Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

Coach.. wrote:

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

David Walsh revealed himself as someone obsessed with Lance, not against doping. He's been defending Team Sky and my bet is that he comes out defending Paula too.

Coach Cookie wrote:

Coach.. wrote:

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

David Walsh revealed himself as someone obsessed with Lance, not against doping. He's been defending Team Sky and my bet is that he comes out defending Paula too.

He has slipped down the anti-doping pedestal on team sky, but he has close commercial and personal ties and claims lack of evidence there

Let's see how he performs here

I expect to see a different tack

Where are the other dope-esque values from the other athletes at these invalid races. If she did so well being dehydrated I'd hate to see the losers' profiles.

Steve cram on the bbc just now complaining about finger pointing

The issue is finger pointing at a friend and Brit, finger pointing at Russian's is OK.

Coach.. wrote:

Coach Cookie wrote:

David Walsh revealed himself as someone obsessed with Lance, not against doping. He's been defending Team Sky and my bet is that he comes out defending Paula too.

He has slipped down the anti-doping pedestal on team sky, but he has close commercial and personal ties and claims lack of evidence there

Let's see how he performs here

I expect to see a different tack

There are close commercial and personal ties here as well. Walsh ghostwrote Radcliffe's autobiography. And he specifically held her up as a shining counter-example in his rages against Lance ("Paula with her plucky red ribbon").

My expectations are low but, yeah, we'll see.

Amerikano wrote:

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

Lance was never sanctioned, therefore Lance never tested positive. And we all know it's not cheating/doping if you never test positive.

At this point, Paula's never tested positive. The fact she refuses to release scores just adds fuel to the fire. If she wants to put it out, it's as simple as letting Ashenden and Parisotto comment freely on the scores they have, and if she's got more, then give those up too.

IAAF doing great work protecting dopers and doping once again.

Top 10 Women -- then the Top 10 Men

Over 3 minutes between top women and 2nd. Then 1 minute between 2 and 10. On mens less than 10 seconds between 1st and 3rd then 1:30 from 1 to 10. Radcliffe's performance a huge outlier.

1) Paula Radcliffe 2:15:25

2) Mary Keitany 2:18:37

3) Catherine Ndereba 2:18:47

4) Rita Keptoo 2:18:57

5) Tika Galena 2:18:58

6) Mizuki Noguchi 2:19:12

7) Irina Mikitenko 2:19:19

8) Aselefech Mergia 2:19:31

9) Lucy Kabuu 2:19:34

10) Deena Kastor 2:19:36

1) Dennis Kimmetto 2:02:57

2) Geoffrey Mutai 2:03:02

3) Moses Mosop 2:03:06

4) Emanuel Mutai 2:03:13

5) Wilson Kiprotich 2:03:23

6) Patrick Makau 2:03:38

7) Haile Gebrselassie 2:03:59

8) Ayele Absehero 2:04:23

9) Duncan Kibet 2:04:27

10) James Kwambai 2:04:27

Not how it works wrote:

All BS wrote:

A fully hydrated, out-of-competition sample is not the same as one take immediately after finishing a hot HM.

If you understand the "system" as you claim, then you'd know that this scenario you invented doesn't happen.

You had a point until you started lying about your "qualifications".

According to the story, one of the questionable samples was taken immediately after a hot race....which is no longer allowed for valid reasons. So what are you saying doesn't happen? According to the story, it very much did.

Lying about qualifications? I spent 2 days as the USADA lab in LA. I got to see first-hand how embarassed they were in the wake of the Lagat fiasco and worked to clamp down on independent review of their procedures. I've got nothing to prove to anonymous internet idiots.

Hdudhebrhd wrote:

All BS wrote:

Let's not forget Paula was a pioneer in volunteering to freeze samples for future testing which were not required for any governing body. And those samples are available now.

...

I paid for the rehearsal dinner at my wedding through a consulting contract garnered through this website to serve as the expert witness for the defense on an EPO doping situation. Suffice to say, I understand the system, and have the technical understanding 99.9% of the riff-raff here lack. This entire situation with Paula is BS.

1. So is Paula gonna release those samples for independent evaluation?

2. So when you say you "understand the system," I assume that means you know why independent evaluation is so important. I bet there was a paid expert on the other side of that trial who jus happened to come to a different conclusion than you, right?

1. Releasing limited samples for analysis by every party touting themselves as "independent evaluators" is foolhardy. Samples should only be analyzed by certified labs. The data now being released is not being analyzing in a comprehensive and complete manner. Rather, it appears to be being done in a non-scientific and biased manner meant only to cause controversy and harm, not an unbiased, professional effort to help the sport. If I were her, I would not help this "effort", either. If there is a reason to re-analyze her samples, have it done by certified labs. The EPO test is a three-day procedure requiring dozens of steps with controls.

2. Unbiased evaluation by qualified personnel is important. Dirt-digging into data by newspapers and unqualified sources does not qualify as independent, impartial, scientific review. Your ignorance is shown by the assumption that because one side hired me, my conclusion matched what they wanted. That is not the purpose of an independent witness. I was paid to make sure the testing protocol was followed. The case did not come out in favor of the side that paid me, as the data supported, but my purpose was only to validate that protocol was followed.

All BS wrote:

According to the story, one of the questionable samples was taken immediately after a hot race....which is no longer allowed for valid reasons. So what are you saying doesn't happen? According to the story, it very much did.

Nobody told the IAAF because as of 2014 they were still doing in-competition blood tests. Nevermind the simple fact the level of dehydration she's claiming to get the off score would have put her way, way, waaaaay out of contention for anything.

EPO cheats out Paula.

How do you determine that this is an "outlier" ? Take a look at your typical world record performance, (e.g. Dibaba's recent 1500m record) and the winning time looks like an "outlier" compared to other times in that race.

But to flag these as suspicious on the ground that they are outliers is to buy into a data mining fallacy -- the tails of the distribution of performances (e.g. records) are by definition statistically rare events. So to mine the most statistically rare events and call foul play on them on those grounds alone is circular reasoning.

A lot of the other claims in this thread (e.g. the "one in one thousand") claims deserve more scrutiny (e.g. I take it that the 1 in 1 thousand probably means the top tenth of a percentile in some statistical distribution but it is a fallacy to confuse this with the probability of the athlete's innocence. Depending on the methodology, it's possible that many athletes who train at altitude and perform well have a "1 in 1000" value.)

Did you read it? It doesn't surprise me that the lets run crowd don't have the reading comprehension and focus to get through a paper of that magnitude. Here is an actual INDEPENDENT EXPERT from WADA:

“Evaluation of Profile - Review of Blood Data from 2001 -2008 I looked carefully at the data which are part of the profile [redacted]. To my knowledge, they were obtained through several technologies. Moreover, data obtained for example in Vilamoura in 2003, with bloods collected before and right after the half marathon, ran in hot conditions, are typically showing effects of confounding factors. The increase of 2.8 in Hb (and no significant effect on ret%) is due to a drastic hemo-concentration caused by the specific race conditions. This post-race value, as most of the others, today would not be validated, and then not be implemented in a real biological passport."

If you aren't intelligent enough to understand the aforementioned, stop commenting.

Quote: "b) which is the PB of every athlete, instead speaking about "elite Group""

No opinion on Paul Radcliff, but need to address this above.

PB is irrelevant. This is problem with passport too. If athlete is always on a program, they will be considered clean, right? Because the values will always be consistently favourable for the athlete.

Sad. With some of the attitudes here, Lance never would have been caught. Again, don't think Paula doped, but why say all testing is bogus?

Whatever you do, never, never NEVER look into Bayesian statistics. That way your world view remains safe from reality and you can continue combining methods that have nothing to do with each other.

Good job.

Paula will go down as the Joan Of Arc of running, burned at the stake of pharmacological heresy, but in fact the reflection of God's True Will, and forever embossed in the firmament of Pure Effort For The Sake of Pure Transformation.

Someone was asking me where I got my balues from. This is the post. I'll say it again:

Yes, he is right in that the sample collection in question does not follow current BP protocol.

This sample will never be admissible in any case brought up against Radcliffe.

That being said, a change in 2.6 is huge. I cannot copy and paste the links now, ( I'm on my phone) but look at Sportsscientists blog posts on dehydration (part of their series on marathons and heatstroke). A 0.7% decrease in plasma volume is normal in hot conditions. You can maintain high level performance even though that kind of fluid loss is considered dehydration. But Radcliffe's change of 2.6 in hgb due to the same effect represnts a volume loss of 17%! Even if you are generous, still huge degrees of order away from normal.

Where did that *extra* hgb come from?

...

And re: 17%, that's assuming 10L of blood, and a starting point ghb of 14. It similar even as you change those assumptions (starting hgb of 15, or a little less blood volume, or a little more).

The body compensates to dehytration. It is likely that different functions work to mitigate blood volume loss. But to such an extent?

And before anyone says that a transfusion (to increase hgb) would decrease retics, given that paula's sample showed no decrease, it would take a a little time for the body to stop new blood cell/retic production. A well timed bag could show no effect in the right window

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.

Because I took the time to read the rule book - it's called research.

People like you are why some cheaters get away with it for so long.