I'd be very surprised if Andy Baddeley made an 'inane comment'... he's a double first from Cambridge.... and if I remember rightly has spoken out several times about British Athletics 'medical practices'.
I'd be very surprised if Andy Baddeley made an 'inane comment'... he's a double first from Cambridge.... and if I remember rightly has spoken out several times about British Athletics 'medical practices'.
Ok, perhaps insane is a poor choice of words, but from experience of those with Oxbridge degrees it doesn't necessarily follow that they always make sense!! Tomlinson, Pavey and Baddely are voices in the sport that I'd generally respect, but the absence of anything to back up their statements makes me think they've got nothing tangible to bring to the table.
"Radcliffe, who talks exclusively in the Mail on Sunday about that verdict, insisting that she is prepared to do anything prove her innocence, including putting up £1million for an MRI brain scan lie detector test."
It's been a few months now and I was wondering if Paula has set a date for her million dollar lie detector test ? It's not like her to mislead her public or anything so I'm sure she'll be setting a date soon.
She will do anything to prove HER innonence...
If she get caught (the ceating is obvious to anyone with a brain), she will then blame someone else (Gerard Hartmann, Healing Hans or somebody else that is expandable....)
So she will remain innoncent in her little fantasy world!
She didn't say dollars, put pounds.You should stop wondering.She didn't say she would set a date, just that she was prepared to do it, if it would prove her innocence.No one has accepted her offer.The IAAF and UKAD think it is not necessary.Lie detector tests, even MRI bran scans, are not 100% foolproof.She may end up with the same public doubt -- no matter what the outcome would be.Those who doubt her now are already rejecting existing non-doping evidence.One more piece of evidence might sway some, but not all.
Falsetto wrote:
"Radcliffe, who talks exclusively in the Mail on Sunday about that verdict, insisting that she is prepared to do anything prove her innocence, including putting up £1million for an MRI brain scan lie detector test."
It's been a few months now and I was wondering if Paula has set a date for her million dollar lie detector test ? It's not like her to mislead her public or anything so I'm sure she'll be setting a date soon.
larkimm wrote:
Look, it would be a boring thread if we all agreed with each other, wouldn't it!
Well said. I personally appreciate your posts and those of rekrunner's as they allow me to challenge my own views in a balanced way. Better than a one-side argument.
I personally still believe that most long-distance runners are tuning their blood, however by that I include training at altitude, and using oxygen tents, as well as the supposedly more 'nefarious' other methods such as ABT's.
I would welcome a more open debate about what is and is not cheating. Are those who blood transfuse huge cheats because they get their own blood to a certain state in a quicker way than thru altitude training? I don't know.
Is taking EPO 'more cheaty' than the ABT's? Arguably it is, because it's a PED, whereas your own blood is, well, your own blood.
What about the athletes who can't afford to train at altitude or buy oxygen tents? Are they being 'cheated' by richer athletes with teams and programs around them?
Just some thoughts, but since this thread is mostly about whether Paula has cheated or not, I thought I would try to see if we are interested in defining what cheating is and how 'cheaty' she actually is. (Assuming she is 'cheaty' at all - but she is officially 'suspicious', according to her off-scores, even if she has actually done nothing 'wrong'.)
Regarding your questions, autologous blood transfusions should most definitely be considered as "cheaty", since it is explicitly banned since 1985. When any athlete says categorically "I have never doped/cheated", this absolutely includes ABT, but not altitude training or oxygen tents. You might discuss/debate/conclude that EPO can be more effective, because, for example, EPO could be taken 365 days a year (no supply constraint), compared to autologous blood transfusions.
Regarding your potential debate, WADA does this on a regular basis, and includes inputs from the various NADO's and updated scientific research. (For example, they just updated the list effective Jan. 2016, and rejected, again, thyroid medication as not meeting at least 2 out of the 3 criteria). I don't see a public debate contributing much towards the cause, except to help some of the public become better informed. You can search for the term PED in the WADA anti-doping rules, and you will find that "performance enhancing" is not the only consideration when banning substances or methods. Caffeine, and sugar, are performance enhancing, but not banned. The two other concerns are 1) the health of the athletes, and 2) a more subjective "spirit of the sport" requirement. So for example, altitude training can be performance enhancing, but it is not hazardous to the health of the athlete, and is not considered against the spirit of the sport.
So what should we make of MY and Mo's statements regarding IAAF? Seems like no one wants anything to do,with IAAF at the moment.
Paula Radcliffe rejects UK Athletics’ proposal to wipe out world records
Good for her. Especially if UK Athletics have lost faith in her. Some of them are probably as ignorant as the average sports journalist.
She has zero credibility to voice her opinion on this topic!
DHT123 wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/11/paula-radcliffe-uk-athletics-world-records-rejects
You have zero credibility. You have shown your ignorance in an obsessive way in this thread. You know nothing about plasma shift and you won't be told.
The madness is yours.
Thank you sir!
Plasma shift can't explain all the extreme variability. You're the one that's delusional!
Every honest person with a brain knows that bobblehead is a doper.
EPO cheats out !
Jon Orange is back and he's crazier than ever, do t try and reason with this man he's a nutter.
We don't need to pick one explanation. We have many non-doping explanations arising from the less stringent (more variable) pre-2009 processes for blood collecting, transporting, and analysing procedures.
Radcliffe would put up 1 million pounds for a lie detector fiasco.
How much was put up to cover the IAAF test results??????????????
Just re-read another thread where Wejo posted about the original Times article (but before it was clear it was Paula):
"One British athlete gets singled out, the newspapers points to blood doping with their own blood as being a possibility. The athlete says they'd sue if their name came out and the paper says a later test was investigated by an Iaaf panel that looked at their results and 11 out of 12 experts cleared them saying it could come from training at altitude."
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6664952&page=1#ixzz3x2g9W7y0
Forgot that the original article also suggested autologous blood doping as a possibility. Also wonder for what reason and in what process there was an IAAF panel looking at the results with 12 people on it? (My understanding is that these 'expert panels' comprised of 3 people?)
Autologus madness wrote:
Thank you sir!
Plasma shift can't explain all the extreme variability. You're the one that's delusional!
Yes it can. You don't even know what plasma shift is. Why would you write so much on a subject you know nothing about?
Is there anyone on here who thinks Paula is clean, but is suspicious about FloJo?