Man Overboard wrote:
Your "Not how it works" screen name is ironic if you seriously believe an athlete can re-establish their blood values and hydration 2 hours after maximal effort in a 32C championship half marathon.
And if you're silly enough to believe that an athlete has to re-establish their hydration status back to absolute normal for their blood values to be considered within limits, then your Mummy really shouldn't have painted your cot with lead-based paint, should she?
5000m: 12:37.35
10000m: 26:17.53
So why, if the explanation of the blood values is so simple, innocent and straightforward, didn't Radcliffe come out and say this sooner? Whatever the truth of the matter, her behaviour and spoken statements since the Sunday Times' article made it appear as though she had something to hide.
Several more or less random thoughts;
1) It looks as if the "experts" cannot agree on the interpretation to be placed on her readings. One group apparently (or at least according to Radcliffe) explain them away as a natural occurrence following races altitude training etc.The other group seem to say this is very unlikely.
2) Could any athlete who comes up with similar readings to Radcliffe use the same excuses/explanations? If an athlete came from Russia would we even think about believing them?
3) What Radcliffe said about Bolt (not in the statement published here but in interviews) and how nobody is questioning his records is plain wrong. Plenty of fingers have been pointed (correctly) at the lack of serious testing in Jamaica and the number of other sprinters from that island that have tested positive. Bolt is hugely suspected by many serious observers of the sport.
4) She does appear to unlucky in the times that blood is taken for a test. They always seem to call on her when she is likely to produce a suspicious sample!
5) Her criticism of the press is not acceptable. This is how the press works in a free society; it grubs around for information, relies on leaks and whistleblowers,sometimes has to publish before ALL the facts are known especially in situations where the ones in power - the IAAF in this case - don't want anything to come out about its dubious behaviour.
6) All this reflects very badly on the BBC who allowed Paula to spout on and on about this scandaland doping in general without ever once asking her outright if she was the British athlete referred to in the Sunday Times article.
mark b wrote:
1) It looks as if the "experts" cannot agree on the interpretation to be placed on her readings. One group apparently (or at least according to Radcliffe) explain them away as a natural occurrence following races altitude training etc.The other group seem to say this is very unlikely.
.
this is the key I think - if even experts are challenged to interpret test results, releasing them to the public seems to be a really dumb idea.
same with all these 'suspicious' results - clearly the science is not clear, so results should remain secret until it is cleared up.
All in all, yesterday was a PR disaster for Radcliffe.
She really has blown all her cookies in one go with that statement. Obviously (by it's length and detail), it was prepared some time back (bar the top and tail) and they've kept it in the can for the inevitable rainy day. The problem for her is that it tries to defend on all fronts and will only succeed in inviting more questions with the answers being demanded in the public domain. questions such as '..so what exactly were those blood values........'.
The catch-all nature of the statement also smacks of desperation. I'm sure she is aware that the problem with 'getting your retaliation in first' is that you are forced to mention things which 99.9% of the world previously had no knowledge of.
She can no longer control the situation which is a disaster on her part.
Of interest will be how her pals rally round - they were awfully quiet yesterday. But I'm fully expecting Seb, Cram, Foster & the BBC to be dreaming up a rescue package as I type.
2) Could any athlete who comes up with similar readings to Radcliffe use the same excuses/explanations? If an athlete came from Russia would we even think about believing them?
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6736219&page=6#ixzz3lFlXKwDX
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. If a Russian woman broke the marathon record by three minutes and was the fastest Russian athlete, male or female, to run the Marathon that year, no one would believe it. For Russia, read China, Turkey, Kenya, Jamaica, the United States or anywhere else for that matter.
If anyone can name a year and an established (athletically) country where the season's best for any T&F event was held by a woman, I will stand corrected.
2003: 2:15:25 Radcliffe (F)
2003: 2:15:41 Steinle (M)
2003 was too good to be true. Literally.
... and no, we wouldn't accept those excuses either ... we would be too busy scrawling "EPO Cheats Out" on bits of cardboard to wave around at track meets to be bothered to take time out and consider extenuating circumstances ...
In spite of the rule, normally the notification to the athletes for antidoping happens immediately at the end of the race. In every Championship, the top 3 already know they must have the antidoping control after the race, since this fact is part of the info everybody can have during the technical meeting preceding the race. In the case of WHMCh, for example, normally athletes and National Teams well know that the first 3 must be immediately available for the doping control, plus other 3 drawn not looking at the name (before the race), but at their position after the race (which of course nobody knows, apart the responsible of antidoping).
In the case of Vilamoura, I well remember that the presentation of the top 3 on the podium happened after no more than 5 minutes after the end of the race FOR THE FIRST GROUP OF ATHLETES (so the winners are on the podium while other athletes continue to arrive, same thing happens in every big Marathon), and the athletes MUST go to the control immediately after the winning ceremony, so no more than 20 minutes after the end of the race.
From that point, one referee with the responsibility to control the athletes is ALWAYS with the athletes, and they must stay in the proper special room, connected with the room where doctors of antidoping do their job, informing the doctors when they are ready for producing the required quantity of urine.
About the fact the analysis didn't
Coaches or team managers can stay with the athletes, can control the sample can be taken in the right way, and can be the whitness that doctors follow the rule and the right protocol till when the samples are packed in the containers in a way that nobody can open them till when there is the control in the lab.
In Vilamoura, I was in the antidoping area together with Martin Sulle, winner of the bronze medal in the men race, and I remember we remained there for almost 3 hours, since he was not able to produce valid urine, in spite to drink several bottles of water.
My..... personal record with some athlete in antidoping was in the European Cup of multiple events in Malmoe (1981), when I was the Italian Head Coach for Multiple events. After the end of decathlon (about 8pm), the captain of the Italian Team, Hubert Indra, remained with me in the room for antidoping, waiting to be ready for the urine, till... 2am of the next day (6 hours !), because for 3 times the concentration of the urine was not valid for being tested, respecting the requested parameters.
About the fact the analysis of the blood samples didn't take into account the weather conditions, I cant say anything, because this fact is part of the interpretation of the data resulting from the analysis of the lab.
In this case, we must suppose the final values are correct, because there is no reason to think the lab not able to find the real values of the blood.
The real problem is the INTERPRETATION of the values, not to suppose there is some mistake in the research of the values, and the interpretation doesn't have anything to do with the "technical validity" of the analysis.
Who works in the lab, and who must interpretate the values, are different persons, and there is a big difference in their job : the first is a "technician" who doesn't have room of interpretation, the second instead must use all the knowed parameters provoking differences in the interpretation of similar values in different conditions, and I can't say anything about this second part of the test.
same with all these 'suspicious' results - clearly the science is not clear, so results should remain secret until it is cleared up.
Unfortunately, the "science" will never be cleared up - that is the nature of science. The science of anti-doping has been moving forward since the idea that taking substances to boost performance in sport is a form of cheating became the dominant moral stance, and it won't stop moving forward until we either stop playing sport or legitimise all forms of pharmacological intervention.
So, by your logic, Radcliffe's blood values should never be released - a stance I'm sure she'd support!
The coach's post describes the WADA collection standards well.
Regarding post-competition blood tests: the IAAF still does them, so they are not invalid, discredited, etc.
pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:
no yes or not answer wrote:And there you go. A perfect example of you knowing nothing about blood data but yet ready to convict based on 'facts are facts' when you do not know what the facts are.
Facts:
EPO era
IAAF is okay with doping
IAAF does not process suspicious/positive tests.
Paula pulls a WR out of a hat like a bolt of lightning on a clear day.
And not just any WR. She passes her male pacer like they are standing still to set a record known dopers still can't touch.
Shows up to discuss doping today, because, she's not the British marathoner with suspicious values that will not be named.
Continues to contradict her "EPO cheats out" at every possible turn.
Don't let the facts get in the way of faith!!
The root of the problem here is that you do not know what a FACT is.
no yes or no answer wrote:The root of the problem here is that you do not know what a FACT is.
Regale us with some facts then.
Not how it works wrote:
wejo wrote:A key thing Paula told me is 2 of her values were taken immediately after a race.
She's lying to you, even back in 2003 in-competition testing protocol gave the athlete 60 minutes after notification of selection for testing (not 60 minutes after the race finish) to report to the testing station.
Plenty of time for a fit athlete to rehydrate, even after a warm race.
Please tell us how you know the time lag between Paula finishing the race and being blood tested. You are spouting off more than anyone about things you are not aware of. People like you are the reason Paula did not want the data released.
you don't know how it works wrote:
Not how it works wrote:She's lying to you, even back in 2003 in-competition testing protocol gave the athlete 60 minutes after notification of selection for testing (not 60 minutes after the race finish) to report to the testing station.
Plenty of time for a fit athlete to rehydrate, even after a warm race.
Please tell us how you know the time lag between Paula finishing the race and being blood tested. You are spouting off more than anyone about things you are not aware of. People like you are the reason Paula did not want the data released.
Even more reason to release the info!!! How about releasing the time that elapsed between the finish of the race and the blood test along with the blood values and all pertinent information related to the tests. She's shamed so many dopers and now isn't walking the walk when it comes to transparency.
It comes off that she's afraid to do this because if you release all the info then people will try to conduct tests to recreate the abnormal results. And she might not like what they find.
pop_pop!_2.0 wrote:
no yes or no answer wrote:The root of the problem here is that you do not know what a FACT is.Regale us with some facts then.
These are NOT facts:
IAAF is okay with doping
IAAF does not process suspicious/positive tests.
Paula pulls a WR out of a hat like a bolt of lightning on a clear day.
These ARE facts:
Paula Radcliff holds the marathon WR
Paula won the 1992 World XC Championship JR race
The US flag is red, white, and blue
See the difference?
(probably not)
Fact: Paula had 3 blood values that ST experts concluded indicated 1/1000 chance of the values being explained by something other than doping (99.9% chance of being explained by doping),
Fact: Paula's experts concluded over 99.0% chance of being explained by doping on one occasion.
Fact: Paula hasn't released her blood values
Fact: Paula has shamed other athletes in the past when they haven't failed drug tests, but have produced suspicious results.
puddingmonster wrote:
Fact: Paula had 3 blood values that ST experts concluded indicated 1/1000 chance of the values being explained by something other than doping (99.9% chance of being explained by doping)
Uh....this is NOT an accurate summation of what the ST experts concluded.
My thoughts on the media involvement - It slings mud, without fully knowing how to decipher the situation with clean evidence or due process. SEE Salazar & Rupp
I don't think having the media involved helps come to a clear conclusion.
First, people aren't trained in reading blood profiles, nor the algorithm used to generate the abnormal reading in the first place. Nor, do they have access to the data samples, ways of generating the parameters, or the confidence levels of the findings. Lastly, who knows if the ABP even covered every parameter (post-altitude, heat, antibiotics, dehydration) with proper analysis?
Also, did the ABP protocol have any effect on the abnormality of the test?
If the test window was within 2 hours of post-competition, should we even be allowed to run those test through the ABP to start with?
The answer to these questions should be left to the experts, yet the media dumped the unfiltered story to sell papers and create convicting headlines.
There could be a post-analysis report done to show A) well damn, running a hard hot half-marathon creates a huge abnormality in blood B) the ABP isn't calculated to articulate certain parameters unless protocol is followed
If the evidence remains inconclusive, ST sold their papers, Paula's reputation is ruined, and we don't even know she's a doper.
That is why I don't think the media should be involved, because despite what the experts may come up with (possibly inconclusive), Paula already is "ruined". Let the experts study the data and be patient.
Same here. She's always been honest and straightforward and a model of integrity.whothewhothewho wrote:
whatthewhatthewhat wrote:I actually believe her.
So do I.
Amerikano wrote:
My thoughts on the media involvement - It slings mud, without fully knowing how to decipher the situation with clean evidence or due process. SEE Salazar & Rupp
I don't think having the media involved helps come to a clear conclusion.
First, people aren't trained in reading blood profiles, nor the algorithm used to generate the abnormal reading in the first place. Nor, do they have access to the data samples, ways of generating the parameters, or the confidence levels of the findings. Lastly, who knows if the ABP even covered every parameter (post-altitude, heat, antibiotics, dehydration) with proper analysis?
Also, did the ABP protocol have any effect on the abnormality of the test?
If the test window was within 2 hours of post-competition, should we even be allowed to run those test through the ABP to start with?
The answer to these questions should be left to the experts, yet the media dumped the unfiltered story to sell papers and create convicting headlines.
There could be a post-analysis report done to show A) well damn, running a hard hot half-marathon creates a huge abnormality in blood B) the ABP isn't calculated to articulate certain parameters unless protocol is followed
If the evidence remains inconclusive, ST sold their papers, Paula's reputation is ruined, and we don't even know she's a doper.
That is why I don't think the media should be involved, because despite what the experts may come up with (possibly inconclusive), Paula already is "ruined". Let the experts study the data and be patient.
But that hasn't been Paula's stance throughout her career. She openly humiliated athletes who had suspicious test results, but were unsanctioned by the IAAF (which is now her situation). She didn't patiently wait for the IAAF to take action, she used the media to bring attention to it.
If you are that outspoken about doping you better be squeaky clean, because it makes a hell of a media story if you get popped. The media keeps dopers honest. See Lance Armstrong.
puddingmonster wrote:
Amerikano wrote:My thoughts on the media involvement - It slings mud, without fully knowing how to decipher the situation with clean evidence or due process. SEE Salazar & Rupp
I don't think having the media involved helps come to a clear conclusion.
First, people aren't trained in reading blood profiles, nor the algorithm used to generate the abnormal reading in the first place. Nor, do they have access to the data samples, ways of generating the parameters, or the confidence levels of the findings. Lastly, who knows if the ABP even covered every parameter (post-altitude, heat, antibiotics, dehydration) with proper analysis?
Also, did the ABP protocol have any effect on the abnormality of the test?
If the test window was within 2 hours of post-competition, should we even be allowed to run those test through the ABP to start with?
The answer to these questions should be left to the experts, yet the media dumped the unfiltered story to sell papers and create convicting headlines.
There could be a post-analysis report done to show A) well damn, running a hard hot half-marathon creates a huge abnormality in blood B) the ABP isn't calculated to articulate certain parameters unless protocol is followed
If the evidence remains inconclusive, ST sold their papers, Paula's reputation is ruined, and we don't even know she's a doper.
That is why I don't think the media should be involved, because despite what the experts may come up with (possibly inconclusive), Paula already is "ruined". Let the experts study the data and be patient.
But that hasn't been Paula's stance throughout her career. She openly humiliated athletes who had suspicious test results, but were unsanctioned by the IAAF (which is now her situation). She didn't patiently wait for the IAAF to take action, she used the media to bring attention to it.
If you are that outspoken about doping you better be squeaky clean, because it makes a hell of a media story if you get popped. The media keeps dopers honest. See Lance Armstrong.
People keep saying this so who exactly did she call out that hadn't failed a test?