Paula Radcliffe's silence is DEAFENING.

Here's the Christie tweet:

https://twitter.com/ChristieLinford/status/628129944527327232

Super injunction !!!!! Bet someone didn't sleep well last night ...

Paul Kimmage was fired from the Sunday Times his 22 year obsession with doping based on his bitter experiences of being relegated to a domestique in the TdF because he couldn't compete with dopers. Even though he was vindicated you still have take the implication of his accusations with a pinch of salt. Still, I hope he's vindicated.

ok, so the thread directly mentioning the super injunction in the title was deleted by the mods.But the experiment still yielded some interesting results.As I said earlier (and I was right): Google usually indexes letsrun threads (title and content) within minutes. The sole exception is this thread of which only the title, but not the content is indexed. This means, that Google explicitly took the thread content from their index. Make of that what you will, I think it's interesting. Twitter poster "TheRaceRadio" also is talking about the super injunctionhttps://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status/629373655278092288

Race Radio

UK legal tactic used to silence the press. Not used in U.S. so better to ask a Brit ......like @paulajradcliffe

Paulo Sousa

First time I ever heard of a "Super Injunction". What about you @TheRaceRadio, did you ever hear of one?

They only mention it because that hack coach pstriathlon asked them on twitter about it.

Dirty Paula wrote:

The sole exception is this thread of which only the title, but not the content is indexed.

As someone pointed out in the last post of the other (deleted) thread, content of the first page of this thread does refer to this thread when google searched. But not later pages, which seems to differ from treatment of other threads.

In any event, and perhaps more to the overall point, this was another day of silence from Radcliffe's twitter, which, in context, seems to have no plausible explanation other than that she is the athlete at issue in the Times story.

for our eyes wrote:

Dirty Paula wrote:

The sole exception is this thread of which only the title, but not the content is indexed.

As someone pointed out in the last post of the other (deleted) thread, content of the first page of this thread does refer to this thread when google searched. But not later pages, which seems to differ from treatment of other threads.

In any event, and perhaps more to the overall point, this was another day of silence from Radcliffe's twitter, which, in context, seems to have no plausible explanation other than that she is the athlete at issue in the Times story.

She can't maintain that as she's bound to be on the BBC commentary team for Beijing. Good opportunity for asking her some hard questions. Perhaps she's just gone to ground to practise her answers.

pop_pop! wrote:

Here's the Christie tweet:

https://twitter.com/ChristieLinford/status/628129944527327232

Super injunction !!!!! Bet someone didn't sleep well last night ...

Under normal circumstances Radcliffe would have been all over this latest IAAF leak by posting on one of her own sites. Also, and this is very strange, one of the first people reporters go to when something like this surfaces is Radcliffe because they know they're guaranteed a response, as the title says the silence is deafening.

All she's posting is links to articles in the news section on her website, the latest is the banning of Shobukhova:

Wait a minute... wrote:

And Linford Christie isn't the smartest tool in the box, so treat anything that he tweets with a huge dollop of WTF?!? And if there was a super injunction in place, you can bet the lawyers of that person would have insisted at the very least that Christie take down his tweet as his tweet would break the terms of the super injunction.

You lot really are the maddest, most cynical, most misguided, most tin hat wearing brigade I think I have ever encountered!!

Christie may not be "the smartest tool in the box" but neither are you, he would have a good idea of what's going on and also perhaps you can explain to us misguided lot how tweeting "Super injunction !!!!! Bet someone didn't sleep well last night ..." would "break the terms" of a particular super injunction?

Not normal circumstances wrote:

All she's posting is links to articles in the news section on her website, the latest is the banning of Shobukhova:

http://www.paularadcliffe.com/news/

So she's 2min55sec faster than a convicted European drug cheat and now she's 3min22sec faster than a Kenyan with this sort of record, no wonder she's keeping quiet if she is on the list:

"Catherine Nyambura Ndereba[1] (born 21 July 1972) is a Kenyan marathon runner. She has twice won the marathon at the World Championships in Athletics and won silver medals in the Olympics in 2004 and 2008. She is also a four-time winner of the Boston Marathon. Ndereba broke the women's marathon world record in 2001, running 2:18:47 at the Chicago Marathon.

In 2008, Ndereba was described by a Chicago Tribune sportswriter as the greatest women's marathoner of all time"

Wait a minute... wrote:

You lot really are the maddest, most cynical, most misguided, most tin hat wearing brigade I think I have ever encountered!!

^this

I didn't know letsrun had been infested with idiots from infowars.

Did anybody else think Catherine Ndereba ran like she was knitting a sweater?

Wait a minute... wrote:

You lot really are the maddest, most cynical, most misguided, most tin hat wearing brigade I think I have ever encountered!!

I'm guessing you don't spend much time here:

I'm also guessing you don't spend much time talking to elite runners. They make this place look like Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.

Paula spotter wrote:

for our eyes wrote:

As someone pointed out in the last post of the other (deleted) thread, content of the first page of this thread does refer to this thread when google searched. But not later pages, which seems to differ from treatment of other threads.

In any event, and perhaps more to the overall point, this was another day of silence from Radcliffe's twitter, which, in context, seems to have no plausible explanation other than that she is the athlete at issue in the Times story.

She can't maintain that as she's bound to be on the BBC commentary team for Beijing. Good opportunity for asking her some hard questions. Perhaps she's just gone to ground to practise her answers.

No the 1st Thread that was deleted before the test thread deletion does not prove this out.

Cynics v. Naifs: A sad choice wrote:

I'm also guessing you don't spend much time talking to elite runners. They make this place look like Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.

That could not be further from the truth.

Aha this thread is so salty, cheers for the entertainment lads.

Most of you are going to go to your graves unfulfilled over this.

[

Cynics v. Naifs: A sad choice wrote:

I'm also guessing you don't spend much time talking to elite runners. They make this place look like Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.

BJP wrote:

That could not be further from the truth.

Ok, maybe that wasn't phrased quite right. I am not saying elite runners generally sound like the folks on LRC. I am simply reacting to the claim made above that it is crazy or cynical or tin-hatting for people here to be suspicious of elite runners. My claim is that, on the question of whether elite runners dope, elites are even more suspicious than the people here. In my experience, elites agree with what Paula Radcliffe told Wejo, "You only know about yourself." Moreover, unlike posters here, elites take that position seriously. They refuse to say that any particular runner is clean or dirty. They know that they cannot know.

As one of them, a very sweet DL regular, says, "I hope other runners are clean, and would be disappointed if they are doping. But I would not be surprised." In other words, hope, subject to verification.

I am curious. Is your experience different?

Cynics v. Naifs: A sad choice wrote:

I am curious. Is your experience different?

I'd answer but I don't have a friggin clue what it is you're rabbiting on about.

I'd answer but... wrote:

I'd answer but I don't have a friggin clue what it is you're rabbiting on about.

I see. I forgot that somewhere in the world, it's always troll-thirty.

Enjoy!

Where is there a talk about there being a super injunction? That is wrong from my reading.

My reading on it is the IAAF tried to get an injunction and lost.

There is no injunction against naming athletes names, however the whisteblower requested that athletes not be named so that is why they are not named.

"The whistleblower believes that athletes with abnormal results may be under pressure from national training programmes, and has requested that they are not humiliated by being named. The Sunday Times has disclosed only the identities of a handful who were subsequently banned."

So he gave the info and said don't name people. That is the reason I assume the Times isn't printing it.

Legally in the US I bet the Times could release all the data, just saying, "here is so and so's blood values." It's factual data. (Ignoring the fact the leaker asked them not to reveal names).

People would make their own conclusions. However in Britain they legal laws are stricter and they could get sued. My own read is the Times own experts said with the British athlete it isn't conclusive proof of doping.

From the article, "The results presented a difficulty for the IAAF testers. The experts said that the athlete’s blood tests were suspicious but required further investigation to determine whether doping had actually taken place."

(I'm not sure who the "experts" are. I think it is the 2 experts the Times hired to analyze the results, but it could be IAAF testers..)

The same article says, "On three occasions during their career the athlete’s test results were so “abnormal” that there was only a one in a thousand chance that they were natural."

and "A top UK athlete is among seven Britons with “suspicious” blood scores. The athlete scored the single most abnormal blood score of all the 490 tests on British athletes"

Worth a read if you have a paid Times account:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/

I think all passport data should be public, maybe anonymized or something but then the public could be assured suspicious values are followed up on.

I