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

Somehow we missed "celebrating" this milestone: Paula's 2:15 "became the longest marathon world record in history."

It got me wondering about other long-standing records, and I found this:

"The oldest track and field record still standing belongs to Jarmila Kratochvílová from what was then Czechoslovakia, who set the 800m mark back in July 1983. Suspicions were raised that she was aided by performance-enhancing drugs, but nothing was proven, and her record stands. Similar doubts were raised about Marita Koch of East Germany, but her 1985 record in the 400m also stands to this day."

Flo Jo's 100m and 200m records have stood since 1988.

Wang Junxia's 10,000m record has stood since 1993.

Paula's 10k road record has stood since 2003.

So if her marathon record goes unbroken for another 10-20 years, will the general public become convinced she doped? How long do you think it will take before it's broken? Should Paula be hoping it's broken within 5 years? Would that shield her from more investigation?

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/other-sports/london-marathon-2016-paula-radcliffe-relives-her-favourite-moments-14-years-on-from-debut-success-a3230681.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/olympic_infographics_and_data/9397571/Hard-to-beat-longest-held-athletic-records-interactive.html

That article is from August 2015, before the WADA IC report in January.

is the more up to date statement from Ashenden that I was thinking about.

You mean to say you didn't diagnose 'weak mind disease' and refer them to the psychologist/neurologist? Grounds for being struck off methinks!

Uh-oh, a top British cyclist just tested positive for illegal PEDs. But guess what: the drugs were to treat his ASTHMA! And it was HIS DOCTOR'S FAULT!

So move along, nothing to see here. The real problems are the Russians and Kenyans. The Brits are clean, clean, clean!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3564406/Leading-GB-Cyclist-fails-drugs-test-British-Cycling-plunged-crisis.html

The Conversation:

"All but four forms of β2-Agonists are banned for athletes to use in and out of competition by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Clenbuterol, for example, is banned for enhancing strength and power performance as well as reducing body fat. Athletes can use salbutamol, salmeterol, formoterol and terbutaline – although terbutaline is the only one that requires an athlete to apply for a TUE certificate before they can use it.

Salbutamol and formoterol have limits on the amount you can use but do not require special permission. This is because it is possible to distinguish between whether a dose is inhaled (to treat asthma) or taken orally. But this is not possible for terbutaline (and there is no oral form of salmeterol). In other words, once you have an exemption for terbutaline you could in theory use an oral dose without specifically targeting asthma."

The cyclists have been doing heavy doping since 1886.

"Denmark participated in the 1960 Summer Olympic Games+ in Rome riding under the influence of amphetamines+; he collapsed during the 100 km team time trial during the Games, fracturing his skull, and in a nearby Rome hospital shortly thereafter, he was pronounced dead. The autopsy showed he had taken amphetamine+ and another drug, Ronicol+ (Ronicol Retard) (nicotinyl alcohol tartrate), a direct-acting peripheral vasodilator that causes flushing and may decrease blood pressure. (He was also reported as swallowing 8 pills of phenylisopropylamine+, 15 pills of amphetamine and coffee.) The chairman of the Dutch cycling federation, Piet van Dijk, said of Rome that "dope - whole cartloads -[were] used in such royal quantities."

Probably the same phenomena was occurring in running.

Cue the athletic public relation company spin managers for their denials.

Thanks for pointing that out: I hadn't considered the notion that once you're cleared to use an "asthma" treatment, you're free to dose it as heavily as you'd like.

I notice that the UCI (cycling's IAAF) won't suspend Yates for this because it was "the doctor's administrative error." So I guess the key to successful doping these days is to simply find a doctor who will take the fall for everything. If the drug is legal for prescription use, then the doctor can't be held responsible by medical authorities.

Now how can I find a doctor to prescribe me ostrich blood? I wanna be like Paula!

That’s not actually correct @casual observer - that meeting of the nine experts that is referred to didn’t actually take place until 21st Dec (see page 71 of the IC). So given that the newspaper report re: Paula’s statement about the ‘11 out of 12 experts’ is from August 2015, it can’t refer to this. So we still have no idea what this refers to? Interesting to know if this came from an interview with Paula herself or through her PR mouthpiece at Octagon.

Some other interesting titbits from the IC report that people may have forgotten :

Page 64 – ’70 athletes who had atypical results prior to 2009, who were targeted for EPO testing ´and also had blood test after 2009 that were either normal or “suspicious” according to the Adaptive Model and external expert reviews. (It is possible that many of these could have been included among the ‘suspicious’ atheles identified by Asheneden and Parisotto. The IAAF was aware of these cases and shared a report thereon with the WADA expert team).’

So – was Paula among these 70 athletes? I assume she was but this has never been confirmed. And what was in the report that was shared with the WADA expert team?

Page 55 – “No one has, to the knowledge of the IC, challenged the scientific credentials of either Ashenden or Parisotto”. Er, that’ll be apart from Seb Coe, the president of the IAAF referring to them dismissively as ‘These so-called experts – give me a break'. How can this statement be the IC report?!?!

Page 66/67

‘However, in November 2012, because there were 161 atypical passports in respect of which WADA had no news of proper test management, WADA requested a further meeting with the IAAF…….The IAAF explanation (of the delays) was that this took time because the IAAF delegated management of cases to their member NFs, which has no idea how to manage an ABP case’

Throws up so many questions! When did Paula’s January 2012 suspicious test get dealt with, and by which agency? Was this one of the outstanding 161 atypical passports in November 2012?

larkimm wrote:

That article is from August 2015, before the WADA IC report in January.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/01/anti-doping-experts-michael-ashenden-robin-parisotto-issue-statements-response-wada-ic-report-men-willing-let-seb-coe-lead-iaaf-moving-forward/

is the more up to date statement from Ashenden that I was thinking about.

Got it. I am more interested in their rebuttal of the IAAFs "analysis" of Paula's blood values than in the response to WADA's committee's general statements. And look, they indeed included altitude in their investigation, but not as a free out-of-jail card in contrast to the IAAF (a la Hb is high, she was at altitude, altitude causes increased Hb, so it's ok).

I still have to chuckle every time WADA calls its committee, led by the WADA president of the time in question, "independent". This would be like President Clinton next year asking Obama to chair an "Independent" Committee looking into Benghazi! Or maybe closer to your home, larkimm, have Blair investigate MI5's intelligence services leading to the Iraq War.

Interesting. Thank you for pointing this out. Then I suppose she just made up stuff again.

The answers will remain hidden, thanks to the no-transparency policy of WADA and IAAF.

Either they were incompetent, or Coe was protected by Pound. Or both of course. Remember that according to WADAs report part III, Coe should have known about all the corruption and bribery, yet in the end Pound said that Coe is the best person to lead the IAAF. But I am sure larkimm and rekrunner will call that a coincidence too.

In the IAAF report, it sounds like the IAAF organized that, and we know that the first expert considered her explanations to be insufficient (because otherwise it would have stopped right there, without adding two more experts). Apparently hung jury then after the addition of two more, which by design let her get off free. Again, I'd love to know who was on there, what the arguments were, and who voted how. But the answers to these questions will remain hidden too, thanks to the no-transparency policy of WADA and IAAF.

What a surprise that a "member of a professional cycling team" has been using terbutaline without a TUE for his asthma. Yates was using an inhaler and not an oral form. And the problem is of course another administrative error... by the doctor in this case.

Why do so many top level athletes in multiple sports have asthma at a prevalence rate far above the normal population? They should be healthy people to be top level athletes. There is no way all these people actually have asthma.

There is minimal evidence of any PED effect from beta-2 agonists like clenbuterol. There is probably some non-selective binding to beta-3 receptors which could lead to some thermogenic effects and fat loss. Clenbuterol is also weakly anabolic and is fed to cattle in many countries to bulk them up. I think that Contador and others have tried to use eating meat with clenbuterol as their legal defense when they tested positive. I do not believe his excuse.

However, there was a competition in China in some sport I can't remember where many competitors (maybe 30?) tested positive for clenbuterol from multiple countries at the competition where they probably were eating meat from China with a lot of Clenbuterol in it. That excuse I could believe.

Wait just a minute here casual observer and DHT123. I think you may have found something very important here. This part:

DHT123 wrote:

That’s not actually correct @casual observer - that meeting of the nine experts that is referred to didn’t actually take place until 21st Dec (see page 71 of the IC). So given that the newspaper report re: Paula’s statement about the ‘11 out of 12 experts’ is from August 2015, it can’t refer to this. So we still have no idea what this refers to? Interesting to know if this came from an interview with Paula herself or through her PR mouthpiece at Octagon.

Could this '11 out of 12 experts' statement that is from Aug. 2015 refer to another suspicious test result that is not from the 3 that we know about from 2003, 2005, and 2012?

What does test does this statement refer to??? I do not remember hearing about this statement until now.

We need to try to find out more information about this statement. Where did you get this information?

You may have just found something very important.

Paula may have said something she shouldn't have said. She opened her mouth when she should of kept silent about this incident in the past.

Perhaps that was a mistake on her part.

I am just here to help Paula Radcliffe out as I mentioned on another thread:

it happens! wrote:

Back in the late 90s, I got to pace Paula Radcliffe in a domestic 1500m here in the UK.

Anyway, I was obviously going too slow and got spiked and tripped out at about 500m.

The weirdest thing was I ended up needing stretchered off as my whole calf was pretty badly injured.

What you get for trying to help out.

rjm33 wrote:

That seems to happen a lot when people are just trying to help out Paula Radcliffe. Just a

I think you are starting from distorted facts.You gave us a "telegraph.co.uk" reference that the WADA IC, and later Dick Pound, found that the "IAAF President" Coe should have known about the doping, and lack of sanctions. I think the "telegraph" got it irresponsibly wrong. I think you shouldn't look at the UK Media to interpret a report for you, but if you want the WADA IC's findings, you should look at the report that they published.When I look at the real report, the WADA IC doesn't ever single out Coe, but found that, collectively, that someone (or someones) of the 27-Member "IAAF Council could not have been unaware...". Somebody (or somebodies), not necessarily Coe, on the Council, must have been aware that some doping cases were stalled, and should have acted.On the contrary, the only "specific" comments from Dick Pound about Coe, defended Coe's unawareness with comments like "VP's don't meet often", "President has a lot of unchecked power", and that during this period, "Coe was focused on London 2012 Olympics".Everyone, even Ross Tucker, seems to find these statements contradictory, but when you consider the first one isn't exclusively, or necessarily even, about Coe, then it shouldn't be hard to see that they are not contradictory at all.

casual obsever wrote:

DHT123 wrote:

That’s not actually correct @casual observer ...

...Remember that according to WADAs report part III, Coe should have known about all the corruption and bribery, yet in the end Pound said that Coe is the best person to lead the IAAF. But I am sure larkimm and rekrunner will call that a coincidence too.

I think you are confusing yourself with some common laymen interpretation of the word "independent".It's entirely possible for the IAAF Ethics Commission to be independent of the IAAF, and the WADA Independent Commission to be independent of WADA, depending on how the organisation is structured, and how freely it's allowed to execute its mandate. Do you have any evidence of interference from the respective organisations?But we don't even need to go that far. In this specific case, we don't have the WADA IC investigating WADA, but investigating the actions, or inactions, of the IAAF. The independence, or not, between the WADA IC and WADA is not a factor.Ahh, but I see you have also questioned the independence of WADA and the IAAF (another example of our "difference of facts"). Here I have to agree with "larkimm", that you need to provide some evidence to restore your credibility.I can see why you need WADA and the IAAF to be in collusion. The WADA IC pretty much dismissed all of the Sunday Times allegations, and the analysis by Ashenden and Parisotto, and supported the IAAF's detailed response as scientifically sound. Without a new accusation of dependency, you would be forced to rethink your conclusions about Coe, Paula, and the IAAF.If you truly believe that WADA and the IAAF are in collusion, covering up and protecting each other, because "the show must go on", I'd like to see a whole lot of basis for that. I think history shows that WADA and Dick Pound have unwaveringly only fought against doping.You've accused Dick Pound of cronyism, but history shows that he's known for hindering his career by always speaking his mind and stepping on the toes of any potential cronies.Since you like analogies, blaming Coe for the corruption and scandal is like blaming Obama for invading Iraq.

casual obsever wrote:

I still have to chuckle every time WADA calls its committee, led by the WADA president of the time in question, "independent". This would be like President Clinton next year asking Obama to chair an "Independent" Committee looking into Benghazi! Or maybe closer to your home, larkimm, have Blair investigate MI5's intelligence services leading to the Iraq War.

rjm33 wrote:

Why do so many top level athletes in multiple sports have asthma at a prevalence rate far above the normal population? They should be healthy people to be top level athletes. There is no way all these people actually have asthma.

I dug into this since the story broke. Apparently asthma meds are incredibly useful for weight loss. It's a very, very old method of doping that is permitted under a TUE.

Changing the subject, so Paula's claim of "many experts said everything was okay." has no basis in fact that can be verified, and conflicts with other facts.

This is average for Paula's handling of her doping disclosure crisis.

BTW, how long ago did Seppelt's story break now? I'm imagining a year or more. If only Paula had permitted discussion of her data this thread would be dead and buried like so many Jamin threads. She could have gotten on with her life as an IAAF aparatchik.

Instead, the facts just eat away at her misdirections and lies and her credibility erodes.

Transfusion cheats out Paula.

I see what you did there with "Apparatchik." You're trying to link her to the Russians, who have been running a big time doping ring. Some people think there's no way the Russians have had organized doping, because if they did Liliya Shobukhova would have shattered Paula's record.Well, we caught Liliya, and it just goes to show that Paula is an amazing, incredible athlete and her record will never be surpassed because she's just that amazing.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

BTW, how long ago did Seppelt's story break now? I'm imagining a year or more. If only Paula had permitted discussion of her data this thread would be dead and buried like so many Jamin threads. She could have gotten on with her life as an IAAF aparatchik.

Instead, the facts just eat away at her misdirections and lies and her credibility erodes.

Transfusion cheats out Paula.

Good point. And now I have to get out my dictionary to try to find out what these words are that you are using.

I have just found out that a possible plural form for "apparatchik" is "apparatchiki". Let me try to use the word in a sentence:

Paula Radcliffe and Lord Sebastian Coe are members of the IAAF apparatchiki.

That was fun to use the fancy word in a sentence.

It's remarkable that womens marathon ing seems to be plateauing at 2.20-2.23 at the moment... Pretty similar to where it was 25 years ago. The men's race (one off exceptions aside) seems to be back around the 2.06/7 mark... Or where it was 25 years ago. Clean limits?? Paula's time is looking increasingly ridiculous, take a look at the guys running 2.15 last weekend in London... Most have half pbs of 64 and 20k pbs of 28.... Her 2.15 is prob worth 2.14 in Berlin. Crazy stuff.

That's a stretch, but nevertheless good misdirection on your part.

The apparatchik here refers to a member of a corrupt organization.