Sunday Mail Has More Details on Paula's Blood Values and Off Scores + News She'll Put up £1m for an MRI lie detector

rjm33 wrote:

I only implied Pound would be better than Coe. I do not trust Dick Pound either. He had a lot of trouble giving answers to the tough questions.

Pound is still defending Ben Johnson, like Coe Paula. The more one hears, the more ridiculous that sounds.

@cleans: I found what Paula might have meant with her "only one of ten experts" remark. That wasn't with regards to 2012, where 1 - 2 out of 3 considered her to have been most likely blood-doping, but 2015, when WADA called for a meeting with Ashenden and "eight scientists and lawyers from the IAAF and WADA" (ok, one out of nine):

"It is unfortunate that WADA, far from a disinterested party, decided to adjudicate a dispute between the two Australian experts and the IAAF, as played out in the media. The experts that WADA brought together to weigh in on this dispute included Ashenden, and eight scientists and lawyers from the IAAF and WADA. Not a single independent expert was consulted. The involvement of interested parties only, heavily slanted to one side, likely contributed to the IC conclusions lacking in nuance or balance."

She conveniently forgot to mention that it was an independent expert (Ashenden) vs. eight hand-picked IAAF/WADA guys, including lawyers. Could WADA show its pro-doping attitude more obviously without directly admitting to it?

casual obsever wrote:

Could WADA show its pro-doping attitude more obviously without directly admitting to it?

Irrespective of anything else constructive that you've contributed to this thread, you just lost all credibility with me (though I'm equally sure you believe me to have no credibility either).

You cannot suggest WADA is "pro-doping" any more than claim the earth is flat and that little green men abducted you three years ago to perform experiments on you.

Ludicrous!

larkimm wrote:

You cannot suggest WADA is "pro-doping" any more than claim the earth is flat and that little green men abducted you three years ago to perform experiments on you.

That is just my humble conclusion from years of observation. How else do you explain, among other things, why their group of experts was so "heavily slanted to one side"?

casual obsever wrote:

larkimm wrote:

You cannot suggest WADA is "pro-doping" any more than claim the earth is flat and that little green men abducted you three years ago to perform experiments on you.

That is just my humble conclusion from years of observation. How else do you explain, among other things, why their group of experts was so "heavily slanted to one side"?

That's a judgement made by one online journalist. I don't have to explain why he thought to write that.

Perhaps, as with flat earthers (or perhaps more appropriately, global warming experts) the reason they were heavily slanted to one side was because that one side had credibility and standing. You wouldn't expect a UN debate on global warming to give equal weight to Sarah Palin as to the hoardes of scientists in a debate about whether global warming was happening or not.

Ashenden seems to have accepted that there is legitimate criticism of his methods and conclusions (albeit that he stands by some of his conclusions).

larkimm wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Could WADA show its pro-doping attitude more obviously without directly admitting to it?

Irrespective of anything else constructive that you've contributed to this thread, you just lost all credibility with me (though I'm equally sure you believe me to have no credibility either).

You cannot suggest WADA is "pro-doping" any more than claim the earth is flat and that little green men abducted you three years ago to perform experiments on you.

Ludicrous!

Larkie, which one do you work for?

The little green men. I used to work for the flat earth society, but I was got fired after I took a round the world cruise.

I'd be interested to know the views of you guys on the Mark Bonar story getting swept under the carpet.

Is it because the guy was making it up?

If not, then why isn't there some kind of investigation going ahead? At least the Fuentes stuff was formally investigated, even if we are all unhappy with the fact the the blood bags have not been released (and never will be).

This is as a good a sum-up as there is on the topic.

http://europe.newsweek.com/mark-bonar-british-doping-scandal-448163?rm=eu

It's a great example of passing off responsibility. Ukad doesn't want to deal with it because of likely political fallout. Dick Pound blames Wada's ineffectiveness on the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

There are enough intertwined players that nobody feels the need to stick their neck out. And all of the cronies know they don't have a 40-year career at the top of the sport if they stick their neck out.

It's time for the public to take control of the problem with a backlash against sponsors of dopers and federations.

Reuters:

"Russia, whose participation in the Rio Olympics' athletics programme is in doubt due to a doping scandal, accounted for 148 of the 1,693 failed tests recorded, according to WADA's 2014 Anti-Doping Rule Violations Report.

Italy (123), India (96), Belgium (91), France (91), Turkey (73), Australia (49), China (49), Brazil (46) and South Korea (43) rounded out the top 10 spots"

Hey rj, Italy was #2 in failed tests.

casual obsever wrote:

larkimm wrote:

You cannot suggest WADA is "pro-doping" any more than claim the earth is flat and that little green men abducted you three years ago to perform experiments on you.

That is just my humble conclusion from years of observation. How else do you explain, among other things, why their group of experts was so "heavily slanted to one side"?

Wait a second here.

How did larkimm find out that little green men abducted and performed experiments on me 3 years ago?

Does he also know that the 33% extraterrestrial "junk DNA" experiments involved ostrich blood, beet juice, and baking soda?

Where is fred? We are having an emergency security breach situation.

fred wrote:

Reuters:

"Russia, whose participation in the Rio Olympics' athletics programme is in doubt due to a doping scandal, accounted for 148 of the 1,693 failed tests recorded, according to WADA's 2014 Anti-Doping Rule Violations Report.

Italy (123), India (96), Belgium (91), France (91), Turkey (73), Australia (49), China (49), Brazil (46) and South Korea (43) rounded out the top 10 spots"

Hey rj, Italy was #2 in failed tests.

If they try harder they may be able to move into the #1 position this year as Russia may have some trouble maintaining their #1 ranking. I can't even remember how many years in a row they have been on top of the rankings.

They may have a ranking list going that far back in time at the Track & Field News website.

fred wrote:

Reuters:

"Russia, whose participation in the Rio Olympics' athletics programme is in doubt due to a doping scandal, accounted for 148 of the 1,693 failed tests recorded, according to WADA's 2014 Anti-Doping Rule Violations Report.

Italy (123), India (96), Belgium (91), France (91), Turkey (73), Australia (49), China (49), Brazil (46) and South Korea (43) rounded out the top 10 spots"

Hey rj, Italy was #2 in failed tests.

Just like to point out that only one T&F athlete, a second rate walker, is currently amongst those Australians serving a ban for PEDs, most are weight lifters, body builders, rugby league/AFL footballers:

The irony of your flat earth comparison, larkimm, is that you are the one siding with the authority (church/WADA) - trying to maintain the status quo - and its self-chosen anonymous experts with their secret reviews against the neutral scientist publishing his findings under his name (Galileo/Ashenden). As for "just one online journalist", this came from "Ross Tucker (left, professor, Uni of the Free State, South Africa) & Roger Pielke Jnr (right, professor, University of Colorado-Boulder)". As for Ashenden's and Parisotto's response, read and weep: http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/blood-experts-michael-ashenden-and-robin-parisotto-respond-to-serious-reservations-expressed-by-iaaf/

(with more details below)

cleans wrote:

This is as a good a sum-up as there is on the topic.

http://europe.newsweek.com/mark-bonar-british-doping-scandal-448163?rm=eu

Oh oh. There Tucker talks like some of us here; larkimm will declare his credibility to be gone:

"It is UKAD’s apparent failure to act that is so damaging, and not only because it forces the realization that doping is the world’s problem, and not that of eastern European and isolated African nations. Primarily, this is so damaging because it reiterates the doubt that authorities have either the will, or the way, to fulfil their mandate of keeping sport clean."

But wait, he was already discredited as some online journalist, so he probably never had credibility in larkimm's eyes.

Great find casual observer.

And Lord Coe called these guys "so called experts".

Actually they are two of the top ABP and doping "experts" in the world.

IAAF vs. Ashenden and Parisotto

Which side do you trust?

The choice is easy.

Ashenden also did a stinging response to Coe in a published letter that was really good. In it he mentioned that the response of the IAAF to suspicious blood test results by Shobukhova was not targeted testing...but a suspension of ALL testing of Shobukhova.

Not exactly the optimal response to suspicious blood test results by the IAAF.

[COLOR=red]CLEANS[/COLOR]

casual obsever wrote:

As for Ashenden's and Parisotto's response, read and weep:

"Finally, we note the IAAF’s confirmation that the database is “not a secret or hidden document in any way” and that the IAAF welcomes the opportunity to present to the Independent Commission. We therefore call on the IAAF to give a public undertaking that it will immediately share the entire database with Dick Pound’s independent review."

Anyone seen it yet?

Ah, yes, I remember: Transparency = Confusion = Misplaced Suspicion.

I liked the parts in their response on the standard blood testing protocol used before 2009 and that they did account for altitude adjustments to the scores in the analysis. They also looked at the entire ABP, not just an isolated OFF score.

Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto are real experts on the ABP.

I trust Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto.

cleans wrote:

This is as a good a sum-up as there is on the topic.

http://europe.newsweek.com/mark-bonar-british-doping-scandal-448163?rm=eu

Dr. Bonar again. Oh my.

I have had several runners over the years that have come to me with the suggestion that they needed medical "treatment" which was "needed" to treat their medical condition. They suggested that the "treatment" could involve the use of things like testosterone gel, levothyroxine, and/or EPO.

I then told them that I did not think that they "needed" any of these suggested "treatments" for any medical condition.

One time a runner then asked me if he could get me to change my opinion if he gave me several thousand dollars.

I then told him..."You will never have enough money to get me to change my opinion. And by the way, the exit door on the way out is to your left."