Paula Radcliffe's WR could go down this weekend, what questions would you like us to ask her this weekend?

rekrunner wrote:

We already know that these lab tests were not lab test results as such, but really a personal Excel spreadsheet by an IAAF delegate.

I'm scratching my head wondering what "WADA still stands by the likely doping report" is even supposed to mean.

The WADA-IC completely rejected any and all arguments based on blood values between 2001-2008, and the WADA-IC supported the IAAF in the way it followed up on abnormal values.

Post ABP, after 2009, the WADA-IC called the IAAF the ABP poster-boy for other ADOs.

No individual athletes were sanctioned as a result of any "likely doping report".

So what was the impact of WADA "standing by" an incomplete spreadsheet, for athletes like Paula?

Lab Tests wrote:

The Lab tests leaked to ARD ?

The "document" was significant enough for Radcliffe to request Lord Coe to "un - document" the document , and request Coe and his PR team to announce Radcliffe was clean , from a report that suspects her dirty , on this report that does not exist , in your eyes.

Oh, there was a Sunday Times report that suspected her dirty. And I know other reports exist, like Ashenden's and Parisotto's, which were behind the Sunday Times reports, but I haven't seen any WADA "likely doping" report. The only WADA reports I've seen are the two WADA-IC reports, where they did not stand by the likely doping reports from the leaked blood values. But you are talking about Coe, or the IAAF, and not WADA, or the WADA-IC. The question remains -- what is meant by "WADA still stands by the likely doping report"?

Her record won’t ne touched for at least 50 years.