rekrunner wrote:
You have a tendency to view things in the worst possible light, taking personal advantage of every benefit of the doubt. I guess it's your right, but it's rarely right.
You're either Radcliffe, are getting paid by Radcliffe to troll and post total nonsense that has nothing to do with the truth, you're an insanely delusional person, and probably a combination of these.
This makes more sense in the context above. We have these "suspicious" values, and all these independent organizations with *all* of the leaked IAAF values not acting, especially now under the spotlight. We have seen evidence against Russians how some athletes were not being timely processed despite much larger values. The fact that they don't act, weakens the suspicion. In order to maintain your suspicions against Paula, the burden expands to explain why these organizations did not act.I'll save the clean Chinese women for another thread. But, as a preview, you should not under-estimates the power of rivalry/competition.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:To still suspect Paula, we would need something like evidence of collusion/bribery between the IAAF, UKAD, and UK athletics that Paula was somehow protected.
What? I hope you are kidding. We might need that to convict her, but not to suspect her. Otherwise you'd have to start defending Junxia as proven to be innocent as well.
It's actually a factual claim, and you've made it personal. Bravo.
The world of make believe wrote:
rekrunner wrote:All of the experts have all of the data, and none of them have raised any suspicion.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
This is a really dishonest claim.
Rekrunner is a dishonest poster.
Plenty of experts have raised plenty of suspicion, including on this thread, and the simple fact is that Radcliffe is guilty.
rekrunner wrote:
The fact that they don't act, weakens the suspicion. In order to maintain your suspicions against Paula, the burden expands to explain why these organizations did not act.
Well, first of all, significant parts of the IAAF were shown to be corrupt, so we can't trust their actions.
Second, according to the IAAF (which I don't trust though), they did follow up on her two published, suspicious pre-2009 off scores by additional testing, which - according to the IAAF - of course didn't reveal anything.
About 2012, well, this is interesting. IAAF justified that high off score with reference to research on altitude's effect on blood, namely elevated hct and lower ret. Thus, a higher off score is possible and "allowed". In Paula's case however, hct was extremely high and ret was .... slightly above average! Remember, ret-% in her two other published data were about 0.44%, and then 0.77%.
So not a normal response to altitude at all (more likely altitude + EPO). In the IAAFs "bloated" response, they chose to not mention her ret. Not sure why that case wasn't brought to the attention of three experts (who would then have used the pre-2009 values as secondary evidence - but it is highly suspicious.
What Ashenden wanted was expecting too much. He wanted the IAAF to fund groundbreaking expensive legal precedent with low probability of success. Ashenden's (and Parisotto's) comments make more sense against the Russians with extreme values (RBC at 18, offscores of 150, history starting 2005), not Paula with marginal "altitude threshold" values (RBC around 15-16, offscores 110-115).Besides Martial Saugy, the IAAF have defended her. WADA supported the IAAF's defense. UKAD defended her. Ashenden/Parisotto remained silent after the IAAF defended her.The IAAF gave a detailed explanation of all her "suspicious" values reported by the Sunday Times. They listed all the many factors, altitude, dehydration, pre-2009 uncertainty, supported by many papers from experts (not Martial Saugy).Martial Saugy only confirmed what we can learn from papers. Post-exercise blood less than 2 hours should be rejected as a bad data point (confirmed by Schumacher paper).You keep bringing up Paula's explanations, but Paula's explanations are superfluous/unnecessary. In a normal ABP process (but pre-2009 is not normal), her values would be reasonably dismissed at an early stage for altitude and dehydration reasons. If this information is on the doping control form, the suspicion would likely be dismissed without requesting an explanation from the athlete.
1000 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:The whole question is if her blood data is grounds for suspicion. British newspapers and anonymous fans say yes, but all of the experts with access to all of the data don't stand with them or against Paula.
?
Michael Ashenden wanted to pursue sanctions based on pre-2009 database values, but the IAAF and WADA refused to pursue such cases because of legal reasons.
There is only one expert that has publicly stated that Paula Radcliffe’s explanations are the real reasons for her abnormal test results. His name is Martial Saugy. No other expert has come to her defence.
They missed what, that it was state sponsored? They got everything else.All of the suspected Russians were eventually sanctioned. The cover-up was only delayed justice for a handful of athletes.Did you miss the IAAF Ethics commission investigation? This is the IAAF not COMPLETELY missing it. This was not triggered by the ARD/Sunday Times/Stepanovs, but something that happened because the IAAF infrastructure was there to detect/investigate/prosecute it.Keep in mind, the IAAF doesn't have any power to compel witnesses or evidence."would have been" is not "concrete proof".
1000 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:...The IAAF not only discovered the Russian scandal...
The IAAF did not discover that the Russians were operating a state sponsored doping program. They COMPLETELY missed it!
The IAAF did discover that Russia had a massive problem with blood doping. This only occurred because Russian coaches and doctors were incredibly dumb, they could not figure out how to beat the ABP! The IAAF tried their best to hide their findings from the public.
All the Russian athletes would have been using androgenic/anabolic steroids and a panoply of other PEDs. The testing by the IAAF failed to detect this. This is concrete proof that the IAAF is incompetent. Their drug testing is a joke.
There are no clean athletes in Russia.
Not Radcliffe. Not paid by Radcliffe. Happy to see some examples of "total nonsense", especially if you are able to contradict them with facts. I think much of what I post are immutable historical facts (which sometimes contradict other total nonsense), peppered with my logical conclusions, and possibly distorted by my own prejudices, but can't rule out that I'm insanely delusional -- how would I know?
Ironic` wrote:
rekrunner wrote:You have a tendency to view things in the worst possible light, taking personal advantage of every benefit of the doubt. I guess it's your right, but it's rarely right.
You're either Radcliffe, are getting paid by Radcliffe to troll and post total nonsense that has nothing to do with the truth, you're an insanely delusional person, and probably a combination of these.
Raising suspicion is easy. The next step is to substantiate some of these allegations.
Rekrunner is dishonest wrote:
Plenty of experts have raised plenty of suspicion, including on this thread, and the simple fact is that Radcliffe is guilty.
It's too easy to say "Diack and Putin" therefore "IAAF is completely 100% non-trustworthy down to every root".And besides IAAF, I mentioned UKAD, UK Athletics, WADA, plus the independent scientists Ashenden/Parisotto.To restore the strength of the original suspicion, you have to address every organization/actor, and their own lack of suspicion.Then to progress beyond mere suspicion, you have to become an expert.About 2012, that's not unusual off-season out of competition. RBC's climb first, then RET's drop later.I'm sure it wasn't carried further, because she was credibly at altitude, and she was therefore not suspect, being below the altitude threshold.You presume automatically that pre-2009 could be secondary, but 2003 and 2005 are too far apart to demonstrate continuous doping, or some kind of aggravated offense.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:The fact that they don't act, weakens the suspicion. In order to maintain your suspicions against Paula, the burden expands to explain why these organizations did not act.
Well, first of all, significant parts of the IAAF were shown to be corrupt, so we can't trust their actions.
Second, according to the IAAF (which I don't trust though), they did follow up on her two published, suspicious pre-2009 off scores by additional testing, which - according to the IAAF - of course didn't reveal anything.
About 2012, well, this is interesting. IAAF justified that high off score with reference to research on altitude's effect on blood, namely elevated hct and lower ret. Thus, a higher off score is possible and "allowed". In Paula's case however, hct was extremely high and ret was .... slightly above average! Remember, ret-% in her two other published data were about 0.44%, and then 0.77%.
So not a normal response to altitude at all (more likely altitude + EPO). In the IAAFs "bloated" response, they chose to not mention her ret. Not sure why that case wasn't brought to the attention of three experts (who would then have used the pre-2009 values as secondary evidence - but it is highly suspicious.
Radcliffe is a doper. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Anyone who believes otherwise is a numbskull.
Rekrunner / Radcliffe is getting quite desperate.
yes,radcliffe was guilty,but who cares? she's history now,and she never won an olympic medal,so lets just move on.at the end of the day its her conscience,and she has to live with whatever she did.most elite athletes take drugs.she just happened to be more talented,so her times are faster.
Rekrunner is dishonest wrote:
Plenty of experts have raised plenty of suspicion, including on this thread, and the simple fact is that Radcliffe is guilty.
LOL, I don't think there is a single expert on any "side" of this debate. We're all just keyboard warriors, some with a little more knowledge than others about some physiological stuff (not me, I hasten to add!)
jeff tallon wrote:
she just happened to be more talented,so her times are faster.
rekrunner wrote:
This makes more sense in the context above. We have these "suspicious" values, and all these independent organizations with *all* of the leaked IAAF values not acting, especially now under the spotlight.
What's a journalist supposed to do with test scores besides report on them?
I recall the IAAF suddenly issuing sanctions after the Seppelt article. They weren't going to do them without the story.
Today Coe reiterates his faith and complete ignorance about father and son Diack and one of his team.
http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1033359/coe-insists-he-had-no-suspicions-about-iaaf-predecessor-diackAn apparent master of ignorance learned on FIFA's ethics committee.
Aggghhh, so frustrating to see so many people and some parts of the media treat the recent IC report as if it exonerated Paula from all suspicion. Yet again, as someone else posted, she has used the report to unilaterally clear herself from any suspicion. But nothing has changed, no more data has been released. Wejo - you have always said that you were certain more data would be released. Where is it?
What the IC report did do, is clear the IAAF from charges of inaction, and of not following up suspicious blood test results. So in Paula's case, this meant that the 'suspicious' blood results in 2003, 2005 and 2012 were followed up with urine tests for EPO and tests for homologous blood transfusions. And these were done. But there are still many unanswered questions and areas of uncertainty around so much. Here's a list of questions that I would like answers to (bear with it, it's a long list. All references are in posts I have previously posted on this thread):
- what are the details of the off-score of 92 immediately prior to the 2005 Helsinki champs?
- what was the off-score of the test made a few days prior to this test before she travelled to Helsinki (not been released)? This was another post-altitude test and would be interesting to know.
- While we're at it, can she not release her other off-scores/blood values from her career, so we can see i) how many times she was tested ii) whether she was ever tested out of competition at altitude (i.e. in Alberquerque & Kenya or in Font Romeu) and iii) how her values from other post-altitude training periods compare with the 'suspicious' values
- Can the actual blood test forms from the 'suspicious' tests in 2003 and 2005 be released? Assuming that the time of the tests are on them, this would give people a better indication of how dehydrated etc. she was and how this may have affected the blood scores (obviously there is a difference from an athlete being tested 10 mins after a race and being tested 1 hour 55 mins after a race)
- why was their a panel of 12 people looking into her 2012 'suspicious' off-score? Why did 1 of these 12 experts think that this score did suggest doping?
- Leaving aside the agreed conclusion that pre 2009 blood values cannot be used to charge athletes of blood doping offences, what would an 'expert' make of the leap of the score from 82 to 115 pre/post race in 2003? Taking the blood values into account, does this show a similar pattern as an autologous blood transfusion?
- Leaving aside the 'unreliability' of equipment etc, if an athlete recorded these scores today, would they be suspended under the ABP?
- Why was Paula informed of her blood value/off-score after her 2003 pre-race test? Was this common practice?
- Have the hospital in Faro commented on whether other athletes who were tested in 2003 had 'unusual values' on the equipment they used?
- Why does Gerald Hartman explain her injury (and subsequent visit to 'Healing Hans') prior to the Athens olympics as being caused by a stone
being flicked up by a passing car and damaging the back of her knee, when Paula tells a completely differerent story in her autobiography? Did this incident with the car even happen? If not, why does Hartman say this?
- Can she demonstrate that she was ill in the week leading up to the 2003 world half marathon champs and tests? She had run the GNR the week before in a world best time and crushed the opposition in Vilamoura. But yet in the middle she was so ill with a stomach problem that she required antibiotics. It seems implausible (and is now no longer being mentioned by her as a reason for the 'suspicious' blood values). Does she have a record of the antibiotics that were given, or an extract from her training diary to show this?
- Can it at leat be confirmed that she was one of the 70 athletes (see page 64 of the IC report) who had 'suspicious' blood values during this period which meant that she was target tested as a result? She wants to push the line now that she was never under suspicion (Quote from DM article - "'I was very angry with WADA and UK Anti-Doping about the way it was handled. When the issue was brought up in the select committee they had the perfect opportunity to say there had never been any question about any samples of British athletes") . My interpretation is that due to these blood scores she was under suspicion, but that prior to the ABP the authorities had no proof that anything untoward was going on. "Can't prove anything" is very different from "Not suspicious". Remember, there is no test for autologous blood transfusions (other than the ABP, post 2009-12). And remember even Shobukhova never tested positive for EPO (rather she had a suspicious blood passport)
- why did her original statement in September last year say that all 3 'suspicious' tests were after periods of altitude training, when it can be shown that the 2003 test was not?
- can she confirm what treatments/injections were given to her by 'Healing Hans'?
- while we're at it, can the tests that confirm she has 'exercise induced asthma' be released?
Sure there are other things to ask but this is taking too much time already!
Ask yourself the question, how many athletes have spoken out in support of Coe? How many are 'impressed' with him and his behaviour, the answer is virtually nil. People respected in the sport and clean such as Nick Willis, Joe Pavey, Mara Yamauchi etc.... (it's a long list) have spoken out about the incompetence and have huge doubts, the vast majority want to see a clear out and new people on board. Now look at which athletes have aligned themselves with Coe and the IAAF.... one, Paula, why? Because she is in a corner with the only way out being that she supports Coe, he supports her, she wants to continue to appear clean, he can't afford for her not to be... it's a dance. We have a ridiculous situation when known dopers like Skah are sitting on advisory committee's, it's a complete joke
Pavey seems to think Coe's the man for the job according to the BBC.
Agree with DHT123 - the report didn't clear Paula. But it did go some way to restoring some overall confidence in the approach that the IAAF had in the years which seem to be in question.
Can we all agree that, in the absence of any other "human intelligence" (e.g. reports from people around Paula) the situation is that, no matter what doubts may still exist about the Vilamoura data etc etc (and I have my concerns there too, mainly as sensible questions have been asked which haven't been answered), there is now zero likelihood of Paula ever being "tried" for any doping offences? To me, that feels right as I don't actually believe that she ever doped. To others, that will feel like a crime because they believe she did.
I don't doubt that she had suspicious values - indeed, the IAAF rebuttal report effectively said she did, with the follow up testing being conducted (and finding nothing). But that's the point of having a suspicion threshold; it doesn't imply guilt, it just says "you're in a bracket of people we need to talk to, or test further".