Sweeeeden wrote:
Banana Bread wrote:
I wish all these suspects could be forced onto the Jeremy Kyle show. He will get to the bottom of who is and isn't doping. That will settle it once and for all. Am I the only one with half a brain?
Nope, you just have half a brain.
You have less than half a brain
Beejesus wrote:
Sweeeeden wrote:
Nope, you just have half a brain.
You have less than half a brain
Hi Banana Bread:) Same IP as Beejesus, isn't that ironic;)
Not sure the relevance wrote:
douglas burke wrote:
WR not happening this weekend, think about this the fastest time by an American so far this year (almost halfway through the marathon season is 2:15.52, so it is not happening.
Nobody suggested an American would be breaking it.
Paula ran faster than all British men in 2003.
Only one athlete runs a WR, why would the form of other athletes - and specifically athletes of the opposite sex from a country where nobody is attempting a WR - negatively impact Keitany's chances on Sunday. That's some messed up work from the universe if that's how it's decided.
I meant the fastest time by an American MAN in 2018 is 2:15:52, No woman can run as fast as the best American man at any Distance 100 meters to Marathon it would be like asking Alyson Felix or Shaunae Miller to run faster Than Lashawn Merritt, NOT HAPPENING.
So after reading thru everything, can anyone definitively say that she absolutely cheated and that there's no question about it?
Wejo? Anybody? Burke?
What dosage of EPO did you use?
freakin out wrote:
She is a once in a generation freak athlete. So far she actually seems like once in a lifetime freak athlete...with all of east Africa trying to get to her level.
I don’t believe it- she’s not a generation freak maybe in England but not the world. And I’m sure most people wouldn't believe that her times were legit if they reviewed all her times.
Also, the record is not going down this weekend even though the two greatest women’s marathoners are going to attempt it.
Huge Paula Fan wrote:
So after reading thru everything, can anyone definitively say that she absolutely cheated and that there's no question about it?
Wejo? Anybody? Burke?
I am not accusing anybody of cheating.
Did you miss the IAAF detailed rebuttal? Much of the "reasoning" can be found there. Did it help then?
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Who exactly are these people you describe as "numerous experts" in this claim: "numerous experts have concluded that there is simply no case to answer." It would be helpful to hear their reasoning.
In such a short post you got three things wrong: "Gary", "husband", and for that matter, "troll" are the wrong words. As to why, initially it was to help put findings in context, help separate knowledge from belief, separate hype from reality, separate gossip from the facts, ....
Gary doesn't mind wrote:
Ask her why her husband (rekrunner) trolls these boards so hard.
rekrunner wrote:
In such a short post you got three things wrong: "Gary", "husband", and for that matter, "troll" are the wrong words.
As to why, initially it was to help put findings in context, help separate knowledge from belief, separate hype from reality, separate gossip from the facts, ....
Gary doesn't mind wrote:
Ask her why her husband (rekrunner) trolls these boards so hard.
Sure, says the man from Monaco.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
In such a short post you got three things wrong: "Gary", "husband", and for that matter, "troll" are the wrong words.
As to why, initially it was to help put findings in context, help separate knowledge from belief, separate hype from reality, separate gossip from the facts, ....
Sure, says the man from Monaco.
Monaco, that denizen of tax evaders and loophole-exploiters, who use every legal device meant for the protection of the truly innocent to obfuscate and stonewall every legitimate inquiry; the title-thieving scoundrels who employ the masters of corruption to unashamedly turn the dreams of the honest and the hardworking, into tatters!
No I don’t think so... wrote:
I don’t believe it- she’s not a generation freak maybe in England but not the world. And I’m sure most people wouldn't believe that her times were legit if they reviewed all her times.
+1
Just have a look at her times, and places, until age 26. Does not appear to be a generation freak at all.
A better question is (like in Mo's case): was she clean until age 26? That would be quite impressive!
Him too?
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Sure, says the man from Monaco.
Gravy+ v.3 wrote:
.l
Though a fierce anti-doping campaigner, Radcliffe has been scurrilously treated by the French media, and spent much of Thursday and Friday demanding that such a test be done on her, to give no further opportunity for unwarranted slurs. She was delighted when doping analysis was eventually arranged before the race.
That was an interesting article. Why was the French media treating her scurriously before she’d even really don much? Anyone remember?
PS. We have an article up on her on the front page. In researching the 'Editor's note' for the piece, I rediscovered how the IAAF went way out of their way to say the accusations against here weren't warranted.
LRC wrote:
Editor’s note: While Radcliffe was known as an outspoken anti-doping advocate during her career — she famously held up “EPO Cheats Out” sign at Worlds in 2001 and asked for her samples to be frozen and re-tested in years to come in 2002 — and currently serves as a consultant for the Athletics Integrity Unit, in 2015 a member of British Parliament implied she was potentially “under suspicion for very high levels of blood doping” after it was revealed that one of the off-scores from her blood tests was above the IAAF limit of 111.7.
Radcliffe issued a 1,716-word denial in which she stated in part, “Only one of my blood test scores is marginally above the 1 in 100 accepted threshold and this is invalid given that it was collected immediately following a half-marathon race run around midday in temperatures of approximately 30C. None of my blood test scores are anywhere near the 1 in 1,000 threshold as was claimed by the Sunday Times and that which is seen as suspicion of doping. No abnormalities were ultimately found and any allegation that the IAAF did not follow up on blood data results in my case is false.”
The IAAF went a step further and issued a 38-page report in regards to the Radcliffe tests and others. Nearly 2,000 words of that report were devoted directly to the Radcliffe case. The IAAF wrote in part, “The circumstances in which Ms Radcliffe came to be publicly accused are truly shocking. …..This case is a good example, then, of how dangerous it is to insinuate that an athlete has doped based simply on the raw and incomplete data in the leaked database. Ms Radcliffe should never have been forced to come out and defend herself against such insinuations….The data therefore provide no basis whatsoever for the insinuations made against her.”
rojo wrote:
I rediscovered how the IAAF went way out of their way to say the accusations against here weren't warranted.
That in itself is completely and utterly ridiculous. Especially as the IAAF has been outed as covering up for dopers in the past. Releasing the blood data would have been much simpler and would have removed the need for them to waffle on saying effectively nothing. That was not done and this only makes many think that they are covering up as they have done in the past.
IAAF whitewashers wrote:
rojo wrote:
I rediscovered how the IAAF went way out of their way to say the accusations against here weren't warranted.
That in itself is completely and utterly ridiculous. Especially as the IAAF has been outed as covering up for dopers in the past. Releasing the blood data would have been much simpler and would have removed the need for them to waffle on saying effectively nothing. That was not done and this only makes many think that they are covering up as they have done in the past.
2 words
Lord Coe
... who already declared her to be innocent before the onset of the IAAF's "investigation". Right after he declared that he didn't know any details about the IAAF's tests and so.
Her breathing is so unusual. Does she train it with candles?
rojo wrote:
PS. We have an article up on her on the front page. In researching the 'Editor's note' for the piece, I rediscovered how the IAAF went way out of their way to say the accusations against here weren't warranted.
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2018/04/15-years-paula-radcliffe-reflects-21525-marathon-world-record/LRC wrote:
Editor’s note: While Radcliffe was known as an outspoken anti-doping advocate during her career — she famously held up “EPO Cheats Out” sign at Worlds in 2001 and asked for her samples to be frozen and re-tested in years to come in 2002 — and currently serves as a consultant for the Athletics Integrity Unit, in 2015 a member of British Parliament implied she was potentially “under suspicion for very high levels of blood doping” after it was revealed that one of the off-scores from her blood tests was above the IAAF limit of 111.7.
Radcliffe issued a 1,716-word denial in which she stated in part, “Only one of my blood test scores is marginally above the 1 in 100 accepted threshold and this is invalid given that it was collected immediately following a half-marathon race run around midday in temperatures of approximately 30C. None of my blood test scores are anywhere near the 1 in 1,000 threshold as was claimed by the Sunday Times and that which is seen as suspicion of doping. No abnormalities were ultimately found and any allegation that the IAAF did not follow up on blood data results in my case is false.”
The IAAF went a step further and issued a 38-page report in regards to the Radcliffe tests and others. Nearly 2,000 words of that report were devoted directly to the Radcliffe case. The IAAF wrote in part, “The circumstances in which Ms Radcliffe came to be publicly accused are truly shocking. …..This case is a good example, then, of how dangerous it is to insinuate that an athlete has doped based simply on the raw and incomplete data in the leaked database. Ms Radcliffe should never have been forced to come out and defend herself against such insinuations….The data therefore provide no basis whatsoever for the insinuations made against her.”
And what happened after the Fancy bears hack came out? Instead of saying "yep we suspect these people but it's not 100%," they denied it and apologized to the likely cheats. Any denials regarding Paula from the IAAF are simply not credible.