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

Wet Coast wrote:

Not replying necessarily to the OP, here, but just making a comment. Haven't read the full 34-page (so far) thread - too much - probably with too much arguing back and forth.

But why is Radcliffe's performance worthy of this level of banter?

If you look at the top-10 or top-20 male sprinters in the 100-metre distance, almost every single one of them has tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, or has been caught in possession, or has been closely associated with repeat offending coaches/fellow athletes, save for one: the fastest, Usain Bolt.

How does that even make sense, especially his own outlier performance of 9.58.

What about the 22 athletes caught and tested at the hotel in Spain with Jama Aden? These include the Dibaba sisters.

To run surveillance for a month on a hotel, then have drugs testing equipment on hand and carry out 20/22 tests, costs a lot of money and to convince authorities to spend that sort of money, there must be some very good evidence.

What about Almaz Ayana of Ethiopia with her 29:17.45 from Rio, where she was quoted as saying, "my only drug is God."

Oh, ok. That makes sense. It's God, he prefers her.

Radcliffe's performance is in line with Kimetto's. It just took men time to catch up to Radcliffe.

Kipchoge's two performances of 2:02:25 and 2:01:39 raise no alarm bells whatsoever. I know even the hardest doubter believes Kipchoge is clean. Apparently, he is running's Bhudda, sort-of-speak. He is extremely likeable, humble, polite - all that.

I have interviewed both Kipchoge and Radcliffe. I don't see any red flags - not that my experience should count for anything, but Radcliffe getting 34 pages on this?

Talk about that marathon in in Dubai, five 2:04s by five unknowns in one race - red flag!:

19 2:04:00 Eliud Kipchoge KEN 05.11.84 1 Berlin 27.09.2015

19 2:04:00 Mosinet Geremew ETH 12.02.92 1 Dubai 26.01.2018

21 2:04:02 Leul Gebrselassie ETH 20.09.93 2 Dubai 26.01.2018

22 2:04:05 Eliud Kipchoge KEN 05.11.84 2 Berlin 29.09.2013

23 2:04:06 Tamirat Tola ETH 11.08.91 3 Dubai 26.01.2018

23 2:04:06 Asefa Mengistu ETH 18.01.85 4 Dubai 26.01.2018

25 2:04:08 Sisay Lemma ETH 12.12.90 5 Dubai 26.01.2018

DHT123 wrote:

You just couldn't do it, could you? I sort of feel sorry for you. I'm still not quite sure if you're a lonely middle-aged guy, sitting in a dingy flat, getting off on winding people up or whether you're multiple people paid by someone to deliberately spread misinformation, but I'm pretty sure that one of these conclusions is correct.

Another poster, JS, has already put it perfectly, but just to be clear, your 'explanation' above does not wash, and there are NOT two ways of looking at this.

Sean Ingle's quote is from the same article I posted, not a different one, and just means that she did not have contact with David Walsh in the period directly after the race. Maybe you want to read the autobiography before you state : "I suppose the auto-biography.........is scarce on details about this event. Because the book is actually structured around the Athens race, and there are several chapters specifically written about the lead-up to the race and then the race itself. It couldn't be clearer. She has written one version of events. Gerard Hartmann has a totally different version of events. Why? Someone is lying.

Hill Run wrote:

Wet Coast wrote:

Not replying necessarily to the OP, here, but just making a comment. Haven't read the full 34-page (so far) thread - too much - probably with too much arguing back and forth.

But why is Radcliffe's performance worthy of this level of banter?

If you look at the top-10 or top-20 male sprinters in the 100-metre distance, almost every single one of them has tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, or has been caught in possession, or has been closely associated with repeat offending coaches/fellow athletes, save for one: the fastest, Usain Bolt.

How does that even make sense, especially his own outlier performance of 9.58.

What about the 22 athletes caught and tested at the hotel in Spain with Jama Aden? These include the Dibaba sisters.

To run surveillance for a month on a hotel, then have drugs testing equipment on hand and carry out 20/22 tests, costs a lot of money and to convince authorities to spend that sort of money, there must be some very good evidence.

What about Almaz Ayana of Ethiopia with her 29:17.45 from Rio, where she was quoted as saying, "my only drug is God."

I believe Radcliffe is a figure of controversy for two intertwined reasons. Firstly she is the holder of a world record which in itself is a huge outlier. Secondly she is outspoken about doping and and accuses other record holders of doping. Along with this is her obfuscation regarding transparency of her blood results.

In my opinion, Paula would be better served to keep her (unfounded) accusations to herself. It’s pure folly to criticise the outstanding performance of other athletes when you sit atop the pyramid yourself!

Wet Coast wrote:

Not replying necessarily to the OP, here, but just making a comment. Haven't read the full 34-page (so far) thread - too much - probably with too much arguing back and forth.

But why is Radcliffe's performance worthy of this level of banter?

If you look at the top-10 or top-20 male sprinters in the 100-metre distance, almost every single one of them has tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, or has been caught in possession, or has been closely associated with repeat offending coaches/fellow athletes, save for one: the fastest, Usain Bolt.

How does that even make sense, especially his own outlier performance of 9.58.

What about the 22 athletes caught and tested at the hotel in Spain with Jama Aden? These include the Dibaba sisters.

To run surveillance for a month on a hotel, then have drugs testing equipment on hand and carry out 20/22 tests, costs a lot of money and to convince authorities to spend that sort of money, there must be some very good evidence.

What about Almaz Ayana of Ethiopia with her 29:17.45 from Rio, where she was quoted as saying, "my only drug is God."

Oh, ok. That makes sense. It's God, he prefers her.

Radcliffe's performance is in line with Kimetto's. It just took men time to catch up to Radcliffe.

Kipchoge's two performances of 2:02:25 and 2:01:39 raise no alarm bells whatsoever. I know even the hardest doubter believes Kipchoge is clean. Apparently, he is running's Bhudda, sort-of-speak. He is extremely likeable, humble, polite - all that.

I have interviewed both Kipchoge and Radcliffe. I don't see any red flags - not that my experience should count for anything, but Radcliffe getting 34 pages on this?

Talk about that marathon in in Dubai, five 2:04s by five unknowns in one race - red flag!:

19 2:04:00 Eliud Kipchoge KEN 05.11.84 1 Berlin 27.09.2015

19 2:04:00 Mosinet Geremew ETH 12.02.92 1 Dubai 26.01.2018

21 2:04:02 Leul Gebrselassie ETH 20.09.93 2 Dubai 26.01.2018

22 2:04:05 Eliud Kipchoge KEN 05.11.84 2 Berlin 29.09.2013

23 2:04:06 Tamirat Tola ETH 11.08.91 3 Dubai 26.01.2018

23 2:04:06 Asefa Mengistu ETH 18.01.85 4 Dubai 26.01.2018

25 2:04:08 Sisay Lemma ETH 12.12.90 5 Dubai 26.01.2018

Pete O' Potty wrote:

Wet Coast wrote:

Not replying necessarily to the OP, here, but just making a comment. Haven't read the full 34-page (so far) thread - too much - probably with too much arguing back and forth.

But why is Radcliffe's performance worthy of this level of banter?

If you look at the top-10 or top-20 male sprinters in the 100-metre distance, almost every single one of them has tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, or has been caught in possession, or has been closely associated with repeat offending coaches/fellow athletes, save for one: the fastest, Usain Bolt.

How does that even make sense, especially his own outlier performance of 9.58.

What about the 22 athletes caught and tested at the hotel in Spain with Jama Aden? These include the Dibaba sisters.

To run surveillance for a month on a hotel, then have drugs testing equipment on hand and carry out 20/22 tests, costs a lot of money and to convince authorities to spend that sort of money, there must be some very good evidence.

What about Almaz Ayana of Ethiopia with her 29:17.45 from Rio, where she was quoted as saying, "my only drug is God."

Oh, ok. That makes sense. It's God, he prefers her.

Radcliffe's performance is in line with Kimetto's. It just took men time to catch up to Radcliffe.

Kipchoge's two performances of 2:02:25 and 2:01:39 raise no alarm bells whatsoever. I know even the hardest doubter believes Kipchoge is clean. Apparently, he is running's Bhudda, sort-of-speak. He is extremely likeable, humble, polite - all that.

I have interviewed both Kipchoge and Radcliffe. I don't see any red flags - not that my experience should count for anything, but Radcliffe getting 34 pages on this?

Talk about that marathon in in Dubai, five 2:04s by five unknowns in one race - red flag!:

19 2:04:00 Eliud Kipchoge KEN 05.11.84 1 Berlin 27.09.2015

19 2:04:00 Mosinet Geremew ETH 12.02.92 1 Dubai 26.01.2018

21 2:04:02 Leul Gebrselassie ETH 20.09.93 2 Dubai 26.01.2018

22 2:04:05 Eliud Kipchoge KEN 05.11.84 2 Berlin 29.09.2013

23 2:04:06 Tamirat Tola ETH 11.08.91 3 Dubai 26.01.2018

23 2:04:06 Asefa Mengistu ETH 18.01.85 4 Dubai 26.01.2018

25 2:04:08 Sisay Lemma ETH 12.12.90 5 Dubai 26.01.2018

To sum up the thread: Taxpayers are tired of their hard earned dollars going to road repairs, only to have Ms. Radcliffe urinate on them.

Coevett wrote:

I think Paula gets accused a lot here because she's blonde, blue-eyed, and British, and therefore she's the archetypal go to girl for those who are willing to speak out against rampant African doping but who are a bit wary of being accused of being racist here by the fanatical SJWs.

Also because RekRunner spends a lot of time defending her, and he also spends a lot of time defending doping cheats in general.

Having said that, I think she's highly suspect.

But those who base a claim that Brits (and Americans, Norwegians, New Zealanders etc) are just as likely to be doping as Kenyans or Moroccans on the basis of some reasonable suspicions over Paula, are deluding themselves. There is still way less reason to suspect Paula's WR than, for example, El G's, and yet can you imagine El G being accused in the Moroccan parliament of being a doper etc? Simlarly, despite over 50 failed doping tests in Kenya, it took Coe and the IAAF to threaten them with a ban from athletics before they started taking any steps to do something about the doping problem here. On the other hand, in the UK, we have a parliamentary investigation into the extent of doping in the UK because our cyclists are accused of maybe 'bending the spirit of the sport' through the technically legal use of TUEs.

rekrunner wrote:

I think the fact that you think "blonde, blue-eyed, and British" could be a criteria, only makes you look more racist, to those who think you are racist.

I don't think you are racist, but you do stereotype. However, I can see that "stereo-typist" doesn't have the same ring, or sting.

I think she's accused because of her extra-ordinary performances, combined with a strong belief that powerful endurance drugs, or banned blood transfusions, are the best, or even the only, explanation for these outlier performances.

I seem to spend a lot of time clarifying what my defense actually is, to those who misstate it, and then stop listening.

With respect to Paula, my "defense" is that the IAAF acted properly, post-2003, post-2005, post-2012, and post-ARD and post-Sunday Times publications, consistent with the findings and/or conclusions of UKAD, and the WADA IC, and many papers written by anti-doping scientists.

I don't ever defend the doping of convicted dopers, but repeatedly point out that sweeping finger pointing, especially when using subjective undefined terms like "rampant", often includes many clean athletes. From a zero-tolerance standpoint, 5% prevalence of doping could be called rampant and widespread.

I often challenge oversimplified notions about the assumed relation to doping and performance improvement, but these should be viewed as discussions about the many causes of performance improvements, rather than some roundabout defense of doping. In any case, you should draw the opposite conclusion: saying doping is big risk with little benefit (or even little-risk with little benefit) should be understood as encouraging athletes to not take the risk.

It's funny you mention the British Parliament, as I'm still puzzled what they were trying to do, and what they accomplished, if anything. It seemed their main purpose had little to do with Paula, and more to do with Coe. In any case, observing the behavior of both the British Parliament, and the British press, over a real scandal that had little to do directly with Coe, or British athletes, it seems that Britain has some kind of self-destructive fetish to tear down their heroes in the name of scandal.

And lastly, as a matter of factual correctness, it was not Coe and the IAAF threatening to ban Kenya for a doping problem, but WADA threatening to ban Kenya, for an anti-doping problem.

Coevett wrote:

I think Paula gets accused a lot here because she's blonde, blue-eyed, and British, and therefore she's the archetypal go to girl for those who are willing to speak out against rampant African doping but who are a bit wary of being accused of being racist here by the fanatical SJWs.

Also because RekRunner spends a lot of time defending her, and he also spends a lot of time defending doping cheats in general.

Having said that, I think she's highly suspect.

But those who base a claim that Brits (and Americans, Norwegians, New Zealanders etc) are just as likely to be doping as Kenyans or Moroccans on the basis of some reasonable suspicions over Paula, are deluding themselves. There is still way less reason to suspect Paula's WR than, for example, El G's, and yet can you imagine El G being accused in the Moroccan parliament of being a doper etc? Simlarly, despite over 50 failed doping tests in Kenya, it took Coe and the IAAF to threaten them with a ban from athletics before they started taking any steps to do something about the doping problem here. On the other hand, in the UK, we have a parliamentary investigation into the extent of doping in the UK because our cyclists are accused of maybe 'bending the spirit of the sport' through the technically legal use of TUEs.