Wejo (and others): Tell me why Paula wasn't a doper.

She was a doper when she set that marathon record--if someone tells you different they are either stupid or in denial.

Perhaps Paula was doped, but I think we are missing the even more suspicious masters performance in that list.

She autographed my t-shirt, was really nice to me, and had a British accent, she can't possibly have been a doper.

Reliant Aries wrote:

Except that doping reduces the need to "back off." It takes your build up above what it would naturally be. Taking something that speeds recovery lets you train hard more often. Regardless of whether you "go along with" it, that's simply an indisputable fact.

J.O. wrote:

I don't go along with this argument that drugs help an athlete to train harder. There is nothing stopping any of us from training harder if we have the right build up. Progressively increasing the workload over a long period of time. And having the common sense to know when to back off.

An indisputable fact? Really? Who says?

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. You can train harder and get fitter naturally, and when you do it right, the fitter you get, the faster you recover, the harder you can train. I know this from experience, perhaps you don't?

Buffalo Billy wrote:

She was a doper when she set that marathon record--if someone tells you different they are either stupid or in denial.

Shut up idiot.

Buffalo Billy wrote:

She was a doper when she set that marathon record--if someone tells you different they are either stupid or in denial.

Quite.

And as a member of the Flat Earth Society - if someone tells you the world is round, they are either stupid or in denial.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Doping isn't cheating if EVERYONE is doing it.

Only if you believe in mob rule over the rule of law. Other unrepentant dopers have offered similar rationalizations.[/quote]

There are at least two different definitions of "cheat."

1) To gain advantage over others by deceit;

2) To break the rules.

If everyone is doping, nobody gains an advantage over others, so maybe that isn't cheating under definition # 1.

PS: Invoking the "rule of law" doesn't help. Even if we agree that a rule should be interpreted literally, we still have to decide which of the literal meanings of "cheat" apply.

To see the problem, consider that Justice Scalia, hardly an enemy of the rule of law, believes that someone who trades drugs for cocaine isn't "using" the gun while committing a drug crime, and that someone who has a gun in the truck of his car while buying drugs isn't "carrying" the gun.

Make that, trades guns for cocaine.

I disagree that Paula's mental strength was sufficient a factor. Elite level is a world of marginal games, where hours of training count for seconds - and you really believe that PR can run almost 4 minutes faster than Shobukhova, the next fastest woman of all time - who was doped up all the while? It's not like Shobukhova didn't have the work ethic, nor all the other female marathoners that PR blew them out of the water. PR's half distance splits for her WR is 67.30, she's only run faster in a HALF marathon ONCE in her life, where she did a 66.47 - there's no way she can destroy doped athletes on tea and scones

I disagree that Paula's mental strength was sufficient a factor. Elite level is a world of marginal games, where hours of training count for seconds - and you really believe that PR can run almost 4 minutes faster than Shobukhova, the next fastest woman of all time - who was doped up all the while? It's not like Shobukhova didn't have the work ethic, nor all the other female marathoners that PR blew them out of the water. PR's half distance splits for her WR is 67.30, she's only run faster in a HALF marathon ONCE in her life, where she did a 66.47 - there's no way she can destroy doped athletes on tea and scones

one take wrote:

Empiricism wrote:

The fact she's never run well in the Olympics doesn't help her case.

It's funny because I think that is what helps her case. If she was cheating she would run well enough more consistently. Instead, like most of us her human fragility comes through-- she is able to set the world record one race, then blow up at other big races.

While this may not convince some doubters-- she has been very much against drug use/doping since well before she was famous. One could argue it is a rouse to mask drug use, but I do not think so.

This is one of the weakest arguments out there.

If a "villain" runner like Mahkloufi is inconsistent, it's because he's doping.

If a "hero" runner like Rupp or Radcliffe is inconsistent, it's because she's human therefore not doping.

Which is it?

Paula was 2:55 faster than Shobukhova, not 4 minutes.Paula ran 65:39.6 semi-marathon.

BBKvelo wrote:

I disagree that Paula's mental strength was sufficient a factor. Elite level is a world of marginal games, where hours of training count for seconds - and you really believe that PR can run almost 4 minutes faster than Shobukhova, the next fastest woman of all time - who was doped up all the while? It's not like Shobukhova didn't have the work ethic, nor all the other female marathoners that PR blew them out of the water. PR's half distance splits for her WR is 67.30, she's only run faster in a HALF marathon ONCE in her life, where she did a 66.47 - there's no way she can destroy doped athletes on tea and scones

why you guys dredging up old threads?

Paula has basically admitted she was dirty.

But reading through them is pretty interesting. Especially all of the references to the frozen samples.

gdm wrote:

why you guys dredging up old threads?

old doesn't mean bad.

A new thread on the subject could be started but no need to reinvent the wheel.

Wondered the same wrote:

But reading through them is pretty interesting. Especially all of the references to the frozen samples.

+1

All these years, as shown in this thread and other contemporary reports, her alleged transparency was used as an argument for her to be clean. Now that she is outspoken against transparency, hmmm, what does that tell us?

It's not "Tell Me Why Paula Wasn't a Doper." You have to prove WHY she was a doper. So many people here still, after all this time, don't get that.

Nothing really.

casual obsever wrote:

Wondered the same wrote:

But reading through them is pretty interesting. Especially all of the references to the frozen samples.

+1

All these years, as shown in this thread and other contemporary reports, her alleged transparency was used as an argument for her to be clean. Now that she is outspoken against transparency, hmmm, what does that tell us?