OMG, I totally wish Paula Radcliffe gets caught/outted.

Nothing will ever happen to her. She’s the Great White Hope of Great Britain.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Nothing will ever happen to her. She’s the Great White Hope of Great Britain.

I probably agree. But it would be nice for a journalist to dig a bit deeper and ask a few awkward questions. I hope someone who has done a bit of research can put these questions to her one day.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Nothing will ever happen to her. She’s the Great White Hope of Great Britain.

You're right about this.

Survey Says.... wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

We just got done looking at the survey where 72% of letsrun fans thought 2:15 was done clean.

It's kind of a weird survey where 43% thought El G's WR was done clean. ?

Because nothing screams "clean" like running 5 x 400 in an average of under 57 seconds each with no rest in between reps.

Oh, I didn't say anything about the swing of busted dopers. In fact, comparing the values of Shobukhova to the value of Paula, there was very little similarity. What I said is, like you, my visibility in blood values with or without names is very limited, but my knowledge of measurement and process inconsistencies comes from many papers written by scientists.

deja vu wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Of the 5000 or so athletes in the leaked blood database, I only know some data from about a dozen or so, and most of them were released because the athletes were already busted.

So are you effectively saying that the only people you can actually name who had similar swings blood values are those who were busted for doping?

Nice try. Lance's positive EPO test results were from urine, not blood.

DHT123 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If you read USADA's Reasoned Decision, you will also learn that these test results were eventually used as part of the evidence against Lance to support a lifetime ban.

The hilarious irony of using pre-ABP blood values to make a point in a thread about Paula Radcliffe, you surpass yourself on this one rekrunner.

According to Gerard Hartmann (

), Paula used a homeopath. Wasn't the EPO or HGH, friend, it was the homeopathy. If she'd only consulted an astrologer and hired Gwyneth Paltrow's friend Tracy Anderson to strength train her, Paula coulda run 2:12.

The thing is, she was scrutinized by every organization there is, who had access to complete data, and the expertise to understand it. After the last report from the WADA IC, in January 2016, no one is even asking anymore, not even the tabloids. That ship has sailed, and that horse is dead. What does not stand up to public scrutiny are blood values before 2009.

Dope Apologism wrote:

This is the crux of the problem: Radcliffe does not want scrutiny.

And the fair and unbiased retort is:

Does her record not stand up to scrutiny?

She herself, demanded scrutiny in athletics and was very quick to judge her peers.

So what is she afraid of now?

No I'm saying you are mixing up two independent things. The basis for sanctions does not require fast performances, and fast performances is not a basis for sanctions. In fact, athletes are often sanctioned out of competition, where there is no fast or slow performance.

Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:

Huh? Are you suggesting that IAAF anti-doping experts are confusing "beneficial performance effect with sufficient basis for sanctions?"

I thought I already explained this. Among other procedural issues, a positive test without confirmation from a second test, would be insufficient to bring a doping suspension. Lance was not suspended, because the samples should have been destroyed, or should have been anonymous if not destroyed, and there was no possibility for a B-sample confirmation (presumably because for this research, they were performed on the unused B-samples). Although the arguments may appear similar, what distinguishes them are the differences. In Lance's case, there was a positive test directly indicating the presence of EPO. A high blood value is not a positive test result, and is not a direct indication of doping, but requires subjective interpretation along with supplemental external information, by experts. What you seem to be missing is that the Vrijman report was far from independent, being heavily influenced by the UCI, according to the UCI, and that the report did not invalidate the test results, but the positive test results were nonetheless insufficient to bring a doping sanction. The IAAF wrote a response to clear its own name from accusations of inaction from the Sunday Times and the Australian scientists. Radcliffe was a case in point example to highlight the irresponsibility of the Sunday Times reporting, and the public statements of the Australian scientists. Paula was not only cleared by the IAAF (twice), she was also either cleared, or not pursued, by UKAD, by WADA (twice), and by the WADA-IC investigating the allegations of the ARD and the Sunday Times. For comparison, Lance was not cleared, and was hotly pursued, by both WADA and USADA, not to mention a disgruntled team mate who brought in the Feds.

Most of this looks like irrelevant gossip -- this is what I mean by desperate clinging at straws. Some of these aren't even contradictions. Imagine you are a judge in a court, and you have to decide which arguments are relevant to the accusation -- most of this gets tossed out. A CAS panel will not discuss whether the ice bath and cool down occurred before or after testing, but if testing occurred within 2 hours. It's not a contradiction to say that three points were after lengthy altitude stays, but the primary factor in two of them was something else (e.g. not respecting the 2-hour rule not to mention some combination of other known factors). Regarding 2004 Athens Olympics, is there a contradiction? She got hit by a stone around 1st of August, flew to Munich, her leg froze up a week later, and she had many more problems. These aren't mutually exclusive things. And there was no doping suspicion in 2004 -- why are we talking about Athens? Unless the 2005 testing occurred more than two hours after the race, the rest is irrelevant. Regarding 2012, the only thing that matters is the lengthy stay at 2400m, eight days before the test. Regarding the lawsuit, maybe the reporter lied. In any case, this has nothing to do with doping. You forgot to mention 29 C in Vilamoura and the dehydration excuse -- both of these also don't matter, as the studies say extreme exertion causes plasma shift to interstitial tissues, again requiring 2 hours to return to normal. Some people accuse me of obsessing about Paula, but I've never read her biography, don't follow her on twitter, and don't listen to her radio interviews.

Actually thinking about my good friend Rekrunner, we were debating the Sabadell raids and I said to him why would the best runner in the world have an army's supply of epo & roids. His response to one post was that they were only "vitamins." I'm not so sure they ever found any vitamin ampoules. The only info on vitamins linked Aden was David Torrence, who for the record stated that after very hard training sessions Jama would pressure him to have vitamin injections, when Torrence stated he had his own Aden would really angry. The day after these injections Dibaba & Soulimon were new athletes.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Actually thinking about my good friend Rekrunner, we were debating the Sabadell raids and I said to him why would the best runner in the world have an army's supply of epo & roids. His response to one post was that they were only "vitamins." I'm not so sure they ever found any vitamin ampoules. The only info on vitamins linked Aden was David Torrence, who for the record stated that after very hard training sessions Jama would pressure him to have vitamin injections, when Torrence stated he had his own Aden would really angry. The day after these injections Dibaba & Soulimon were new athletes.

Is there any other update newer than this on the Aden case? (I've searched high & low and this from Jun/2018 is the most recent I could find):

"The Spanish paper El País said it has seen the prosecutor’s report on Aden, which accuses the British-Somali coach of putting the health of his elite athletes at risk by providing them with up to eight types of substances and medications to improve their performance.

The news follows police raids in June 2016 on several premises in the Catalonian town of Sabadell where Aden and his athletes were staying. Six doctors from the IAAF, athletics’ world governing body – which had been monitoring Aden for three years – and officials from the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency found different types of the banned drug EPO and 19 syringes preloaded and ready to use.

While none of Aden’s athletes who were present subsequently tested positive for banned substances he has been under investigation ever since. El País’s report says the prosecutor’s report concludes the trainer did provide his athletes with substances prohibited in sport in Spain and “medicines that did not have the administrative authorisation” to be marketed in Spain and that, therefore, were “absolutely clandestine”.

Although no trial date has been set, prosecutors want the maximum penalty for Aden and his trusted physiotherapist, Ouarid Mounir, although whether they are able to extradite Aden from Qatar, where he is now based, is another story."

Rekrunner thnks they were only vitamins? 19 syringes preloaded with rocket fuel...different types of rocket fuel. Lol. Sounds like a drug fest with some of the heavy hitters of the sport. Lol. And Aden is now hiding out in Qatar?

Rekrunner must be naive to think otherwise. ?

rekrunner wrote:

Correct about a CAS panel. But that's not the point I am making. A judge would note the contradictions in the statements and probably describe Paula as an unreliable witness. Re: the 2 hours - as this timescale will have been established to avoid false positives, I would imagine that they would expect most people's blood to be back to normal 30-60 minutes after vigorous exercise. There's a big difference in going directly to blood control directly after a 10,000 m race, and having a cool-down jog, then an ice bath, and then going, maybe 90-120 minutes later.

It's not a contradiction to say that three points were after lengthy altitude stays, but the primary factor in two of them was something else (e.g. not respecting the 2-hour rule not to mention some combination of other known factors). [/quote]

Er, that might be correct if she HAD been an altitude before the three tests. It was demonstrated that she had been at sea-level for 5-6 weeks before the 2003 test, and her statement was false.

Regarding 2004 Athens Olympics, is there a contradiction? She got hit by a stone around 1st of August, flew to Munich, her leg froze up a week later, and she had many more problems. These aren't mutually exclusive things. And there was no doping suspicion in 2004 -- why are we talking about Athens? [/quote]

No, you are incorrect, they are 100% referring to the same injury. Paula's biography also goes on to talk about flying to Munich. We're talking about this because there are two totally incompatible stories about the same event out there, and somebody, for some reason, has made one of them up. Just because there wasn't a suspicious score (we assume) at Athens (although I guess she wasn't tested post-marathon or post 10.000m as she didn't finish either) doesn't mean the circumstances around it isn't suspicious.

See above - I'm not talking about whether this would pass through CAS, I'm talking about not telling the truth.

The issue here is that Paula says she was injured in Kenya and not training, whereas contemporaneous accounts show that was training hard out there. Maybe she was injured right at the end of the trip? Maybe. We don't know. We also don't know what happened with the suspicious blood test. Here's one scenario - that when the test results come back, the athlete is then asked if they have anything else to add (that they previously hadn't added on the form when the test was taken). Here Paula adds that she has been sleeping in a hypoxic tent, and yes, she was injured at altitude, and therefore wasn't crushing the red blood cells - and gets cleared. Then the issue of whether she WAS injured at altitude becomes relevant. But no-one has questioned her in detail about the circumstances around this so we are none the wiser.

Really? I don't think so. She would sue them for printing that! I trust the integrity of the journalist on this one, big time.

You forgot to mention 29 C in Vilamoura and the dehydration excuse -- both of these also don't matter, as the studies say extreme exertion causes plasma shift to interstitial tissues, again requiring 2 hours to return to normal.

Do us a favour with the sanctimony. To be as well read as you over these topics you are spending plenty of time reading lots of stuff.

[/quote]

Same as it ever was... wrote:

https://www.globerunner.org/01/paula-gary-next/https://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/olympics-sport/paula-radcliffe-we-argue-but-i-owe-everything-to-my-husband-7932001.html

lolz

what paula and gary did next.......gary logged on under the handle "rekrunner" to do damage control and troll hard, the brojos protect him since they had the agreement for wejo to pace paula.

If you want to know what I think, you should only read my posts, as anyone else speaking for me generally tends to get something wrong. There are not many updates on Aden, but the Spanish papers and police reports said the EPO was found in Mounir's room.

Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:

Rekrunner thnks they were only vitamins?

OK, good luck with this approach.

DHT123 wrote:

Correct about a CAS panel. But that's not the point I am making....

rekrunner wrote:

If you want to know what I think, you should only read my posts, as anyone else speaking for me generally tends to get something wrong.

There are not many updates on Aden, but the Spanish papers and police reports said the EPO was found in Mounir's room.

Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:

Rekrunner thnks they were only vitamins?

Really, you were only pushing the "only vitamins" "zinc, B12 isn't illegal" line.