Wejo (and others): Tell me why Paula wasn't a doper.

that may be but, unless she confesses for some unknown reason, this can never be proven.

It would never be in her best interest to confess so the chances of that happening are close to zero.

TVC15. wrote:

old doesn't mean bad.

A new thread on the subject could be started but no need to reinvent the wheel.

Oh boy. A new thread or old thread about Paula? It does not make any difference. They are all so fun!

Following a 19-month layoff that included the birth of her second child, she returned to action at the Bupa London 10 km, where she finished 3rd, 55 seconds behind the winner, Jo Pavey. Radcliffe called the performance "a bit of a disaster". The winner of the race was JO PAVEY.

And from Wiki on Paula's claims of absolute 100% transparency:

Since the 1999 European Cup, Radcliffe wears a red ribbon when competing to show her support for blood testing as a method of catching drugs cheats.[108][111]

She has previously asked for the results of a blood test taken at the London Marathon to be made public, saying that she had "absolutely no objection to my test being released".[115]

In 2015, in the wake of revelations of widespread doping in athletics,[116] Radcliffe said that, unlike some other prominent British athletes, she would not be releasing her blood-test history, and discouraged other athletes from doing so.[117] She was later indirectly identified as a suspected doper by MP Jesse Norman during a parliamentary inquiry into blood doping.[118][119] In response, Radcliffe issued a statement in which she "categorically denied" cheating in any form and said she has "nothing to hide".[120]

Shortly afterwards, her three suspect test results were leaked, though Radcliffe still refused to release her complete blood-test history.[121] In late November 2015, the IAAF declared that the accusation were ‘based on the gross misinterpretation of incomplete data’. The UK Anti Doping Agency, having received Radcleffe's blood test history via the IAAF, stated that "Ukad has come to the same conclusion as the IAAF review that there is no case to answer".[122]

OK? Move along now.

There is nothing to see here in the 100% transparency of Paula Radcliffe.

That's what she wants you to believe.

If she had nothing to hide and said she would never have anything to hide; uhm, then, like, WHY did she hide it?

Is it true that Radcliffe was the one who tipped off WADA about Shobukhova? And that's how Paula got amnesty for all of her suspicious blood values, and why nobody will retest them now?

In 2002, nobody, even the scientists, were aware how much the blood data could be affected by the collection process, by the brand of analyzer, and several other factors, hindering the development of a robust and reliable blood passport program. These factors increase the probability of false positives -- the very measure which determines official thresholds of suspicion in the ABP.As we have seen by these lengthy Paula threads, some of the public, with a classic display of confirmation bias, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias, will misinterpret the published values to fit their pre-judgements, and ignore or downplay evidence supporting alternative possibilities.

rjm33 wrote:

...

And from Wiki on Paula's claims of absolute 100% transparency:

...

There is nothing to see here in the 100% transparency of Paula Radcliffe.

No. No one tipped off anyone about Shobukhova. She was sanctioned by the IAAF based on the collected blood values.

Rumour has it wrote:

Is it true that Radcliffe was the one who tipped off WADA about Shobukhova? And that's how Paula got amnesty for all of her suspicious blood values, and why nobody will retest them now?

Of course it does not prove anything except that her statements about transparency and anti-drug statements never counted for anything. What is interesting is how much people bought into that as an argument.You can't trust your high opinion of a person for doping assessments. As rekrunner said in another response, the whole system was and is flawed so we can't trust the performances until we have a good, working system. We are left watching the records get older.

rekrunner wrote:

Nothing really.

casual obsever wrote:

+1

All these years, as shown in this thread and other contemporary reports, her alleged transparency was used as an argument for her to be clean. Now that she is outspoken against transparency, hmmm, what does that tell us?

Wondered the same wrote:

Of course it does not prove anything except that her statements about transparency and anti-drug statements never counted for anything. What is interesting is how much people bought into that as an argument.

You can't trust your high opinion of a person for doping assessments. As rekrunner said in another response, the whole system was and is flawed so we can't trust the performances until we have a good, working system.

We are left watching the records get older.

+1. To all of the above.

IMHO:

- the older the record, the more suspicious

- the more outstanding the record, the more suspicious

The various off scores, elevated Hb values with normal ret-%, newly found anti-transparency attitude, conflicting statements etc. complete the picture.

Did I say that? That doesn't sound like anything I ever wanted to say. There were flaws, and anti-doping has improved with a reliable ABP, but just the same, there are many performances you can trust, even during the '90s and '00s.

Wondered the same wrote:

... As rekrunner said in another response, the whole system was and is flawed so we can't trust the performances until we have a good, working system.

I completely disagree with this. Specifically that faster records are more suspicious. This is just ludicrous. If drugs are what let athletes like Paula and Genzebe and Bolt be so amazing, then why are other athletes not close? We know there are plenty of other dopers out there.

It certainly doesn't mean they are clean, but there's nothing inherently suspicious about fast times. They just mean you have a freak of nature.

The letter why wrote:

I completely disagree with this. Specifically that faster records are more suspicious. This is just ludicrous. If drugs are what let athletes like Paula and Genzebe and Bolt be so amazing, then why are other athletes not close? We know there are plenty of other dopers out there.

It certainly doesn't mean they are clean, but there's nothing inherently suspicious about fast times. They just mean you have a freak of nature.

*A* freak of nature - maybe. But during the nineties and early aughts we had many many runners running times that have hardly been duplicated since and, we know, the availability of a drug which profoundly improves endurance performance and was, at that time, undetectable.

I think in these dicussions, there are two standards which are - I'd say purposely - being conflated.

1. The standards used in a court of law

2. The standards used in the court of public opinion

Do we have sufficient evidence to meet the standards for conviction in a court of law? Not in Paula's case most likely. (Although, I'd sure like to have a warrant in hand and engage in legal finding of fact in her case...)

But in the court of public opinion, where the standards for conviction are not those in a court room, it should be no surprise that Paula has been judged guilty. *Her* surprise at this is, at best, disingenous. Many view it, rightly in my opinion as damning. I think anyone in her position, faced with a choice between the loss of our reputation in sport - which is all Paula has to trade at this point - and possible misunderstandings based on releasing the data, would, without hesitation, release the data. All of it. Her obstinate refusal to do so adds gasoline to the fire.

I mean to say we would release the data *if* we were innocent. The fact that Paula hasn't is what's damning.

We have learned from Lance Armstrong.

If you beat the dopers at that level by that much that consistently, you are doping.

What you forget about Paula is that she lives in a bubble. She and her family reside in the tax haven of Monaco where they surround themselves with true believers. She hires a PR firm to try to salvage her public image so she doesn't need to be exposed to the opinions of the unwashed masses.And now that Seb has control of IAAF, she can even work in a bubble where she and Coe can butt slap each other all day.She is like the old-time British Royalty who would never leave the castle so they'd never hear how much the citizenry despised them.

Link wrote:

But in the court of public opinion, where the standards for conviction are not those in a court room, it should be no surprise that Paula has been judged guilty. *Her* surprise at this is, at best, disingenous. Many view it, rightly in my opinion as damning. I think anyone in her position, faced with a choice between the loss of our reputation in sport - which is all Paula has to trade at this point - and possible misunderstandings based on releasing the data, would, without hesitation, release the data. All of it. Her obstinate refusal to do so adds gasoline to the fire.

TVC15. wrote:

that may be but, unless she confesses for some unknown reason, this can never be proven.

It would never be in her best interest to confess so the chances of that happening are close to zero.

Wrong again.

If she would permit publishing of an analysis of her scores in the leaked testing data, we'd know with some degree of confidence.

I wonder why an athlete claiming to be clean threatens any discussion of her clean scores with lawsuits? She's clean, right? It should be no problem.

Rumour has it wrote:

Is it true that Radcliffe was the one who tipped off WADA about Shobukhova? And that's how Paula got amnesty for all of her suspicious blood values, and why nobody will retest them now?

There's no truth to any of that. ARD's report that implicated Paula was based on the data the IAAF sees. The sports federation knows and sees all scores. They knew how dirty Shubakova was and they knew how dirty Paula was.

WADA's only purpose is to maintain a drugs testing standard and certify interested parties are compliant with those standards. They have no authority to sanction any athlete.

The letter why wrote:

I completely disagree with this. Specifically that faster records are more suspicious. This is just ludicrous. If drugs are what let athletes like Paula and Genzebe and Bolt be so amazing, then why are other athletes not close? We know there are plenty of other dopers out there.

It certainly doesn't mean they are clean, but there's nothing inherently suspicious about fast times. They just mean you have a freak of nature.

Well, that is a question of statistics. You have to be a freak of nature to run a world record, you have to be an extreme freak of nature to run a world record much better than the previous one, and even more extreme to run one that is unbreakable for years. Obviously the last scenario is the least likely one, which is may I'd call such a performance "more suspicious", no more, no less.

Then, it is unimaginably unlikely to run such a record, unbeatable for decades, as a clean runner against all the dopers.

Adding to this is the observation that Paula won exactly zero medals as a professional runner in any world championchip or Olympics before turning 28. That's right, not even a single third place, unlike for example Rupp. Then within three years, she beats everyone repeatedly by a large margin in the marathon, while in parallel also destroying her own 5000 m PR.

(Can you imagine what would happen if Rupp ran a 2:01 in October, and then a 1:59 next year?)

After that, in the nick of time, she went from a 2:15/2:17-marathoni to being a 2:23-marathoni.

So, was she the most extreme freak of nature ever from age 28 - 30, but neither before or after, or was she a freak of nature who also responded well to doping? If anything, the above indicates that she was clean (or at least less dirty) until 2001, and then cut back on the dosis (for fear of being caught) in 2005.

(Her suspected hardcore EPO usage in 2012, as evident from the 16.2 g/dl combined with normal ret-% despite altitude, could then be interpreted as a last desperate attempt to go back to the winning days before retiring.)

At the age of 20, when you would expect her to be near the peak of her potential for the distance, she ran 2:47 for 1000 meters. Nine years later, she set her PR for 300 meters 8:22. For those of you who are arithmetically challenged, 2:47 x 3 = 8:21.

For those of you who are analytically challenged, and, so, not shocked by that, I'll ask this: Name for me please a runner who tripled up on a lifetime PR near their 30th birthday. It's possible, but, given that Paula was already a world beater at 20 and not some running ingenue, it is extremely unlikely.

Extremely.

I think Wejo (and others) are realizing that no one, not a man nor woman, can recover like Radcliffe supposedly did naturally. NO ONE runs 5:15/mi pace day in and day out. I don't care how "talented" you are, and I've run with many guys faster than Paula.