So Wejo, Did you talk to Paula

I know for a fact that Paula is a liar I just don't know to what level. I was somewhat competitive in the 80's ( a few seconds faster than Paula), At that time there was a lot of talk about AW and what was going on there with doping. I have no idea if it was true. In the 90's there was STiLL talk about Alberto drugging Slaney. I have no idea if it was true. From the time that NOP has been in existence there has been talk about drugs. I have no idea if it is true but EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE TALK.

Paula Radcliffe has stated publiclly that she has NEVER heard any rumors surrounding NOP. Not that she knew anything but that she has NEVER heard a whisper of drug use with Alberto. That makes her a liar and someone that can not be trusted.

Add it to the list of half-truths, lies, and misdirection she has employed since the Seppelt stories were published.

EPO cheats out Paula. EPO cheats out.

Bill Murray wrote:

[quote]wejo wrote:

2) There are valid reasons to support the WADA/IAAF stance that blood

values should not be released now.

3) I firmly believe Paula does not have anything to hide and down the

road will make her values public.

Thank you for your follow-up response. Having said that, can you elaborate on your two points above. Do you know or did Paula indicate when these values will be released. Additionally, since there are valid reasons why the values should not be released right now. What are those reasons? This shouldn't need to be confidential as it must apply to all athletes since WADA is not releasing anyone's blood values.

There aren't any valid reasons to hide scores, unless you are doping. Zero.

It doesn't have to apply to all athletes everywhere. I'm not sure why that's added to Paula's situation.

If she was clean, then she'd have the scores that more or less show that.

Epo cheats out.

The default for ALL athletes for ALL sports is to keep test results non-public.We don't need valid reasons to hide the scores from the public. We need valid reasons to support exceptions to policies designed to protect the innocent.Baseless suspicions from anonymous fans that Paula is even "the British athlete" with suspicious values, hardly seems to justify making an exception now, for Paula.

pop_pop! wrote:

wejo wrote:

2) There are valid reasons to support the WADA/IAAF stance that blood

values should not be released now.

3) I firmly believe Paula does not have anything to hide and down the

road will make her values public.

There aren't any valid reasons to hide scores, unless you are doping. Zero.

It doesn't have to apply to all athletes everywhere. I'm not sure why that's added to Paula's situation.

If she was clean, then she'd have the scores that more or less show that.

Epo cheats out.

An independent commission from WADA certainly has the authority to investigate and evaluate how the IAAF acted based on the 2001-2012 blood results, in full context, and issue a report based on all available facts and opinions.

pop_pop! wrote:

You don't seem to understand that WADA has no authority to do anything.

You are waiting for the IAAF's report on itself that will determine Seppelt/Ashenden/Parisotto are all false. Coe will use the same old excuses and doping will continue because the IAAF is okay with doping. Just attract an audience when you dope, like Paula, and never testing positive is likely, like Paula and so many others.

I can't believe there are idiots on here still saying that it might not be Paula... Seriously time to get a grip and look at the amount of content out there that does everything big name her.

Wow! Look at the amount of content! How could I have missed that before?Maybe someone should collect it all and post it at letsgossip.com.

rekrunner wrote:

The default for ALL athletes for ALL sports is to keep test results non-public.

We don't need valid reasons to hide the scores from the public. We need valid reasons to support exceptions to policies designed to protect the innocent.

Baseless suspicions from anonymous fans that Paula is even "the British athlete" with suspicious values, hardly seems to justify making an exception now, for Paula.

pop_pop! wrote:

There aren't any valid reasons to hide scores, unless you are doping. Zero.

It doesn't have to apply to all athletes everywhere. I'm not sure why that's added to Paula's situation.

If she was clean, then she'd have the scores that more or less show that.

Epo cheats out.

If its good enough for Mo (publishing, that is) its good enough for Paula.

I used to think Jennie Meadows went on a bit about rivals doping but my respect for her has gone up since she published. To say Paula has lost her place as THE leading anti-doping campaigner would be an understatement.

I think her legacy is in tatters and I've said this before that even if her graph has anomalies she should have just got it out at the same time everyone else did. Combine refusal to come clean with that dreadful video interview.

The inability to release her blood data. Her total silence on the biggest doping scandal in living memory (despite previously being the most outspoken sports person on drugs). Her reaction to Coe's election. Her inability to say anything critical about Salazar, UKA or Nike despite a huge number of red flags. If not guilty of doping then at least guilty of woeful hypocrisy. Her standing in the sport amongst real runners is in tatters but the general public (who know big all about the sport or the change in her stance) probably still see her as a galant loser and that is what makes her marketable, pays her bills and allows her to live in Monaco. Just like Lewis Hamilton, signing lucrative endorsements as a 'British' star yet contributing not a single penny on taxes... Ludicrous.

Thanks for this. You have built up trust...and I appreciate you sharing this.

I'm hoping things get a bit clearer over time.

Mo should not have published his data. He should have never been put in that position. Both the Nike/Salazar report and the IAAF/blood test report went to great lengths to say that nothing implicated Mo. Both investigative reports did not accuse or allege Mo of anything -- why should he have to respond?Similarly, the Sunday Times/ARD have not accused or alleged Paula of anything. Why does she have an obligation to respond?I think the problem here has little to do with Mo and Paula, but a public who presumes to already know the truth.

The Scot wrote:

If its good enough for Mo (publishing, that is) its good enough for Paula.

I used to think Jennie Meadows went on a bit about rivals doping but my respect for her has gone up since she published. To say Paula has lost her place as THE leading anti-doping campaigner would be an understatement.

I think her legacy is in tatters and I've said this before that even if her graph has anomalies she should have just got it out at the same time everyone else did. Combine refusal to come clean with that dreadful video interview.

Link wrote:

I'm done. I can't imagine being a fan of the elite level of this sport again. It's dead to me now. From now on, I'll watch only prep races and pray while I do so that at least there, the performances I'm seeing are the result of only honest work.

There used to be Easter Bloc women running sub-48 and shot putters throwing over a meter farther than Valerie Adams ever has and yet THIS is what is turning you off from the sport? There's no helping some people.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

There used to be Easter Bloc women running sub-48 and shot putters throwing over a meter farther than Valerie Adams ever has and yet THIS is what is turning you off from the sport? There's no helping some people.

I think that he was dissapointed because, although doping has been going for a long time, this time there was an opportunity to really try and clean up the sport with the all of the lists of athletes with OTC blood readings uncovered by investigative journalists. However, despite this large body of evidence, the sports governing bodies are blatantly trying to keep covering up what has been going on as shown by their refusal to allow the lists and test values to be made public thereby preventing an open investigation. The specific refusal of certain individuals (like PR), who now work within the sports governing bodies, to release their own blood test values also looks to be part of this cover up.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Link wrote:

I'm done. I can't imagine being a fan of the elite level of this sport again. It's dead to me now. From now on, I'll watch only prep races and pray while I do so that at least there, the performances I'm seeing are the result of only honest work.

There used to be Easter Bloc women running sub-48 and shot putters throwing over a meter farther than Valerie Adams ever has and yet THIS is what is turning you off from the sport? There's no helping some people.

What in the world is your point?? That I should have lost interest in the sport 35 years ago (when I was in middle school??) because a few Eastern Block women were performing at a level that, in the future no one could meet?!? Or that I should forgive the apparently wide spread use of PEDs in probably every event now, and forgive the fact that the IAAF has turned a blind eye to it?

Everyone has a breaking point, I think. I've just reached mine.

Link wrote:

What in the world is your point?? That I should have lost interest in the sport 35 years ago (when I was in middle school??) because a few Eastern Block women were performing at a level that, in the future no one could meet?!? Or that I should forgive the apparently wide spread use of PEDs in probably every event now, and forgive the fact that the IAAF has turned a blind eye to it?

They haven't. I really don't know what would make you think that given that major stars from countries that poor money into track have been busted. You have no idea how much cleaner the sport is now compared to the days before out of competition testing and the days when the people at the top would pull strings to make sure big names didn't turn up dirty.

Not British doesn't pay tax wrote:

The inability to release her blood data. Her total silence on the biggest doping scandal in living memory (despite previously being the most outspoken sports person on drugs). Her reaction to Coe's election. Her inability to say anything critical about Salazar, UKA or Nike despite a huge number of red flags. If not guilty of doping then at least guilty of woeful hypocrisy. Her standing in the sport amongst real runners is in tatters but the general public (who know big all about the sport or the change in her stance) probably still see her as a galant loser and that is what makes her marketable, pays her bills and allows her to live in Monaco. Just like Lewis Hamilton, signing lucrative endorsements as a 'British' star yet contributing not a single penny on taxes... Ludicrous.

Her status at the IOC/IAAF has never been better though. The IAAF is perfectly fine with doping and clearly she's decided to tow the IAAF line.

In the incredible unlikelihood she was clean, she's ruined her "brand."

pop_off wrote:

pop_pop! wrote:

In the incredible unlikelihood she was clean, she's ruined her "brand."

Only in your tiny mind Mr poppop!

I don't know about that. Lots of posts about Paula's actions changing their opinion of her performances in this thread.

On facts alone, she's as non-credible on anti-doping as the IAAF.

Mo did the right thing. If an athlete is clean, then there is no problem releasing test scores. Independent data supports his claims he's clean. It's the IAAF working so hard to keep viewers in the dark, supporting dopers and doping.

It's not a matter of being 'a hack'. You may have animosity toward Salazar and sympathy to Radcliffe but I think you have decided to take the 'whole story will come out' approach now after the NOP thing fizzled out. After that fizzled, you appear to have softened your approach to doping stories in general.

Kimmage is calling out Paula and the British media. (You don't seem to deny that Paula is the one with high values.) If Kimmage was calling out Salazar and Rupp a few months ago with this type of info, this site would have focused on it like you did with the countdown clocks and banner headlines. My sense is that you guys have given up a bit.

Quote

The full story has not been told and while some things were told me in confidence I hope that I've built up enough trust with you all over the years that you'll trust me on some of this stuff. If you think I'm a Paula hack, so be it.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6728693&page=4#ixzz3l4FC84Xx

rekrunner wrote:

Mo should not have published his data. He should have never been put in that position. Both the Nike/Salazar report and the IAAF/blood test report went to great lengths to say that nothing implicated Mo. Both investigative reports did not accuse or allege Mo of anything -- why should he have to respond?

He didn't have to, but he did.

Similarly, the Sunday Times/ARD have not accused or alleged Paula of anything. Why does she have an obligation to respond?

She doesn't have to respond, and probably shouldn't.

I think the problem here has little to do with Mo and Paula, but a public who presumes to already know the truth.

Wrong, the problem is with Radcliffe, and the dishonest reporters who try to cover it up.