OMG, I totally wish Paula Radcliffe gets caught/outted.

Just looking at this. While I appreciate your logic, perhaps some athletes don't.... can you still look at Bradley Wiggins in the same way?

Not Ron Hill wrote:

One such is Paula, a national heroine.

She is not stupid, what sort of a life would she have in Britain, were it ever revealed she wasn't clean when racing?

She doesn't live in Britain.

Plus, where do you see a significant difference to Baumann, Leder, Slaney, Jeptoo, Gay or Gatlin? All of them were household names before getting caught, some of them even World or Olympic Champion.

Look at it this way: internationally, she couldn't get any further until 2001 (age 28, no Olympic medal, no World Medal), and then she went all out from '02 - '05. During those years, she got flagged at least twice by the IAAF because of her anomalous blood values, set a couple of still unbeatable world records, ran 2:15, and improved even her 5000 m PB as a marathoner. Doorbell Mo anyone?

After she was flagged for the second time, and the second generation EPO test came out in 2005, she couldn't even run 2:22 anymore.

Oh, before rekrunner goes all crazy on me: a) all of the above can be proven; b) all of the above could have been crazy coincidences, hypothetically speaking.

I have no doubt you can come up with a proof that seems solid in your mind. And it will surely downplay/dismiss/ignore several realities. Regarding "she got flagged at least twice by the IAAF because of her anomalous blood values", this is a double lie, because 1) the IAAF did not flag them, and 2) they were not anomalous:- The IAAF never flagged these values as anomalous in 2003 or 2005 (or at anytime thereafter) because all of the blood parameters were within normal thresholds at the time they were collected and analyzed- They simply failed to meet the pre-established criteria required for suspicion- These values were first flagged as "suspicious" in 2015 by two Australian scientists, performing an analysis on data that was not suitable for this analysis, and lacking necessary supplementary information about the data they had- The reliability of this "suspicion" must be viewed in the light of the many conclusions which can be found in the many papers authored by these very scientists- The IAAF would reject these values for inclusion in any ABP analysis, because they were collected under conditions known to produce false positives, and below the standards required to produce reliable data for a long-term ABP profile analysis -- the kind performed by these two scientists- She set two world records before Oct. 2003 -- there is no established correlation between these world record performances, and these alleged "anomalous" values flagged by the Australian scientists 12 years laterRegarding her sudden performance improvements in 2001, Andrew Jones published a paper that shows a steady progression of Paula's running economy from 1992-2003, with no significant change in her VO2max. There was nothing special about 2001-2003, except the continuation of the steady progression of "non-oxygen" related improvements to speed that had been observed between 1992-2001.Surely you must know all these things, as they have been pointed out to you before.Your proof will no doubt require faith in data that might exist, but has not been collected or measured or observed. One of the pillars of the foundation of your proof will rely on a "lack of knowledge" -- things you don't know, but just assume in your favor because your proof would fail without it.

rekrunner wrote:

I have no doubt you can come up with a proof that seems solid in your mind. And it will surely downplay/dismiss/ignore several realities. Regarding "she got flagged at least twice by the IAAF because of her anomalous blood values", this is a double lie, because 1) the IAAF did not flag them, and 2) they were not anomalous

Incorrect. I haven proven this to you before, namely by the fact (according to the IAAF itself) that the IAAF target-tested her with EPO tests directly after these observations. Yes, again, at that time the IAAF used the expensive EPO test, as useless as it was, only in such cases, like the testo test when the T/E ratio exceeds 4 : 1.

And please, even you can't keep a straight face by pretending that an increase of 30% in hemoglobin concentration after running for 67 minutes in the low 70s under scattered clouds is not anomalous. Remember how Paula lied under the weather conditions, and the IAAF went along with it in its cover-up last year?

See for example Tucker's demonstration, who was almost speechless, although he thought there was only an increase of 23%.

At least you don't argue with the other facts...

Your proofs fail now for the very same reasons they failed then.Here you wanted to claim the double lie that the two blood values were flagged by the IAAF as anomalous. You must already be aware that the IAAF claimed:"the HGB and RET% values from the 4 October 2003 sample were below the IAAF's respective thresholds at the time""the OFF-score from this sample (6 August 2005) was below the stipulated threshold (which was 123 for female athletes)"Your proof doesn't address these fatal contradictions, but instead fabricates a new definition of "flagged as anonymous".It's ridiculous to suggest that requesting a urine test for EPO is somehow an admission that IAAF considered the blood values anomalous.Indeed, the IAAF adopted a strategy to reduce overall testing costs by using cheaper blood tests as indicators for EPO urine tests, but this was not exclusive -- or did you already prove that too?I agree a 30% increase in haemoglobin concentration would be anomalous. But I already "proved" to you, armed with papers from Ashenden, that a 30% difference (or 22%) cannot be considered real, for several additive reasons besides hemoconcentration (and notably, Ashenden and Parisotto did not base arguments on differences between two blood values, but on single values exceeding population thresholds).Your "proof" needs to show that the 30% change is real by giving the measurements of the two values the same level of scepticism you usually reserve for me.There are several external signs that an HGB measurement of 12.0 (or 12.8) is too low to be considered accurate -- especially considering a recent stay at altitude.Your reliance on 67 minutes as not long enough, based on studies at much lower intensities, is misguided -- I've already "proved" that 6 minutes at 90% of VO2max is enough to produce a 12.4% plasma shift, without even breaking a sweat.Your reliance on the weather is another red herring -- I've already "proved" that 23 C is enough, making allegations about lies and coverups of 29 C moot.Your arguments fail because 67 minutes, and weather in the low 70s with scattered clouds is not as significant as you believe, or you need it to be.Ross Tucker had enough speech left to close with statements including "Her explanations are all plausible..." and "I’m not so cynical that I think she’s doped". He argued, like me, for more information before jumping to conclusions.

Is Rudisha clean? I really want him to be.

Any other examples of athletes who were not doping who had 30% swings in hematocrit within 3 days after a 1/2 marathon race? The IAAF did not show any.

Any actual proof that the 12.0 or 12.8 Hb measurement was inaccurate ?- such as a confirmation from a lab technician or scientist that the lab equipment was mis-calibrated resulting in a batch of samples being mis-measured? The IAAF have offered no evidence of this.

In fact, the IAAF offered no solid evidence to support any of their excuses for the unusual blood test results and their was zero effort to provide any further data to support the accused athlete. They just gave a whitewash report to cover up for one of their employees.

tester of tests wrote:

Is Rudisha clean? I really want him to be.

Yes he showered this morning

Newsnight. wrote:

tester of tests wrote:

Is Rudisha clean? I really want him to be.

Yes he showered this morning

Same for Paula. Game over.

tester of tests wrote:

Newsnight. wrote:

Yes he showered this morning

Same for Paula. Game over.

Rekrunner, take a lesson about the length of your posts from this exchange. Try to generate doubt in one or two sentences.

That is almost impossible given the collection of facts Radcliffe didn't even bother to track before the last round of excuses. Good luck.

"There was nothing special about 2001-2003, except the continuation of the steady progression of "non-oxygen" related improvements to speed that had been observed between 1992-2001."

OMG, Rekrunner is Jon Orange.

I see details and context don't resonate well with an audience used to soundbites.Aren't forums supposed to be for discussion?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Rekrunner, take a lesson about the length of your posts from this exchange. Try to generate doubt in one or two sentences.

That is almost impossible given the collection of facts Radcliffe didn't even bother to track before the last round of excuses. Good luck.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

tester of tests wrote:

Same for Paula. Game over.

Rekrunner, take a lesson about the length of your posts from this exchange. Try to generate doubt in one or two sentences.

That is almost impossible given the collection of facts Radcliffe didn't even bother to track before the last round of excuses. Good luck.

Pop_pop, Reky will never change his mind, set in stone, in his view these supernatural performances are legit. It's a joke pure and simple.

The IAAF rebuttal was full of details and supporting references. Only 3 1/2 pages (out of 25) were devoted to Paula.They showed, backed by mountains of research, you simply can't do these comparisons, without proof the measures are accurate, for many independent reasons.Trying to prove the opposite, and find the exact non-doping contributions to a 30% swing between two uncontrolled measurements, is like trying find back the original colours, after mixing a rainbow of colours of paint.And why should they? For whom? Once the WADA IC endorsed the IAAF rebuttal as sound, the book on Paula was closed, for all of the experts in the IAAF, WADA, UKAD, and Ashenden and Parisotto, Even the British press has moved on. Really, who's left?

biomecanix wrote:

Any other examples of athletes who were not doping who had 30% swings in hematocrit within 3 days after a 1/2 marathon race? The IAAF did not show any.

Any actual proof that the 12.0 or 12.8 Hb measurement was inaccurate ?- such as a confirmation from a lab technician or scientist that the lab equipment was mis-calibrated resulting in a batch of samples being mis-measured? The IAAF have offered no evidence of this.

In fact, the IAAF offered no solid evidence to support any of their excuses for the unusual blood test results and their was zero effort to provide any further data to support the accused athlete. They just gave a whitewash report to cover up for one of their employees.

It's just a plain reading from the paper. There was no late old age surge in performance, but a Rupp-like steady progression measured from 1992 to 2003.

Running Up Mountains wrote:

"There was nothing special about 2001-2003, except the continuation of the steady progression of "non-oxygen" related improvements to speed that had been observed between 1992-2001."

OMG, Rekrunner is Jon Orange.

I will change if you can give me reliable data to support some of the mythology.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Pop_pop, Reky will never change his mind, set in stone, in his view these supernatural performances are legit. It's a joke pure and simple.

biomecanix wrote:

In fact, the IAAF offered no solid evidence to support any of their excuses for the unusual blood test results and their was zero effort to provide any further data to support the accused athlete. They just gave a whitewash report to cover up for one of their employees.

Indeed. Plus, the IAAF didn't even mention the 30% increase; they just generally admitted that Paula's OFF score was elevated, and then cited articles that showed that yes, exercise can elevate OFF scores. That was such an obvious whitewash. Ludicrous, that Coe's buddy Pound went along with it. The good old old boys network is still working.

The same goes for the couple of lines written on Paula's behalf by Plan-B Saugy, who also didn't mention any values. Anyone who calls that a review has never seen a real review or is trolling or a paid shill.

For the "plasma shift" argument, such a shift is possible but disappears within the first 20 minutes after the exercise. Note that Paula was tested somewhere between 60 and 90 minutes after her race. Even the IAAF didn't mention "plasma shift" in their whitewash "report".

rekrunner wrote:

There was no late old age surge in performance, but a Rupp-like steady progression measured from 1992 to 2003.

Interesting comparison. Yes, like Rupp before his Olympic silver, she also got typically dropped in or even before the last round. Best result: one silver, Worlds 99, 10000 m.

Ignoring her plateau from 97 - 00 and her jump thereafter, her case would be comparable to Rupp's if Rupp would (or better, would have by now) run a 2:01 and then a 1:59 the year after (under great conditions ;-) of course).

Then we could debate whether Rupp's 1:59 validates Radcliffe's 2:15, or whether both performances are indicative of cheating.

Oh, and to be really comparable, Rupp would have to improve all his times from 3000 up after switching to the marathon.

More facts from the IAAF:

Pre 2001 (up to age 27) vs. post 2001:

3000: 8:27 vs. 8:22

5000: 14:44 vs. 14:29

10000: 30:27 vs. 30:01

(Marathon: none vs. 2:15)

Radcliffe's performance in the marathon just felt like substantial cheating for me. But I'm sure she's not the first or the last Western athlete who has a substantial marketing dollar/pound/euro behind them and those athletes tend to get around drug testing that catches lesser athletes.