Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

Her endocrinologist will see you now.

There was also the Kenyan marathon runner Sumgong who failed a test for a prescription drug (prednisone?), but it was later reneged because of a medical condition. I think this was around 2011? Anyway, when the suspension was reneged Paula was there to condemn the decision. Again, Paula criticizes an athlete with a suspicious drug test result that the IAAF deemed to not warrant a sanction. Exactly the situation she finds herself in.

Did she really say she didn't know what an off-score was until now?

How is that possible

One thing that nobody seems to have mentioned but seems pretty horrible to me is that she effectively has brought a completely innocent MP (Jesse Norman) into this from her statement.

As far as I can tell there was nothing that he said that was any different to what was already in the public domain?

To me it looks like she obviousl had the statement pre prepared and was waiting for the opportunity to release it. So now this guy is embroiled in a huge story that's likely to be relatively damaging to his reputation for no reason.

Just feels like he's been deliberately thrown under the bus so Paula could release her statement.

The reason Paula has not released the blood profile was advised by both WADA and IAAF.

Don't blame Paula for WADA/IAAF wanting to take the correct protocol and involve the right people to lead a detailed analysis. Like I said in my original post, what purpose would there be to have "adverse results" released into a journal without proper understanding of what model was built to come up with these proper results. In order to understand the "adverse results", you'd need to fully understand ABP's normal ranges and limitations, which may not be what WADA wants to release in the first place (for current doper's sake).

And also, I don't think Paula is clamming up, she is coming out. She is openly discussing each adverse result with circumstances, which will further be analyzed by experts. What else do you want her to do if IAAF/WADA tells her not to release blood results?

Amerikano wrote:

Don't blame Paula for WADA/IAAF wanting to take the correct protocol and involve the right people to lead a detailed analysis.

Haha. You mean that IAAF that had 1/3 of all podiums with positives? yeah, they'll get right on that after they finish up their work setting up bribes.

I'm not sure why you mention WADA. They have no authority.

The only thing missing is Coe proclaiming Paula "never, never, never doped."

At this point, she's doped and never tested positive like so many others. Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones, as two examples.

This is the nature of the media and public pressure. Paula was in a "blackout social media state" until the day after Coe was elected. Just as USADA were to investigate Salazar in a timely manner, this site chose to put a countdown clock on his response. Her response was triggered by English parliament, not the tabloids. Now Coe is clamming up because he was called to Parliament in the next sessions.

"Most people don't understand an off score, or how it's calculated... I didn't before any of this surfaced"

Sky News interview this morning. It does seem a bit unusual as she is:

1. The marathon world record holder

2. A BBC television athletics pundit

3. Well educated - Holder of a first class honours degree.

4. One of the most vocal anti-doping figures in athletics in the last decade

Also, she described her blood results as having "one or two minor fluctuations". If that's the case, why doesn't she get on the front foot and publish them?

I've always liked her, and call me naive but I've always believed in her. Even after all of this I still think it unlikely she doped, but now I have at least some level of doubt. I think she could have handled the whole thing a lot better, but I guess she is largely acting on advice.

Complete BS. 8 other athletes came out and released blood data. There is no consequence for doing so. She's said several times that she didn't release her data because people wouldn't know how to interpret AKA the test results look a lot like the Russian ones and I don't want people to analyze how improbable it would be to register these values without doping. If this were Farah, Geb, Bolt I'd give them the benefit of the doubt if they took their time to release the data. But when you toot the anti- doping horn for 15 years and now you "clam up" when you're under suspicion, I have no sympathy. She did it to herself.

The issue is that the kind of performance Paula put up that day is not compatible with the severe dehydration she is claiming.

It is possible to perform well dehydrated. Typically, 23, even 5 L of fluid are lost on a warm marathon, safely. The body compensates, and, while I don't know for sure, the studies I've looked at show that performance can be maintained even with a 0.7% plasma volume loss.

For Radcliffes numbers though, it has been shown that her change in HGB means that her plasma volume went down 17%!

She won by almost 90 seconds. It was the biggest margin of victory ever...

It is possible to perform that well dehydrated. It is not possible to perform that well, and be as dehydrated as the numbers show Radcliffe was.

My take away from all this is you can't can't trust a decision to suspend or not suspend someone. You don't know who and how an 'expert' is selected or not selected to 'interpret' a particular test and the data is 'for their eyes only'. I'm kind of incredulous, after all this, the talking points is basic excuse stuff like dehydration and sickness. Every potential doper can go that route. All that the powers to be has to say is "sufficiently explained" or "its inconceivable that..." and you're a hero or a zero. Oh and by the way you will never know the missing complete information we based our decision on if it even exists.

someone should have tested that dump she took in the street

it never accured to me that she wasn't a cheater....never

same as lance

From my experience, the person always pointing the finger at everyone else is the one who did it.

She is insecure and scared that people are going to find out. Her reaction is to blame everyone else and talk about how it is a big problem.

Like an earlier poster said, why all this? Why doesn't she just put this one to bed and offer to go under oath and repeat:

I didn't use EPO, HGH, etc, etc?

Or not even under oath, just say in plain language that she didn't use any banned substances.

How can you write 1700 words saying why your blood tests are abnormal applying you didn't dope. When you could just say, 'I did not use any banned substance throughout my career.'

Watching this unfold will be better than any TV show.

Clerk wrote:For Radcliffes numbers though, it has been shown that her change in HGB means that her plasma volume went down 17%!

Link?

This goes back to December at least.

If she was clean, she has had 9 months to come out and say, "there are rumours, but I am clean and i will prove it"

When the Sunday Times released their story, if she was clean, she could have said " I was clean, my tests looked different because of xyz reason", but no, she avoided the situation.

She did that horse manure interview for the BBC and skirted around the subject, she could have just released evidence that she was clean, but no, she conrinues the charade

Then now, a pre prepared statement comes out at the merest hint in a Parliamentary Committee meeting. Which implies a hugely calculated effort to manipulate the storyline.

Thing is that's all it looks like now. It seems like she has been ducking and diving and trying to avoid the whole story or push her stance as a last resort.

If she was clean, she would have had no recourse for all this posturing and manupulation.

She clearly has 3 suspicious blood scores, whether they fall into the scope of proven doping is secondary, they are definitely suspicious and at least one falls in 2003, the same year she set her fastest times in the half and full marathon, indeed the Portuguese one falls two weeks after her half marathon world's best. She claims none of the tests were conducted "near to her best times or performances", which is a blatent misdirection. The Portuguese run was 1m30s slower than the South Shields one but she hammered the opposition my a similar margin. She was at the top of her form.

So even in her extensive, multi-lawyered defence there is a clear misdirection. And if she can't even tell the whole truth here, in a simple part of her statement, then tell my why we should believe her?

I saw her broken as a perennial underachieveer outkicked on the final lap, and then I saw her become the fastest female distance runner in history, a miraculous change at age 27/28. This board has hammered Farah for that same transformation. This board has hammered the EPO era and rightly so. To think a girl from that same era could undergo a miracle transformation and beat the world, set times that are further out there than the Turtle Soup brigade and do it all clean is beyond ridiculous.

Believe what you like but the dogs are barking pretty loudly now, and this doesn;t end well.

[quote]Jamminnn wrote:

From my experience, the person always pointing the finger at everyone else is the one who did it.

She is insecure and scared that people are going to find out. Her reaction is to blame everyone else and talk about how it is a big problem.

Like an earlier poster said, why all this? Why doesn't she just put this one to bed and offer to go under oath and repeat:

I didn't use EPO, HGH, etc, etc?

[quote]

People lie all the time under oath

You know, for as much as people follow drugs in sports I always hear "Lance never failed a test"

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/cycling-lance-armstrong-failed-four-drugs-tests-in-1999-uci-admits-8577491.html

But in any case, as I do not support cheating, I do support due process. I would like to see Paula be more transparent too, but know it will invite more scrutiny without proper understanding.

And as for the person who asked why I brought WADA into this, the IAAF had coordinated an analysis of the ABP with WADA.

As for the readings of Paula's blood profile, who do we compare her to?

She ran 2:15. Do you compare her to 2:17? 2:19? Guys who've run 2:03? She is an abnormal athlete to start with.

I like defending her, not because I like Paula, but I hate inconclusive evidence. It needs to be real clear, because all we have in this world is our names. I'll wait before I judge.

jansher khan wrote:

Believe what you like but the dogs are barking pretty loudly now, and this doesn;t end well.

No, not for Paula. But, for the sport? Any time a high profile doper is nailed, it's not naive to at least hope, things get better And regardless, someone who didn't earn the millions of pounds and the accolades and celebrity at least has to suffer the indignity of being found out. And that's, well, what used to be called 'justice'

David Walsh has tweeted that he will be writing about Paula in this week's Sunday Times

He is the journalist who brought down Lance Armstrong