wejo wrote:
I need to research a little more what the 1/100 threshhold is. Does anyone know the threshholds and for altitude athletes? I'm not sure exactly how simple it is.
see Table 2 p340 in the Gore et al paper
http://www.haematologica.org/content/haematol/88/3/333.full.pdfwhich has values for OFF-hr scores from 1/10 to 1/1000 for typical sea level, worst case sea level and worst case at alitude.
Michael Ashenden was co-author of this paper.
When will we know.. wrote:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34204775Wejo.....so she will not be releasing her blood data. What are your thoughts now?
She lied again. Yawn. Nothing new here. Wake me up when something is happening.
Wejo did say he would start doubting her if she doesn't. Maybe he took a sneaky picture he can release :)
I think shows it is a very difficult subject matter
Obviously Radcliffe must not think it is a very complex matter - judging by her behaviour in Edmonton. Yegorova was accused in 2001 because of a urinalysis which was KNOWN to only provide a partial test, but Radcliffe certainly didn't seem to mind "abusing" her then, did she?
Paula showed me the values as 1) she assumes I'm more informed than the average person on the street
I've never met you, and even I don't think that.
As for the Russian there is a big difference. Most of them have been busted in other ways. Also there is a history of state supported doping.
I see, so what you are saying is that a Russian's nationality means that he/she can be accused of anything you care to accuse them of and it doesn't matter? I think there's a word for that.
"Such partial and historic data is of little value on its own, and, can only result in further misinterpretation and speculation. One expert said to me that trying to evaluate the data in question, shorn of context, is like trying to put speed values on a car without knowing whether the readings show miles per hour or kilometers per hour.” – Paula Radcliffe
Who the hell is Paula Radcliffe to say that when she made “untrained judgements” on Olga Yegorova in 2001
In 2001, Paula Radcliffe protested Olga Yegorova's clearance to run the World Championships, even though Yergorova was cleared because the test was faulty and did not meet IOC standards. Now Radcliffe is claiming her own blood tests don't meet testing standards, therefore we should ignore them? Yeeeeaah?
Radcliffe now refuses to release her blood values because in doing so it would violate her right to due process, the same due process that she wanted to suspend in the case of Yegorova. She’s saying it unfair for the untrained public to decipher the nuances of sophisticated blood data. Who the hell is Paula Radcliffe to say that her untrained judgements in 2001 are valid, but the general publics untrained judgements aren’t valid today?
Adding more self-inflicted wounds, Radcliffe is now claiming that some her blood values were distorted by post-race dehydration. How is it that only Radcliffe’s dehydration caused extreme unlikely blood values, but not the others who competed in the same races?
Radcliffe wants to deny her competition the same due process that she hopes she can abuse to shield her from her own extremely suspicious blood tests. That's the worst kind of cheat. As it stands now, Radcliffe is looking more and more like Lance Armstrong and Alberto Salazar…possibly without the violent temper and vengeful threats. Has Radcliffe ever been to Alberto’s clandestine medical lab?
In the history of the sport two runners, both of them women, stand out as the extreme edge of performance when compared to their peers. They are Paula Radcliffe and Florence Griffith Joyner. At least with Flojo it could be argued that her WR was aided by a broken wind gauge. We now know that Radcliffe's extreme WR was aided by an impossible coincidence of extremely anomalous blood tests. What are the chances?
Radcliffe lives in Monaco to cheat her home country out of taxes. She's famously on record for wanting to cheat Yegorova out of her due process. Now she expects us to believe that her extremely suspicious blood tests aren't the result of cheating? Lady, you made your bed now lay in it. Apply the same standards to yourself that you applied to Yergorova!
Whether or not she’s clean or dirty, Paula Radcliffe owes Yegorova an apology.
if the shoe fits.. wrote:
http://running.competitor.com/2015/01/news/paula-radcliffe-wants-suspicious-blood-values-revealed_121501
What she really meant is that she wants everyone's results revealed, except hers.
Bags of blood wrote:
if the shoe fits.. wrote:http://running.competitor.com/2015/01/news/paula-radcliffe-wants-suspicious-blood-values-revealed_121501What she really meant is that she wants everyone's results revealed, except hers.
Don't be so deliberately disingenuous. What she said is she wants the blood details REVLEALING TO THE IAAF. Not to you or me, or twitter, or LR.
Whilst her current stance in today's media does seem to contradict Wejo's recollection of their conversation, her opinion that releasing everyone's blood details into the wild would be bad for clean athletes is something I can understand and agree in part.
larkim wrote:
What she said is she wants the blood details REVLEALING TO THE IAAF
The IAAF have been sweeping hundreds of off-the-charts blood tests under the carpet for the last 15 years. There is no point in trusting them with anythng related to these matters.
larkim wrote:
Don't be so deliberately disingenuous. What she said is she wants the blood details REVLEALING TO THE IAAF. Not to you or me, or twitter, or LR.
Whilst her current stance in today's media does seem to contradict Wejo's recollection of their conversation, her opinion that releasing everyone's blood details into the wild would be bad for clean athletes is something I can understand and agree in part.
This can't be made any more clear, THE IAAF ALREADY HAS THE SCORES. They were the ones that ran the few tests performed on athletes at the time. More misdirection on Paula's part. I'm not sure why you can't see that.
Ashenden/Parisotto would clarify matters quite swiftly if she let them publish an analysis of her results. Hmm. Why she's opposed to that?
Nobody on Paula's side of this story can keep the lies straight. Don't feed the trolls by parroting their nonsense.
EPO cheats out Paula.
pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:She had male pacemakers the entire way and the wind at her back most of the way. Second best marks are more indicative of ability.
That she dropped like hobby joggers. Seems legit.
Is reading so difficult? She was paced from the gun until 25 seconds before she hit the finish line.
Hey got called out during the 1999 race by fellow racer Christophe Bassons in his column after the climb up Siestre. the whole peleton turned on him and he left cycling, cause he was "spitting in the soup"
So she didn't clear things up after all ?
Lakeshore BLVD wrote:
So she didn't clear things up after all ?
It's always been clear. Paula has never tested positive like so many others.
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:
Lakeshore BLVD wrote:So she didn't clear things up after all ?
It's always been clear. Paula has never tested positive like so many others.
She did not test positive , but she acknowledged the suspect Blood Value was hers. This really has effected her unspoken behavior to doping , now that she has a similar profile to the newly banned Morocan runner.
One thing is clear, AlSals explanation is bulletproof. I believe NOP is completely clean now.
I was going to go to the "Paula Silence" thread, but I guess they delete it .
I think everyone has decided that there will be no further discussions of Paula or Galen / NOP. Makes sense. Leave it up the the authorities.
Trial by media or internet reveals nothing but ignorance. Self appointed experts who don't even know anything about how plasma volume affects hemoconcentration.
shoe's on the other foot now wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/spo...athletics1http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11852423/Paula-Radcliffe-defends-herself-against-claims-of-doping-but-does-it-stand-up-to-scrutiny.html"Such partial and historic data is of little value on its own, and, can only result in further misinterpretation and speculation. One expert said to me that trying to evaluate the data in question, shorn of context, is like trying to put speed values on a car without knowing whether the readings show miles per hour or kilometers per hour.� � Paula Radcliffe
Who the hell is Paula Radcliffe to say that when she made �untrained judgements� on Olga Yegorova in 2001
In 2001, Paula Radcliffe protested Olga Yegorova's clearance to run the World Championships, even though Yergorova was cleared because the test was faulty and did not meet IOC standards. Now Radcliffe is claiming her own blood tests don't meet testing standards, therefore we should ignore them? Yeeeeaah?
Radcliffe now refuses to release her blood values because in doing so it would violate her right to due process, the same due process that she wanted to suspend in the case of Yegorova. She�s saying it unfair for the untrained public to decipher the nuances of sophisticated blood data. Who the hell is Paula Radcliffe to say that her untrained judgements in 2001 are valid, but the general publics untrained judgements aren�t valid today?
Adding more self-inflicted wounds, Radcliffe is now claiming that some her blood values were distorted by post-race dehydration. How is it that only Radcliffe�s dehydration caused extreme unlikely blood values, but not the others who competed in the same races?
Radcliffe wants to deny her competition the same due process that she hopes she can abuse to shield her from her own extremely suspicious blood tests. That's the worst kind of cheat. As it stands now, Radcliffe is looking more and more like Lance Armstrong and Alberto Salazar�possibly without the violent temper and vengeful threats. Has Radcliffe ever been to Alberto�s clandestine medical lab?
In the history of the sport two runners, both of them women, stand out as the extreme edge of performance when compared to their peers. They are Paula Radcliffe and Florence Griffith Joyner. At least with Flojo it could be argued that her WR was aided by a broken wind gauge. We now know that Radcliffe's extreme WR was aided by an impossible coincidence of extremely anomalous blood tests. What are the chances?
Radcliffe lives in Monaco to cheat her home country out of taxes. She's famously on record for wanting to cheat Yegorova out of her due process. Now she expects us to believe that her extremely suspicious blood tests aren't the result of cheating? Lady, you made your bed now lay in it. Apply the same standards to yourself that you applied to Yergorova!
Whether or not she�s clean or dirty, Paula Radcliffe owes Yegorova an apology.
Well said, and pretty much the same that I posted at the time.
Dennis Behave wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:It's always been clear. Paula has never tested positive like so many others.
She did not test positive , but she acknowledged the suspect Blood Value was hers. This really has effected her unspoken behavior to doping , now that she has a similar profile to the newly banned Morocan runner.
Posted the poster who didn't read Seppelt's story. Seppelt has test data that conclusively shows IAAF had positives and was not sanctioning podium winners. The same article declared a couple of athletes clean. I wonder why they couldn't do that for Radcliffe?
Dennis Behave wrote:
One thing is clear, AlSals explanation is bulletproof. I believe NOP is completely clean now.[/quote]
How much does the IAAF pay Internet Community Coordinators to post fantasies like this?