Sunday Mail Has More Details on Paula's Blood Values and Off Scores + News She'll Put up £1m for an MRI lie detector

Guardian link got mangled - here's same from the Telegraph:

On her way to Gerald Hartman - see if he can remember whether a speeding car kicked up a stone on her knee this time or not!

larkimm wrote:

Ashenden and Parisotto don't really deal with Paula in any specific way. Those journos who could do something about it seem to be keeping very quiet - surely this would be the biggest story of their careers (or second, after Lance) if they could nail it down?..

It's called litigation and Paula would make it rain litigation, like Armstrong did.

It's pretty amazing and false to call Tucker suspicious.

Rekrunner's personal attacks are pretty funny. If there was not a care I'm not sure why there are so many Rekrunner posts.

Sharing all the test scores in Seppelt's possession to send the ultimate "EPO cheats out" message, Paula. Reedie's eternal defense of doping is not necessary.

Share with us Paula and the thread dies off.

According to the Daily Mail, on Aug 5, 2005, Paula had an off-score of 92.The reason she is tested frequently is in your own link:"Radcliffe, like those ranked in the world's top 20 of their events, was an automatic candidate to be screened before the championships start."

DHT123 wrote:

Interesting to note that Paula was blood tested in Loughborough before departing for Helsinki for the 2005 World Champs

...

So there is another blood value (like in 2003) to compare to the test taken on August 6th after the 10,000 race.

Would be very interesting to know how these results compare.

...

Makes me suspect again that Paula was on some kind of IAAF/WADA 'red' list - lots of testing before and after events and out of competition, more than for other athletes it feels. Another nice bit of information would be exactly how many times Paula was tested during this period?

Yes, a few years ago I studied UK libel laws as part of my law degree.

The UK system makes it very costly indeed for anyone to DEFEND their name against libel - it is in fact an excellent place to make allegations which are backed up by credible facts. I would reckon its a far easier place for a journalist to make an allegation about someone than it would be, for example, in the US. Courts routinely protect the rights of the press to make informed, if ultimately incorrect, allegations.

Or it would be equally straight forward for an allegation to be made in, say, the German or French press.

And I reject the position that A&P put their names to the way the journos spun the story. They've had ample opportunity since to highlight Paula's position, and they have chosen not to. From that, I draw my own conclusion.

rekrunner wrote:

According to the Daily Mail, on Aug 5, 2005, Paula had an off-score of 92.

The reason she is tested frequently is in your own link:

"Radcliffe, like those ranked in the world's top 20 of their events, was an automatic candidate to be screened before the championships start."

DHT123 wrote:

Interesting to note that Paula was blood tested in Loughborough before departing for Helsinki for the 2005 World Champs

...

So there is another blood value (like in 2003) to compare to the test taken on August 6th after the 10,000 race.

Would be very interesting to know how these results compare.

...

Makes me suspect again that Paula was on some kind of IAAF/WADA 'red' list - lots of testing before and after events and out of competition, more than for other athletes it feels. Another nice bit of information would be exactly how many times Paula was tested during this period?

Sorry, forgot about the test on Aug 5th as well. But as my link shows, she was tested again a few days before this. So she was blood tested 4 times in approximately 2 weeks and you don't think she was being test targeted? (and not just because she was in the top 20 ranked athletes).

Daily Mail report quotes the off score of 92 on Aug 5th, but not the blood values that give that off score. Still think it would be interesting to have i) the actual blood values from the Aug 5th test ii) the off score and blood values from the late July test. Why were these not shared with the Sunday Mail while she was at it?

Dear once a fan,Maybe, if you are wrong about me being her husband, you should reconsider the rest.Regarding IAAF crimes, what we know about it is a deal between the IAAF and Russia. Paula is British.I can accept you don't trust me -- everyone is right to be skeptical, as I actually have no inside information, just what has been made public. But if you don't trust UKAD and the IAAF, who have basically dismissed the allegations for lack of evidence, then WADA's next report is the last hope for an independent, expert, assessment. For the rest then, I will direct you to WADA's position.Regarding Paula's lack of transparency, I wouldn't read too much into that. All of the "suspicious" data is already out there. And WADA has advised all athletes to not feel pressured to release any data, but to work instead with the Independent Commission created for the purpose of responding to allegations from the ARD and the Sunday Times:"WADA is committed to protecting the confidentiality of athletes; in particular, their private medical information. If any athlete feels their rights are being eroded or inappropriately challenged as a result of the ARD and Sunday Times reports, they must refer those concerns to the Commission. This is the correct channel versus trial by media."So, while I agree with you that the sensational media coverage has left a lot uncovered, WADA tells us that "trial by media" is the wrong forum. I would add, "trial by letsrun.com forum" is also the wrong forum.Regarding the leaked data, and the unsuitability of the pre-2009 data to draw conclusions of doping, here is WADA's position:"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. ... At best, blood values from this time could only be used as indicators of the need for targeted future testing of those athletes that have abnormal or unusual values. Even athletes’ data from post-2009 – when the ABP had been introduced – is not necessarily indicative of doping. The strength of the ABP is that it monitors selected biological variables over time, via the blood, which indirectly reveals the effects of doping. WADA’s rules governing the ABP are designed to ensure a complete and fair review of ABP profiles and require the unanimous opinion of three experts."You cannot look at any of the pre-2009 data, either in part or in whole, and consider it doping, legally or otherwise. Or otherwise. Even post-2009, you can't look at the individual data, and make any determination -- you have to look at the profile over time.

Once a fan wrote:

Dear Rekrunner,

I used to be a big Paula fan. Still am, I guess, but the leaked blood data and the IAAF crimes and her lack of transparency have me concerned.

I spent the holiday break reading through this thread. It raised a lot of questions that the media hasn't covered.

But it also left me pretty certain that you're Paula's husband. And so I'm wondering if you can send me her autograph, just in case she really is clean?

Which personal attacks? I think I've been careful to attack data and methods and conclusions, and not the persons.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Rekrunner's personal attacks are pretty funny.

rekrunner wrote:

Why are no victims coming foward to prosecute?

UMMMMMMMM wrote:

Doping/cheating is fraud and theft. Radcliffe should be in prison and she should come out penniless.

The victims don't need to come forward. It is the job of the state to prosecute the felon Radcliffe.

Which state has standing?Why are no states coming forward?In most countries doping/cheating is not a crime.Most states let sports govern themselves.

bobblehead paula wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Why are no victims coming foward to prosecute?

The victims don't need to come forward. It is the job of the state to prosecute the felon Radcliffe.

Now Germany has joined that elusive club. And of course, WADA has argued against that, for less doping is bad for business. They all are in it together: WADA, IAAF, USADA etc. Otherwise that system couldn't have worked so well for so long... they are still praising people like Drechsler! We can watch the same in soccer right now. Personally I think that cheating others out of prize money like say, $500,000, should be prosecuted by the law.

rekrunner wrote:

In most countries doping/cheating is not a crime.

I don't trust UK athletics, it's only a matter of months since a very promising young athlete came forward in the national press and said she was pressured into grey area drug use by physiologists at Uk athletics, nobody came out and denied the story. Add to that the fact that the head of ULK endurance spends months of the year just working with Farah (whose coach is under investigation) and you can see why people are suspicious.

Tell me more about this...

National pressure wrote:

I don't trust UK athletics, it's only a matter of months since a very promising young athlete came forward in the national press and said she was pressured into grey area drug use by physiologists at Uk athletics, nobody came out and denied the story. Add to that the fact that the head of ULK endurance spends months of the year just working with Farah (whose coach is under investigation) and you can see why people are suspicious.

I'm not sure that you can draw conclusions based on the story of one young lady who was actually born without a thyroid gland and then extrapolate that across all UK athletics practice.

It's common knowledge that UK athletes were encouraged by people within the governing body to take Thyroxine. The number of athletes who spoke out at the time and were current or former uk international athletes made that clear.

Prove that statement please. All I read was people like Jo Pavey jumping on the anti-thyroid meds bandwagon without evidencing that anyone had actually told / supported / encouraged athletes she knew about to take them.

It seemed to me as if Jo Pavey was almost an avid LR reader and was just recounting the chinese whispers around NOP etc.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't recall anyone saying anything which amounted to much more than urban myths.

Larkimm, you either work for Uk Athletics or are close to the people being discussed in this thread because you are an apologist to the nth degree for those parties. Anybody who followed Emma Jackson's story and the reaction from some fellow athletes, including on her twitter feed would know what UKA was recommending. Take a look at a few athletes twitter feeds and you will see how people feel.

rekrunner wrote:

Which personal attacks? I think I've been careful to attack data and methods and conclusions, and not the persons.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Rekrunner's personal attacks are pretty funny.

True. I confused "plasma shift" posts with yours. I'm sorry for that.

National pressure wrote:

Larkimm, you either work for Uk Athletics or are close to the people being discussed in this thread because you are an apologist to the nth degree for those parties. Anybody who followed Emma Jackson's story and the reaction from some fellow athletes, including on her twitter feed would know what UKA was recommending. Take a look at a few athletes twitter feeds and you will see how people feel.

It's amusing how nothing could be further from the truth about who I am!

If you want an analysis of me, then I'm just an argumentative bugger. But I do like to see evidence.

I well remember the tweets etc that came around when the Emma Jackson story came about (though to be honest I couldn't have remembered the details of the story without your link).

I tweeted to Jo Pavey at the time that I thought her contribution to the debate was inappropriately lacking in any evidence base. I know from their tweets how many of these athletes "feel" (felt at the time). But none of them came forward with any evidence at all that the fears that they had of thyroid meds being abused was actually happening. All I could see they were doing was reiterating the rumours that were around at the time about Rupp, Farah, NOP etc, which (it seems to me) have subsequently been discredited. I think Pavey etc jumped on the same bandwagon that forum posters had done by giving volume to badly sourced chinese whispers and plain lies about thyroid meds abuse in certain training camps.

I recall Chris Tomlinson and Andy Baddely also tweeting about it, with inane content - Tomlinson said something along the lines of TUEs should all be made public (not something I necessarily disagree with), but trying to give the distinct impression that there were long, long lists of athletes with TUEs all over the place (likely pointing the finger towards NOP etc), when the reality is that in Salazar's rebuttal and in NOP data release about 18 months ago, there were hardly any in place.

You might think I'm an apologist or that I'm somehow involved. You've got no-one's word for it other than my own, but I'm just a forty something working dad whose only connection with athletics is that three of my kids attend a very small athletics club, I've run a few half marathons (I max out at 25 miles per week) and I like to debate stuff on forums.

It is my honestly held opinion, based on the information that is in the public domain as far as I have read it / heard it, and my digesting / understanding of it, that there is more smoke than fire in most doping allegations, and that sensationalist reporting and discussion of it has given lots of armchair fans the opportunity to draw their own conclusions which in my view are not substantiated.

Look, it would be a boring thread if we all agreed with each other, wouldn't it!

(If you want to see some of the tweets around this stuff from Pavey, Tomlinson etc, see for example

)

Even Jo Pavey herself only calls this stuff rumour (https://twitter.com/jopavey/status/606212893705695232) and whilst some of the rumours she has heard have been true (e.g. Abeylegesse) I personally need more than that as evidence.