Nobody talking about Ross Tucker v Paula radcliffe on twitter.... spat central!

You did an impressive job subtly altering history with this post.

The head of a federation sending athlete lawyers notes regarding the federation's position/activity regarding the athlete's anti-doping status is normal? Meanwhile, Coe arbitrarily declares Paula clean, while the federation delivered a WADA/IAAF anti-doping expert opinion for her defense. Seems legit.

Why doesn't every athlete get these considerations??? Why didn't Coe offer Jeptoo the opportunity to have a WADA expert explain her values?

False.

What sports were dragged, kicking and screaming into WADA compliance? Cycling and the IAAF. Which federation heads were furiously attacking WADA during the whole Armstrong drama? The IAAF and UCI. Which head of a sports federation was found to be demanding bribes to bury positives? The IAAF, and very, very, very likely the UCI.

Let's just make sure all anti-doping is totally secret, like it was before WADA, and the federations are sure to operate clean sports. Oh, wait, that didn't happen and still hasn't happened.

For a precious few years, WADA had an independent director, and eventually exposed wholesale sporting fraud by a sports federation. Good thing Reedie put an end to that!

Try again.

Dr.SkyRunner.Shiva.at.11333ft.com wrote:

There was actually a 20% decrease in reticulocyte% score from 0.59% of RBCs to a BELOW NORMAL RANGE VALUE OF 0.47% of RBCs

That is a really low reticulocyte level to start with.

My guess is Paula may well have been anti epo (remember "EPO cheats out").......... but she saw no problem with blood transfusions. This is how they reconcile an immoral act in their mind, Armstrong saw everyone else cheating and concluded that he wasn't cheating within the cycling community but to everyone else he was. Paula might have viewed it as her own blood (but I still suspect her of being a liar and being on epo). There was a massive jump in her abilities once she switched to the marathon.

Dr.SkyRunner.Shiva.at.11333ft.com wrote:

Gerard Hartmann:

"I remember in Font Romeu in 2001 or 2002, Paula and Gary saw some suspicious vials in a local dumpster when emptying their rubbish. Their response was to immediately contact the authorities. People who don’t know Paula might say her strident anti-doping position was a clever act.

That's as bad as "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

rekrunner wrote:

The IAAF froze 2005 samples, Paula's and others' , and retested them in 2013 and again in 2015. No British athletes were among the adverse findings.

They didn't retest the samples in 2015. Paula herself says so in this recent interview:

The original 8 year statute of limitations from when the 2005 samples were taken had expired, and despite Paula begging and pleading with the authorities, they wouldn't do it.........plus they'd apparently run out of samples to test. Allegedly.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Dr.SkyRunner.Shiva.at.11333ft.com wrote:

Gerard Hartmann:

"I remember in Font Romeu in 2001 or 2002, Paula and Gary saw some suspicious vials in a local dumpster when emptying their rubbish. Their response was to immediately contact the authorities. People who don’t know Paula might say her strident anti-doping position was a clever act.

That's as bad as "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

I'd not read that before. Hilarious. I think they need to keep Gerard Hartmann on a shorter leash, he is coming out with all sorts of things that you would kind of think that might have mentioned themselves in interviews, autobiographies etc were it true.

rekrunner wrote:

Speaking of independent evaluations, what did other independent experts think? Here is something I stumbled upon, from email exchanges between Drs. Michael Joyner, Jim Stray-Gundersen and Ben Levine. Much of the information comes from Dr. Jim Stray-Gundersen, one of the developers of the ON-score and OFF-score, and another Z-score. He didn't seem all that shocked by the suspicious values.

"Since your first email, I looked up what the values were that raised suspicion in Paula. There were apparently three were between 110 -114. None of these are really that abnormal and all three have logical explanations. Apparently, they were correctly handled and found by experts to not indicate doping. The system worked correctly. This is an example of the (insufficiently informed) media and public casting hurtful accusations incorrectly and inappropriately. Paula is due a public apology."

http://www.drmichaeljoyner.com/the-biological-passport-the-paula-radcliffe-controvery/

Interesting find. He also states 'In all our altitude studies, we have never seen an abnormal OFF score being at an altitude camp and coming down to sea level'. Makes you think when you consider the 2012 score........

The other point to make is that 'Jim's' comment is committing exactly the same fallacy as Paula is for ever complaining that Ashenden/Parisotto made - coming to conclusions without having possession of all the facts ("Apparently they were correctly handled and found by experts not to indicate doping')

- i.e. the details of what was written on the blood test form, what processes were followed by the experts etc.

Oh, and in this interview Paula also reveals that she will 'most likely' release all her blood data one day.........no doubt the day after she has her lie detector test. Comedy gold.

Bottom line is Tucker is a laughing stock and his fellow scientist running fans such as Hutchinson and Seiler shy away from him now. Won't be long before the laymen in the media (like Sean Ingle at the Grauniad who extensively uses Tucker as a source) will stop ringing him too.

He makes a ton off holding talks about doping and as such it is in his interest to be vocal and keep the topic interesting.

Total sell out.

She does say that in her first formal response -- the "investigation" from the Sunday Times, and Ashenden/Parisotto was not full, but incomplete, lacking key extrinsic details, and concludes with calling the coerced "transparency", blackmail: "The Sunday Times recently attempted to obtain the consent of athletes to publish their stolen medical data, asserting behind the scenes to the effect that if consent isn’t given it will look like an athlete has something to hide and may therefore be guilty of doping. This was effectively tantamount to blackmail, and plainly unacceptable." She is opposed as a matter of principle, and not because she has something to hide. Regarding "transparency", I have the same opinion as CIRC: publishing the blood values would hinder anti-doping, not help it. Here I completely disagree with Ross, who I think is not speaking as a sports scientist, but as a sports marketeer, who in the past encouraged Paula to manage the message. Ensure independent evaluation, and make that process transparent, yes, but provide transparency of raw values, to the public, no. The IAAF froze samples in 2005 and later, and the IAAF retested hundreds of frozen samples from Helsinki 2005 and Ottawa 2007 in 2013 and 2015: Source IAAF.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

She was opposed as a matter of principle of having to defend herself against allegations not fully investigated

That's not what she said. It's also not what you usually say.

rekrunner wrote:

The IAAF froze 2005 samples, Paula's and others' , and retested them in 2013 and again in 2015. No British athletes were among the adverse findings.

The IAAF retested Paula's 2005 samples in 2013 and 2015? Sure about that? Source?

Actually you said "On the contrary, it supported UCI in doing nothing about Armstrong". This is a typical style of mischaracterization from you. It is highly misleading, to be diplomatic. My sources, and history, show they did NOT support the UCI in doing nothing about Armstrong, and WADA clearly did not do nothing about Armstrong. Rather than conceding that no sanction would be possible, WADA made the conflict with the UCI public, putting intense pressure on Verbruggen and the UCI. "This affair attracted a huge amount of publicity –yet it was known, or should have been known, from the very start, that no sanctions could arise"

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I hate to muddy things up with detailed investigative findings, but we get a very different impression from the CIRC report.

Oh, very different? They talked semi-tough, and did nothing, according to you/your sources. What did I say again?

casual obsever wrote:

WADA did nothing about Armstrong in 2003 and 2005.

Well if we are honest, Paula's 2012 score is below the population threshold of suspicion for altitude, so would also not be considered abnormal in an altitude study, likely using population thresholds. Like Drs. Ashenden/Parisotto, Dr. Stray-Gundersen is no stranger to elite blood values: "we surveyed blood values in over a 1000 international caliber athletes from around the world (all ethnic and racial groups form endurance sports) and then 3 different blood doping trials (in Norway (which I did), Australia and China)." While Drs. Ashdenden/Parisotto did not wish their opinions about individual athletes to become public, Dr. Stray-Gundersen's reaction to the "suspicious" scores, in light of the Sunday Times publications, was: "None of these are really that abnormal", satisfied that altitude and pre-2008 factors were "logical explanations". Given the circumstances, in September 2015, he says "Paula is due a public apology" pointing the finger, and placing the blame on: "(insufficiently informed) media and public casting hurtful accusations incorrectly and inappropriately". Nothing since September 2015 has corrected this state in the direction of the media being sufficiently informed, or otherwise justified the public casting hurtful accusations. Rather the WADA IC confirmed that the IAAF did the right thing, that the IAAF was very active in anti-doping, and the problems with the IAAF were elsewhere. On a side note, I just noticed the magnitude of the numbers he selected for his "dehydration" example: "e.g. Hb going from 14 to 17, with retics staying at 1% causes the score to go from 80 to 110", a 3 g/dl, or 21.4% increase in Hb. Note he characterized 110 as "a score still within the normal limits", confirming that he didn't consider Paula's 2012 value of 109.3 abnormal. Dr. Stray-Gundersen did not commit the same fallacy -- the correct handling, absent these details, is to discard them as unreliable for ABP purposes. What would be incorrect handling is attempting to compare two values, to arrive at 21.88% (something rjm33 does repeatedly, as Dr. Shiva and many other pseudonyms) or worse, 30% (something casual obsever says is the "really real value" that even Ross didn't know). To Ashenden/Parisotto's credit, they did not compare two values with each other -- this was something only attempted by newspaper reporters, providing fodder gobbled up by armchair pseudo-experts.

DHT123 wrote:

Interesting find. He also states 'In all our altitude studies, we have never seen an abnormal OFF score being at an altitude camp and coming down to sea level'. Makes you think when you consider the 2012 score........

The other point to make is that 'Jim's' comment is committing exactly the same fallacy as Paula is for ever complaining that Ashenden/Parisotto made - coming to conclusions without having possession of all the facts ("Apparently they were correctly handled and found by experts not to indicate doping')

- i.e. the details of what was written on the blood test form, what processes were followed by the experts etc.

Lastly, - I'm not sure what history you think I altered. The takeaway was that WADA did not support the UCI with regard to Lance Armstrong, as was claimed by "casual obsever" and to characterize otherwise is a rather not subtle alteration of history. At least the CIRC didn't agree. It is clear to me, that if I said nothing, no one would. - Yes, it is highly irregular that Verbruggen was in contact with Armstrong's lawyers, and that Verbruggen was encouraging Armstrong's lawyers to help draft the "independent" report, - The difference with Coe and Paula was that Armstrong's test results were unambiguous positives (at least six, plus two more, which did not meet the criteria, but were also obvious to the testers) for the presence of synthetic EPO, determined by a WADA approved lab (but not sanctionable), while Paula's blood values cannot be considered positives without a proper expert analysis, something Ashenden/Parisotto did not do, and cannot do with pre-2009 values, and the Sunday Times and Daily Mail cannot do with any values. - Paula got this special consideration, because she was essentially the only one attacked by the British newspapers, and therefore the only one requiring this kind of defense. Jeptoo was found to be guilty according to the normal WADA approved process, and not treated unfairly by the press. - Your last statement that the IAAF was, like the UCI, dragged into WADA compliance, or even more suprisingly, that the IAAF was attacking WADA, during the Armstrong saga, is one that needs more support -- links or it didn't happen, and it is you altering history. During the Armstrong years, the IAAF was actively working with WADA on developing a robust ABP.

rekrunner wrote:

Actually you said "On the contrary, it supported UCI in doing nothing about Armstrong".

This is a typical style of mischaracterization from you. It is highly misleading, to be diplomatic.

Correct, right after saying that WADA did nothing about Armstrong.

Then you come along and pretend that they actually acted? All you came up with was WADA allegedly being unhappy with UCI. Wow. That's a lot of action. Not.

Maybe you want to go back and read what I responded to. Then feel free to correct that poster. But no, instead of sticking to the facts, you can't resist making up stuff and trolling me.

Along with personal attacks. No wonder you are a mod here. People who respond in kind get their posts deleted.

rekrunner wrote:

She does say that in her first formal response

Right - and then changed her reasoning as per usual. You two aren't related by any chance?

rekrunner wrote:

The IAAF froze samples in 2005 and later, and the IAAF retested hundreds of frozen samples from Helsinki 2005 and Ottawa 2007 in 2013 and 2015: Source IAAF.

In other words, you lied about Paula's 2005 samples having been retested in 2013 and 2015. Why do you keep making stuff up? Oh well, trolls will be trolls. Gotta run now.

She may have added other reasons, like not wanting to educate wanna be cheaters. There are several possible reasons which can co-exist as to why it is a bad idea to publicly publish raw uninterpreted values out of context. We are not related. Slight correction: The Helsinki samples were retested in 2012, and this was announced in March 2013, in a press release. Regarding Paula specifically, from the IAAF detailed response: "Furthermore, the urine sample collected from Ms Radcliffe when she became marathon world champion on 14 August 2005 was re-analysed by the IAAF seven years later, in November 2012, using the then most up-to-date techniques for rEPO detection. Once again, it tested negative for rEPO." In other words: I didn't lie. I didn't make stuff up. Trolls will be trolls.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

She does say that in her first formal response

Right - and then changed her reasoning as per usual. You two aren't related by any chance?

rekrunner wrote:

The IAAF froze samples in 2005 and later, and the IAAF retested hundreds of frozen samples from Helsinki 2005 and Ottawa 2007 in 2013 and 2015: Source IAAF.

In other words, you lied about Paula's 2005 samples having been retested in 2013 and 2015. Why do you keep making stuff up? Oh well, trolls will be trolls. Gotta run now.

This 'colon' issue Paula has now brought up and people seem to be thinking this might add to changes in blood test scores due to blood loss. Is this really seen as something uncommon? Every time I have run a marathon and probably 80% of half marathons I have suffered from cramping and bloody diarrhea.

It's very common amongst distance runners competing at a high level, numerous biographies I have read talk about having issues with it. I would imagine the blood loss from this is very very small. In Rob Decastella's book he talks about trying to resolve it at the Australian Institute of Sport and he says they found it was harmless and that the lining of the bowel which comes away and is passed repairs and regrows, much like a womans body after mensturation.

rekrunner wrote:

She may have added other reasons, like not wanting to educate wanna be cheaters. There are several possible reasons which can co-exist as to why it is a bad idea to publicly publish raw uninterpreted values out of context.

We are not related.

Slight correction: The Helsinki samples were retested in 2012, and this was announced in March 2013, in a press release. Regarding Paula specifically, from the IAAF detailed response:

"Furthermore, the urine sample collected from Ms Radcliffe when she became marathon world champion on 14 August 2005 was re-analysed by the IAAF seven years later, in November 2012, using the then most up-to-date techniques for rEPO detection. Once again, it tested negative for rEPO."

In other words:

I didn't lie.

I didn't make stuff up.

Trolls will be trolls.

A bunch of posts have again been deleted...what's up with this rekrunner?

It is just a coincidence:

Mr. Weldon Johnson:

And rabbiting, although a difficult job in some aspects, pays very well in the world of running. Outside of appearance fees (which I definitely don't get) it is the only guaranteed payday in the sport (assuming you do your job correctly).

Instead of hearing people cheering for Khalid Khannouchi, Paula Radcliffe or Catherine Ndereba, all I could hear were the 2 loudest voices in the crowd yelling, "LetsRun.com, yeah LetsRun.com". I couldn't help but laugh.

Once we hit the 25 mile marker, I started jogging with a big smile on my face. My job was done, Paula would smash the record, and I could enjoy the final mile.

And I definitely enjoyed it. The marathon is a lot more enjoyable when you can jog it home. Once I started jogging, I began to wonder how slow I'd run it. For I figured if I had gone this far, I might as well get under the Olympic Trials "A" qualifying time of 2:20:00, but I wasn't going to pick it up from my jog. The only good thing is after you've run 25 miles at 5:15 pace, a "jog" apparently is around 6 minute pace. So I finished in 2:18:10 and got a marathon pr to boot.

As for my own "race", or whatever you want to call it, it was definitely the highlight of my year for 2 reasons. First, 2002 had been very frustrating for me in terms of my own running and I thought my comeback from injury was progressing very slowly. But I was surprised with how good I felt during the marathon, and ended up even setting a pr.

It confirmed to me that I can run a lot faster in the marathon. (Whoops. That never happened.)

And secondly Chicago was a highlight of my year, because I got to do my little part to help make history. Paula Radcliffe is simple (sic) an amazing athlete.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE SHE DOESN'T EVEN GET TIRED DURING THE MARATHON. (ha ha ha)

I don't doubt for a second that she could have set the world record without any male escorts, that's how good she is. But nonetheless, after the race, her and her husband Gary must have thanked me a thousand times for doing what the race had paid me to do. That meant a lot to me.

I had met Paula and Gary at Gerard Hartmann's office in Ireland and had seen first hand what an amazing athlete Paula is, but also her complete dedication, (and I mean total dedication that I honestly believe no other athlete in the world has) to the sport. Plus, I had seen the team environment that surrounds her and how it is totally focussed on making Paula the best athlete she can be.

And now that means being the best athlete in the history of the sport.

It's hard to believe but a year ago this week before Paula won the London marathon, she was regarded as a gallant loser by all of Britain. But those around her, never once doubted in her abilities, for they had seen her day to day dedication and talent. Gerard Hartmann's office is really also an athletics museum of sorts. Its walls are covered with pictures and memorabilia from virtually every track and field star you can think of.

However, when I was there, one athlete was conspicuously missing from the walls, Paula Radcliffe, the athlete Gerard works with more than anyone else. I asked when he'd put her up on the walls. "When she wins a Gold Medal" was his reply indicating that's how good she was.

"If I was a small part of Paula's team for a day, it means a lot to me."

rekrunner wrote:

Slight correction: The Helsinki samples were retested in 2012, and this was announced in March 2013, in a press release. Regarding Paula specifically, from the IAAF detailed response:

"Furthermore, the urine sample collected from Ms Radcliffe when she became marathon world champion on 14 August 2005 was re-analysed by the IAAF seven years later, in November 2012, using the then most up-to-date techniques for rEPO detection. Once again, it tested negative for rEPO."

Again, Ramzi had an OFF-score of 157 and no epo was found. Same with the Russians. So Radcliffe popping out a non suspicious sample from the same Championships is rather meaningless.