do you explain a short-term HGB jump just based on previous altitude training? Hypoxia doesn’t work that way on HGB levels.Her third point is the blood values analysis performed by an unnamed expert hired by her team. Enough said.And lastly, she makes this all-inclusive disclaimer:

There are also other reasons why the pre-2009 data may be considered unreliable, as various experts have explained in their evaluations; these include unreliability and inconsistency of analysis machines and transportation and storage variances.

Again, why is it that other runners did not experience these types of problems?

Look, I wish she were clean, but her explanations just don’t hold up to scrutiny. Would this kind of circumstantial evidence hold up in court? No. But it does hold up in the court of public opinion. Especially in the court of her fellow runners on Let’s Run.

I am kind of done with this topic, but if you wish to pursue it, there are plenty of threads on LRC you can review. If you come up with some persuasive, unambiguous evidence to the contrary, post it here and let the group discuss it.

Low 70s (is about 20-23°c) this is not uncomfortable for someone use to hot temperatures.

The only thing that I was looking for in earnest was for you to back up your statement of "She was proven 100% to be blood doping". It was a strong statement for a murky situation.

The way I see it I don't need to be persuasive about anything. I never said she cheated and I never said she didn't - and I can't prove it either way. I am not going to defend the claims expressed in the Telegraph article b/c I am not vouching for them. But as qweropiu posted from The Science of Sport - there is a lot of interpretation that goes into evaluating blood values (full article here:

http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

)

The link I provided to the google search "paula radcliffe blood doping" was nothing more than a demonstration on the lack of proof. I did not provide a specific link to that second Telegraph article b/c I thought it was proof that she was clean - I just provided a link to some google results which were, at best, unconvincing.

On the contrary if you google "justin gatlin testosterone cheating" (https://www.google.com/search?q=justin+gatlin+testosterone+cheating&oq=justin+gatlin+testosterone+cheating&aqs=chrome..69i57.351j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) I can see the proof of cheating without clicking any of the links.

The photo you posted was one of Radcliffe's first egregious displays of using drugs to try and remove women competitors. The sign was held while Yegorova, who had never failed a blood test, was competing.

Radcliffe and her cohort should have been permanently banned for displaying that sign but they weren't. Likewise Radcliffe has never been banned for her many failed drug tests; nor has she made any of them public.

I do not follow what you're trying to say.

For what it's worth the link I posted is to a detailed, well written opinion piece by Ross Tucker from the Science of Sport. The image that automatically shows up of Radcliffe holding the "EPO CHEATS OUT" sign is not what was intended - the content of the article is what was intended for sharing.

But you say "The sign was held while Yegorova, who had never failed a blood test, was competing". Yegorova had actually failed a urine test in 2001 which was the reason the sign was made. The failed test was for a positive for EPO but it was overturned b/c the correct testing procedure was not followed. Radcliffe felt that the initial positive test was enough to declare Yegorova guilty so Radcliffe held up the EPO CHEATS OUT sign. Is that right or wrong? I can't say with certainty. But soonafter the IAAF did uphold the ban of Yegorova despite not having a second sample. Is that right or wrong? Again I can't say with certainty. Furthermore Yegorova was banned in 2009 after it was found out that she tampered with urine samples. So a case can be made that the sign was at least accurate even if you think it was tasteless.

You say "Likewise Radcliffe has never been banned for her many failed drug tests; nor has she made any of them public." Radcliffe never failed a drug test that I'm aware of. Since she hasn't failed any thing many people will make a leap and say that she is innocent and clean... so she has nothing to make public.

Get rid of the testing then wrote:

Here you have it folks.

The blood tests don't prove anything, so we might as well get rid of them.

I wish they would...the Russians lead the world in ABP sanctions 😕

fandom wrote:

And lastly, she makes this all-inclusive disclaimer:

[quote] There are also other reasons why the pre-2009 data may be considered unreliable, as various experts have explained in their evaluations; these include unreliability and inconsistency of analysis machines and transportation and storage variances.

In addition to all the other excuses you listed, this last response was fuggin BS and has been debunked many times. For example:

From the web page

1. ‘It is unscientific to compare data collected prior to 2009’

• Last December, the IAAF stated that: “When they are available, the IAAF has used the blood values prior to 2009 as “secondary evidence” in support of an increased sanction in addition to the post-2009 profile to establish the athlete’s long history of doping”.

• In our opinion, if the pre-2009 data are considered sufficiently reliable to extend a sanction, then they are also sufficiently reliable to undertake our analyses.

The IAAF are clearly using one set of rules for some people and another set of rules for others.

qweropiu wrote:

In fact, off-score alone is like power output in cycling. At some point, it’s so high it screams DOPER. But when lower, it doesn’t prove non-doper, and you instead need to appreciate the nuance

Both the IAAF & UCI use an off-score of >133 and any point on the parameters as "conclusive" evidence of blood-manipulation. Under that score, it's possible to skate and not be sanctioned. Anything over that number and it lights out and here comes an ABP sanction...no exceptions.

bop wrote:

I do not follow what you're trying to say.

That's cause you're dumb, and probably on drugs.

Read it again, more slowly this time, and try using your brain.

Look at yourself wrote:

That's cause you're dumb, and probably on drugs.

Read it again, more slowly this time, and try using your brain.

2 out of 4 of your sentences are false. 50% accuracy is not an enviable position to argue from even in my dumb, drug using, brainless world. Care to revisit the subject?

"The photo you posted was one of Radcliffe's first egregious displays of using drugs to try and remove women competitors." This is an opinion and there is nothing to dispute.

"The sign was held while Yegorova, who had never failed a blood test, was competing." You are wrong. The sign was held up b/c Yegorova in fact failed a test from her A sample / urine sample. The failed test was initially overruled b/c testing protocol was not followed. It was later reinstated as a positive.

"Radcliffe and her cohort should have been permanently banned for displaying that sign but they weren't." This is an opinion and there is nothing to dispute.

"Likewise Radcliffe has never been banned for her many failed drug tests; nor has she made any of them public." You are wrong. Radcliffe has never failed a drug test.

Over the last 3 years Keitany has only run 2:23-2:25 now she is running 2:17.01 by herself and didn't even look tired. Using my ESP I will send Renato Canova a 'please explain message.'

Except Yegorova did fail a drug test but because of some type of error with the B sample she was allowed to compete.

The answer is very simple : Mary got a new strong motivation to show how wrong the decision not to select her for Rio was (to AK), and how it was possible to run fast also after splitting with the historical coach Gabriele Nicola (from last June).

Mary, after Olympics 2012, gave Birth to a baby girl, and came back to competitions at the end of May 2014, winning in Ottawa the race of 10 km on road in 31'22". Her first goal was to rebuild the speed, and her preparation for the full Marathon was not at top level. She prepared in more specific way 10 km and HM, looking at a long term project for Rio Olympics. So, in September 2014 was already able to improve her PB in HM in South Shields (65:39) and went NY for winning only.

In 2015 she didn't have a good season. She worked for increasing her strength endurance, but never went for tough workouts on track or with long distances on road. However, this was part of the plan discussed with Gabriele, in order to improve her muscle strength as basic quality for maintaining high speed at the end of the Olympic Marathon. However, she lost London only, competing in not usual way (for her), waiting inside the leading Group instead attacking as normally is used to do. With that tactic she discovered to be vulnerable, so started to pace again at high speed in the next competitions, winning all the races including NY, when she pushed hard in the last 5 km only.

During the months of January and February 2016, Mary had problems of health : she took an intestinal virus, had to reduce training (especially as intensity), and really was not prepared in London, when ran the worst competition of her life (9th in 2:28:30), also falling down in one refreshment (but the fall was not the reason).

At that time she started to have problems with Gabriele : he accused her to have little motivation, and she was unhappy he didn't believe that her motivation was still great, but her problems were connected with physical health, not with a decrease of stimuli. In June, she decided to split from Gabriele, and from that period her husband Charles directly designed her training, of course following the plans of the past, but with more flexibility according to the external conditions (personal health, weather, family goals and situation). She went NY only for winning, but with the big motivation to show that it was possible running near the WR of Paula, and from the beginning of December running under 2:17:42 was a real goal.

Her training went well, and she showed Always great continuity at high level. The only competition before London (RAK HM in February) showed the best shape of her life on the distance, when she ran 65:13 bettered her PB of 65:39 from South Shields 2014. Also every training session gave her more confidence : she ran her best sessions on track, while in long run she repeated the old performances on the "classic" courses (athletes from Iten use to run in the same courses from several years), really in easy way.

The combination of these factors gave her the best shape of her life. I personally told the manager Gianni Demadonna, already in Kampala, that the Mary edition 2017 could do something special, because I saw her in training and I was really impressed, knowing very well all what she did in the past.

And, like all the top Champions, when there is high motivation connected with proper training and perfect efficiency, it was not possible to fail to achieve the goal already in her mind.

So, nothing strange, only a logic effect of motivation, training and good health.