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

DHT123 wrote:

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/listen-paula-radcliffe-on-her-legacy-and-the-state-of-running

Interview with Runners World about the allegations etc. Bad blood (pun intended) with Ashenden. She sure knows all about the scores etc

Some thoughts around this interview:

- It's only just occurred to me that the samples that were leaked were from the IAAF (14 are noted) are only some of the samples that were taken from Paula during this time, and that I assume that this figure would not include samples that were taken on behalf of UKAD (such as the sample taken in Loughborough prior to her flying out to Helsinki) or I'm guessing those taken in the big city marathon races. So there is plenty more data out there that we have no idea about, and which has not been released.

- In Paula's tradition of drip-feeding stories, we now hear about the 2012 score that not only was she at altitude, but she was 'injured' at altitude and wasn't training every day, which is one of the factors helps to explain the very high HGb (16.2) score that she had. But contemporary accounts have Paula running '130 mile weeks' in Kenya during January 2012 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/athletics/9030252/London-2012-Olympics-Paula-Radcliffe-on-high-alert-in-quest-for-marathon-gold.html), and though the newspaper stories mention her going to get a muscle checked up after getting 'tight' after a 18 mile run, apparently it was ok and she was off out training again. This 'injury' has not been mentioned as a contributory factor in the high score in the Daily Mail interview, in the IAAF November report, or anywhere else. No mention of it at the time in newspaper interviews. Reminds me of the 2003 'illness' between the Great North Run and the World Half Champs - all a bit convenient.

- Quote from Paula about the 2012 score - 'I remember when that came one in thinking that's really high for me that one.....chatting to the doctor and physiologist at UKA about it and they said don't worry, they'll just look and they'll see you were at altitude....'. Er, what? How is Paula being informed in detail about an IAAF drug-test score? Surely this goes against all protocol? Drug-test scores can't be shared with the athletes, can they? That's either bonkers, or something strange is going on. Was Paula having duplicate private tests at the same time that the IAAF were testing her? She seemed to know an awful lot about her very low score prior to the 2003 world half marathon champs.

- Lots of information and figures about drops and increase in HGB and RET values between the different tests - but of course we don't have the full data, so we can't judge any of that. What we have is the full data set (HGB, RET and off-score) on the 3 'suspicious' scores and then incomplete data (mainly just off-scores) on the other blood samples taken around the same time as the suspicious scores. Don't have a discussion about the score if you are not going to release the data!!!! Same goes for the additional information on the drug-test forms that Paula relies upon - i.e. when the test was taken in 2003 and 2005 post-race. These forms will have a time on them - release them!

- Altogether it was a massively aggressive interview against Ashenden and the Sunday Times. Calculated way in which she said that cheats were people who took a short cut to fame and fortune and that Ashenden was someone who just did this for his own fame and fortune - basically putting him on the same level as a cheat. Very harsh. Interesting also that she said that she wanted to sit down with him to discuss the scores but he refused. Wonder what his take on that is.

Paula has an excellent communication firm that she relies upon (Octagon) and she does a pretty good job herself in obfuscating and confusing the issue. People I know who actually are into athletics just assume now that she has been 'cleared', there were never any suspicions or suspcious blood scores. Feels like a losing battle to remind people what actually happened and why there were/are still suspicions!

The 14 samples are from 2001-2008. The IAAF is the only athletics organization I'm aware of that was taking blood samples, during this period, and only for the purpose of pre-screening, since it wasn't part of any anti-doping test. This was a cost-savings tactic (also proposed by Ashenden) adopted by the IAAF since blood tests are cheaper than urine tests. But blood tests were not binding, only urine tests were.

The IAAF spreadsheet included sample results from non-IAAF sources.

I think it is not unusual that every athlete gets a copy of every blood report. It is not different than you getting one at your hospital.

It is unusual, and unprecedented that any athlete in the history of any sport, provide the information you ask of Paula.

I'm disappointed Ashenden didn't clear up some of the ambiguity, particularly since it is his papers that help us understand things like altitude, and inter-method bias. I'm convinced (my personal conclusion) that his statements are only about the much higher scoring Russians. Perhaps he was afraid that admitting that more doubt exists when controls were less would undermine his stated opinions.

I'm also convinced (my personal opinion) is that this was a losing battle from the start, as all of the experts say the data would be too ambiguous, and in any case, can be completely explained by non-doping factors. Among the experts that decide the matter, there truly never was any suspicion or suspicious blood scores. Knowing what we know now, the Sunday Times got it quite wrong. And you are still hoping for "more data", hoping that this might establish a case, and complaining that she isn't giving the public a level of detail completely unprecedented.

It's too much clear Seppelt, Ashenden and Parisotto wanted to create a "case" for giving strength to their investigation, without taking care of the points that made the case not existing before the start.

I don't speak about Paula : this became a case for the name of the athlete and their Amazing performance (that I don't consider out of the human possibilities, but the product of a personal organization of life with full and total eye on training only).

I speak about the widespread suspicions about the Kenyan doping for the top athletes.

This suspicion, never supported by numbers and evidence (among athletes in top 50 in the world, only Rita Jeptoo was positive for EPO, other 40 were positive for steroids and were not top level runners), created a false idea about kenyan athletes, and their performances, becoming a mental limit for the most part of european or american athletes on one side, and an incentive to dope for all the athletes of second level, who supposed to have great advantages by the assumption of EPO, without risking to be involved in some control because of their low level.

Speaking about more than 50 kenyan samples with "strange data", without producing any evidence (because there are not, and nothing was supported by scientific researches), putting in the mind of people the idea that all African top runners were dirty, was a "sport crime" that created bad effects on the image of all athletics.

I can't accept scientists, who know how the data for a BP must be collected, speaking in this way, when they well know there is no scientific base for their allegations, and this is the reason because I don't respect them.

They diffused wrong ideas about top class of athletes, moving back the hand after throwing the stone. They were not honest, and clearly acted for increasing the level of their image with media, without caring of the damage for honest and clean athletes.

I repeat again : not Ashenden, not Parisotto, not WADA generally, have ideas of the real values of top athletes born, living and training in altitude.

WADA doesn't have idea about what, and how, training of this level is, and which adaptations can produce in the individual physiology.

WADA, Ashenden, Parisotto and various newspapers don't have any idea about data for top African athletes, when they are in full training, when they are in top shape, and when they are during a resting period.

And, in any case, now finally they go to collect data enough for creating individual BP with a scientific approach : this morning WADA was in the house of Silas Kiplagat at 5:30 in the morning for taking blood, and I suppose during next days all the best Kenyan must be tested (blood) in order to collect data.

There are still a lot of variables scientists were not able to study : and, when somebody speaks about what they "suppose to know", but really don't know, the final results are a lot of stupidity. This is what happened with the "scoop" of Seppelt, supported by Ashenden and Parisotto, and in this case I have to say that the statement of IAAF is very clear, of course for all people who are not obsessed by some Conspiracy theory.

This is all we know at present:

1. PR has had at least 3 abnormal blood values during her career. These have all come from tests that were developed to detect suspicion of blood doping or EPO abuse.

2. An unnamed panel of people within the IAAF have accepted explanations of altitude/dehydration/antibiotics/illness/lab error (it is difficult to follow which explanations were given to the IAAF as these have kept changing in the press reports) as being plausible explanations for these 3 abnormal blood values.

3. Asenden and Parisotto, two of the most well-known experts on testing for blood doping/EPO abuse have remained largely publically silent on the matter and so far have not come out in defense of PR.

4. To date there are no reports of such abnormal blood values in other British female distance runners who have also spent large periods of time at training at altitude. A comparison of PRs known blood values with those of other British female distance stars can be seen here:

http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Capture-400x256.png

5. While other British endurance athletes have made their blood data publically available, PR has not done so.

6. Russia has been identified by WADA as being the worst nation in terms of having a “doping culture” within Track and Field. Many Russian officials (such as those from the national biomechanical laboratory) have claimed that these accusations are baseless and unjustified.

7. In leaked blood-test results, Kenyan athletes have thrown up similar numbers of suspicious blood test results as Spain and Morocco, two nations with a known established culture of doping in terms of EPO and blood doping abuse.

8. Renato Canova, a coach of several top level Kenyans, has claimed that a high level of abnormal blood test results could be expected in elite endurance athletes living at altitude and training at an elite level. These blood-test findings therefore could be explained by high level training at altitude alone and Canova feels that accusations in the press of doping in elite level Kenyan athletes are unjustified.

9. At least 45 Kenyan endurance athletes have officially tested positive for illegal PEDs within the last 6 years.

10. As an elite level coach Renato Canova feels that PEDs do not improve performance in top class endurance athletes.

11. Athletes from Kenya topped the medals table at the 2015 track and field World Championships, ahead of sporting superpower nations such as the United States and Russia (now currently banned from international competition because of extensive doping).

preciously jaded wrote:

2. An unnamed panel of people within the IAAF have accepted explanations of altitude/dehydration/antibiotics/illness/lab error (it is difficult to follow which explanations were given to the IAAF as these have kept changing in the press reports) as being plausible explanations for these 3 abnormal blood values.

.

Her explanation according to the linked radio interview is the timing of the test immediately after the race

It has already been stated by an eye witness that the portugal test was conducted 1-30 mins post race

1hr 30 minutes post race

rekrunner wrote:

Paula might be clean, guilty, or in the middle. You can debate all you want.

My contribution is that the pre-2009 data, especially the borderline altitude threshold scores we've seen, cannot be reliably used to confirm guilty suspicions. If the RBC values were 18 rather than 15, and the scores were 130-150+, rather than 110-115, then I would agree the case against her is much stronger. This is a defense for a proper interpretation of the data, rather than a defense of Paula's innocence.

I don't think too many would disagree with your statement. I have conceded that I don't know enough about the science to determine what is a 'guilty' score. I thought an off-score of 115 meant that there was a 1/1000 chance of the athlete achieving this state by natural means. Thus i had Paula down as 99.9% guilty. But I've been told that it's not that simple, as there can be extenuating circumstances. It seems to me that you think a 130-150+ off-score indicates 'guilty', and I will trust you on that.

Your argument above, though, does contain an item of interest. If an RBC score of 18 is more suspicious score that 15, and a 130-150+ off-score is more suspicious than 110-115, then it follows logically that Paula's scores are more suspicious than lower scores held by other athletes. There is either a sliding scale of suspicion or there isn't.

So, in sum, she is not guilty but her scores are suspicious.

If Paula came out, like Lance Armstrong, and admitted to blood doping, would you be shocked? I'm not sure you would. If that is a correct assumption, then I think I see now where you are coming from, viz. you are keen to underscore the forensic facts of this case/story, which do not conclusively prove that Paula is a doper. I don't think you have set out to prove that Paula is clean.

DHT123 wrote:

- Quote from Paula about the 2012 score - 'I remember when that came one in thinking that's really high for me that one.....chatting to the doctor and physiologist at UKA about it and they said don't worry, they'll just look and they'll see you were at altitude....'. Er, what? How is Paula being informed in detail about an IAAF drug-test score? Surely this goes against all protocol? Drug-test scores can't be shared with the athletes, can they? That's either bonkers, or something strange is going on. Was Paula having duplicate private tests at the same time that the IAAF were testing her? She seemed to know an awful lot about her very low score prior to the 2003 world half marathon champs.

I raised this point a few pages ago in this thread. It got ignored. Is there anyone here who can tell us whether athletes are allowed to know these things? Surely it's pretty clear-cut. Is it legal/ethical?

Radcliffe is the most blatant doper in the history of all sports.

I would have said that about Seppelt -- he is trying to make/keep his name relevant. He has done 3 documentaries on Kenya, and even WADA doesn't seem interested. We found out that Europeans can pose as agents, and find doctors and pharmacies willing to take his money. We found out that some hopeful athletes actually do take EPO, believing that that can make the difference. Would be more interesting if he uncovered a name of "the" doping doctor/agent.Ashenden's/Parisotto's analysis, comments, and open letters, makes the most sense to me when you see the scores of the Russians, and the delayed reaction of the IAAF.In one of Ashenden's papers, where they develop and evaluate the "new" OFF-Hr score model, they talk about the different kinds of "normalizations" they have to make for several categories (esp. male/female), including high altitude inhabitants versus sea level inhabitants. Ashenden must be aware of any differences in the different groups.In the best light, the silence from Ashenden/Parisotto regaring the athletes was that there focus was on the IAAF. Nevertheless, they must have been aware of speculation caused by the Sunday Times, and could have at least re-acknowledged things that they found in their own papers, and cautioned against jumping to conclusions.

Renato Canova wrote:

It's too much clear Seppelt, Ashenden and Parisotto wanted to create a "case" for giving strength to their investigation, without taking care of the points that made the case not existing before the start.

I don't speak about Paula : this became a case for the name of the athlete and their Amazing performance (that I don't consider out of the human possibilities, but the product of a personal organization of life with full and total eye on training only).

I speak about the widespread suspicions about the Kenyan doping for the top athletes.

...

OK, so regarding the blood tests between 2001 & 2008. We know that Paula was tested 2 times in 2003, just before and then after the 2003 World Half Marathon. We know that she was tested 4 times in 2005 – before she left for Helsinki, in Loughborough, then when she arrived, after the 10,000 and then after the marathon. So that’s 6 of the 14 times in 8 years, just at 2 events. During this time she competed in the following:

2001 – World Cross, European Cup, World Champs, World Half Marathon

2002 – World Cross, Commonwealth Games, European Champs, London Marathon, Chicago Marathon

2003 – World Half Marathon (see above), London Marathon, Great North Run,

2004 – European Cup, Olympic Games, New York Marathon

2005 – World Champs (see above), London Marathon

2007 – Great North Run, New York Marathon

2008 – Olympics, New York Marathon

So that’s 18 additional events, before you get to any minor warm-up races, and no out of competition testing. So basically you are saying the authorities test her 4 times at one event (2005), twice at another (2003) and then 8 more times in 8 years, including at 18 events. Seems weird, no? I have no idea, as we don’t have any data......

I seriously can’t believe that you think that athletes should get their blood test results and this is like going to the doctors?!?! (Ironically, if you remember, this was one of Paula’s reasons why she shouldn’t release her blood data, as other athletes would be able to ‘learn’ from these values and change their doping accordingly). If this was the case then i) athletes could see exactly what effect their doping was having and adjust the dose/timing accordingly ii) they could then adjust what they said to the doping officials when they took the blood (would be interesting to see if Paula noted her injury on the blood test form from the suspicious sample in 2012 for example). This is why the Russians had a parallel doping lab in Moscow – so they could keep tabs on their blood values. Don’t let the IAAF do it for you!

And I fundamentally disagree with the notion that Paula should not be open and release the data.

i) Far, far too much has gone on before in athletics, and in other sports. Lance took away that right for athletes to just be trusted. I’m sorry, but as a fan, the balance of proof is with the athlete, not the other way around.

ii) If you have nothing to hide, release the data. I would release my data today. A culture of secrecy helps no-one

iii) Her result is a total outlier in athletics. No-one has come close to her times, and of those that have, several have been subsequently shown to be doping

iv) It’s been shown that she ‘suspicious’ scores in that time. They need to be fully explained

v) Her story has been subtly changing, several times (see this thread). That creates suspicion

vi) She is retired. Releasing data is not giving any of her fellow athletes an advantage

Nice that the (potentially corrupt) Kenyan authorities are finally getting around to blood testing. Not necessarily their fault (yes, Kenya is a poor country, with logistical difficulties) but if you can put a man on the moon, you can do blood testing in Kenya. The will has not been there, not from Kenya, not from the IAAF. Billions rolling into the sport from TV rights and not a few million (or perhaps tens of millions) to do proper testing in Kenya & Ethiopia, countries which have completely dominated long distance running over the past 20 years.

Yes, athletes work hard, they have incentives to escape poverty, they are focused on their running with no distractions, they run in big, competitive groups, there is a big pool to choose between, they have potential small genetic advantages. We get all that. But again, the burden of proof needs to be on the athletes, not the other way around. Too much water under the bridge.

Here’s a couple of examples, from Ethiopia, that for me arouse suspicion. So the Dubai marathon is the richest in the world, and surprise, surprise, there are plenty of athletes putting in unbelievable performances there. A 5 min PB from the winner this year (5 minutes!), Tesfaye Abera Dibaba, a relative unknown, running in 20oC+ temperatures. Would you care to tell us when the last time he was drug tested out of competition? What his ABP profile is?

And then the Ethiopians at the 2012 Olympics. 3 guys who have run 2:04 earlier in the year, and none of them even can finish the race, or even handle a 2:10 pace. Seriously? Were they tested after the Olympic marathon? I have no idea. Maybe you can enlighten us. I can imagine that those towards the front of the race are tested, but if you drop out......

Generous interpretation - they are saving themselves for a payout at a big city marathon so they don't want to smash themselves up (although none of them raced later in 2012 from what I can see); not so generous interpretation - they had something to hide.

From the lengthy post, you would think we "know" a lot.1. Technically she only has one, in 2012. We know the tests you speak of wasn't fully developed until 2009. The 2003, and 2005 suspicions come from wrongly applying 2009 judgement to samples from pre-2009 processes. We know from scientific papers that led to 2007 and 2009 rule changes, that the pre-2009 process directly impact the reliability, therefore leads to more false-positives, and therefore should reduce the level of suspicion. Interesting to note that all of the "suspicious" values occur after her world records.2. Rightly so. That would be the normal ABP evaluation process, and the WADA IC reconfirmed that the IAAF sufficiently followed the process. UKAD also accepted it.3. This is most disappointing for me. Both "pop pop" and I said that one statement from them, one way or another, would have shut one of us up. But perhaps they were more interested in the IAAF, or felt that the speculation would be good for the cause, or worse, re-acknowledging their own papers would undermine their credibility.4. This data is surely incomplete and biased.5. No one should have had to. This is not a matter for the public to analyze Off-score profiles, given all the factors that can impact it.6. Russia is the worst, and predictably denied it. They stopped denying it because there is too much evidence, including testimony from some of the Russian athletes.7. Need to know more about the natural blood profile of high-altitude versus sea-level athletes. Also need to know more about which Kenyans were suspicious. Also need to know more about the timing of the suspicious samples. Doping in Kenya among second and third tier seems to be a recent phenomena.8. Agreed.9. ...most of them for a steroid that has been detectable for 10 years -- hardly a sign of a sophisticated program. Of the 45, only 2 or 3 can be considered "close" to the top.10. Renato said "blood doping", not PEDs. This includes EPO and transfusions but not steroids or HGH. For example steroids can have an effect, especially in women. I think the statistics support that "blood doping" has not helped at the top, for any nation. There is no historical evidence of EPO correlated to high performances.11. Rightly so. Is that unusual?

I think it is great that Coach Canova posts here and gives us insight into the training of elites. I understand how he feels about the lack of science. I can't argue with it in technical terms but, respectfully, I think some of the arguments fall flat - you can't just argue for an exception fro testing based on a theory. The burden of figuring out the answers is not on the rest of the world. Kenya and Ethiopia dominate the sport. They own the marathon and half marathon. They need to lead in the issue and come up with solution.s otherwise even fans like myself get disillusioned.

And, As much as you trivialize it, there is the use of PEDs and the top Kenyan womens marathoner was caught. It may be one person but that is some person.

T

Rekrunner, 'Seppelt is trying to keep his name relevant'.... excuse me but without this guy we would never have seen any of the corruption exposed at any level, he is arguably the best thing that has happened to athletics in the last 30 years. He is incredibly relevant and far more relevant than the frauds that you continue to defend on here.

I'm jumping back into this thread. The case with Paula is settled, with no new information coming out, and I agree with Rekrunner pointing out the fact of the burden of proof for any disciplinary action not being met. I think that the evidence points to her doping, but whatever. I left and this thread simmered.

But now I see these mistruths pop up. Renato can't help but talk about how clean his Kenyan's are, even as an irrelevant comment in a dated thread about a single British runner.

I called him and those with similar ideas out on other threads for not substantiating their claims. These posts and posters continued to cast doubt on the understanding of elite athlete's blood profiles, but failed to show why. In arguing the positive (elite runners blood won't benefit from blood doping) they failed to provide evidence, and in arguing the negative (you can't compare conclusions from studies done on amateurs to conclusions about elites) they failed to explain what differentiates them.

I didn't mind leaving those topics, because any reader could see through the whole thread that their position was questioned and not defended.

But now they're here, without any context, where any casual reader can see these assertions and assume the posters are speaking truth.

So, let's outline the breakdown in the argument. I'd say the biggest exchange was on the "EPO helps mid-distance" thread. Page 5 gets it going:

Focusing on Renato, he makes the claim that EPO doesn't help elite runners for two reasons:

...going on to say that the increased viscosity is a disadvantage, because it is more difficult to clear lactate from slower moving blood.

I respond by saying that

I also add studies that show cardiac output is maintained despite the higher blood viscosity. Moreover, these increases come from the increase in blood pressure, not the strength of the heart. The ability to maintain cardiac output is not dependent on training status. Read the whole post.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and I'll accept it. But Renato never responded to these points, changing the discussion to a statistical analysis of the EPO period.

Aragon and I go back and forth about the statistics. I believe they show stagnation until the development of EPO, rapid improvement, and then stagnation again as controls tighten, and I believe that their correspondence with EPO shows its use and effect in elite athletes. Aragon and I start to talk about the size of the effect, where he separates himself from Renato, saying that the cited effect of 5-7% is overstated, as opposed to non existent.

Renato comes in and says that the EPO era just happened to coincide with the best talents ever to compete, Geb, Komen, Bekele; once-in-a-generation runners all happened to be within the same few years. While I believe this is putting the cart before the horse, and doesn't prove that they didn't take EPO to become the greatest, I conceded that looking at statistics is futile. Sport is complicated and not even a wonderdrug will make definitive all the time, for everyone.

So here we are now, seeing the same arguments that I challenged in the beginning, recycled again. So before any reader implicitly accepts these ideas as truth:

1)What has Renato done to show that the mechanisms of EPO on amateurs is markedly different than what could happen in elites? I showed viscosity is a red hearing, that a body accommodates to it anyway. He didn't respond, and now cycles back to "no studies on elites". As often as he's made the claim, he has not substantiated the specific difference in an elite that makes them immune to EPO. He says there are no studies on elites but hasn't shown why the existing knowledge isn't generalizable to elites. He has only said "I've seen the athletes, I've seen the data. They're clean"

2) What has Renato done to show that the talents he worked/works with really were the greatest physical bodies ever, instead of runners who took drugs to become the greatest ever?

Whatever. It's all there in the links. I'm just tired of these claims being recycled for new readers to see without challenge. I probably made this post too long for any casual reader to continue to care anyway... back to hibernation.

"rekrunner wrote:

10. Renato said "blood doping", not PEDs. This includes EPO and transfusions but not steroids or HGH. For example steroids can have an effect, especially in women. I think the statistics support that "blood doping" has not helped at the top, for any nation. There is no historical evidence of EPO correlated to high performances."

10/10 Bravo

After re-reading this, I should clarify here specifically I mean for Paula's event, the marathon. If EPO/blood-doping worked, we would have seen a spike in the 90's, and not in the mid-2000s. And we should see a lot more doping positives in the top 100. And we should see more women sub-2:18.

fred wrote:

"rekrunner wrote:

10. Renato said "blood doping", not PEDs. This includes EPO and transfusions but not steroids or HGH. For example steroids can have an effect, especially in women. I think the statistics support that "blood doping" has not helped at the top, for any nation. There is no historical evidence of EPO correlated to high performances."

10/10 Bravo

I think that's what Seppelt was aiming for -- high praise from those who would otherwise be unaware.The IAAF Ethics Commission started its own investigation into the IAAF/Russian corruption -- which led to 3 lifetime bans, one 5 year ban, and triggered a rule change that allowed investigating 2 more -- 8 months before ARD/Seppelt aired anything about it.Add all of Seppelt's documentaries together and we have 3 stories:1) The Russian corruption: This is the only story that has panned out, and given that this was already well under investigation, it was arguably superfluous.2) Kenyan "widespread" doping: 3 documentaries on this, and I still don't have the feeling that Seppelt breached any inner circle connected to elite athletes, or the source of the doping. What we do know is that 40 some non-elites are being busted, most for an old testable steroid, and 2 or 3 also got caught. We can use words like "rampant" and "widespread" but these terms are ambiguous enough that it's not sure that they cover most elite athletes.3) The IAAF "leaked blood": Seppelt and the Sunday Times got this completely wrong. The analysis found in the Sunday Times did not correctly compensate for altitude, used "population" limits, and only applied the first step (initial screening) of a multi-step ABP process, using data not conforming to the ABP process. WADA's IC found no fault with how IAAF handled the blood data, and followed up testing suspicious athletes. The IAAF "official" anti-doping structure worked well. (It was the "unofficial structure" -- see #1 -- where the IAAF failed).I remain under-impressed by Seppelt's stories. It's as if the ARD ran out of budget, but he had to air something.

incredible wrote:

Rekrunner, 'Seppelt is trying to keep his name relevant'.... excuse me but without this guy we would never have seen any of the corruption exposed at any level, he is arguably the best thing that has happened to athletics in the last 30 years. He is incredibly relevant and far more relevant than the frauds that you continue to defend on here.