It's ironic that Paula talks about lifetime bans, but she was 3 minutes faster than massive doper Shobukhova?

Seiko stopwatch wrote:

The other other guy! wrote:

( her 2:15 equates to 1:59 for a man, btw).

Last time I checked, the stopwatch does not run faster for women athletes. 2h 15 for the marathon is 2h 15 whatever the sex or age of the athlete that runs it.

Uhhh, no- try putting some fat and curves on those 2:02 guys and see how fast they run.

Uh, if the samples are frozen and can be retested, it doesn't make much difference if there was a cover up then. Test them now and you should have her busted now, right Columbo?

And yet where exactly are those frozen samples and when are they scheduled to be tested? This question has been asked numerous times, and nobody seems to have the answer.

oh please wrote:

asdrv wrote:

I believe she does have frozen samples, does she not?

Since you have this earth shattering evidence she did dope, perhaps you can share it with authorities and they can re-test?

Be careful what you wish for. This is one of the ways that the fire started to get hot under Lance.

What folks don't seem to get is that race samples probably are clean. Elite runners need to worry about only a handful of events. They can stop weeks ahead of the event and be "clean." Out of comp testing doesn't happen enough. Be interesting to see how often she was tested.

EXACTLY. When Lance was interviewed by Dan Patrick, Patrick asked him how he beat the tests. Lance said I didn't beat the tests, I was smart enough to be clean when I was tested. Also..... AROD's doper talked about taking testosterone gummies in the first inning and being out of the system by the end of the game. I have no proof, but if Paula is clean, then Lance is clean.

Ben L Wrong wrote:

No, it's not genetics. 2:15 is the biggest fraud of all records. Nobody is near. Nobody attempted to run 2:15. London it's not the fastest elegible course.

It is when they have a tailwind like she had that day

Ben L Wrong wrote:

For me, it's like the Lance denials. "Everybody is doped except Paula for... (put your favourite excuse, including "genetics" or "superior talent")

No, it's not genetics. 2:15 is the biggest fraud of all records. Nobody is near. Nobody attempted to run 2:15. London it's not the fastest elegible course. Chicago is not the fastest elegible course.

It's common behavior among former dopers who got away with it--Michael Johnson, for example, is among the most ridiculous.

yawn wrote:

Get some new material man. Previous trolls have already done this topic.

Agreed, and learn what "ironic" means while you're at it

Consider this

Top 3 Japanese women's performers

2:19:12 Mizuki Noguchi

2:19:41 Yoko Shibui

2:19:46 Naoko Takahashi

Average 2:09:33

Top 3 Japanese men's performers

2:06:16 Toshinari Takaoka

2:06:51 Atsushi Fujita

2:06:57 Takayuki Inubushi

Average 2:06:41.333

In a country with better depth on the women's side, the women are 10.26% slower

So, if the rest of the world had this same depth, the world record would be about 2:15:30 - and that's still not accounting for the tailwind in London 2003, which ARRS says was worth even more over a flat course than Boston 2011.

Throwing out that one time, her 2:17's would "equate to" a 2:04-mid for a male. That's faster than any white dude has run, but some speculate Carlos Lopes, Stefano Baldini (who always made OG / Euro Champs a priority, not London), or Steve Jones could have run that in the right conditions... but men and most women don't get the pacing aid that Paula had.

"I'll discuss things with UK Athletics but I might train again in Albuquerque."

There are a parlay of times, places, and people with strong connections to doping in Albuquerque that all have to be coincidence for her to be clean. As well as her being much much faster than anyone else, even proven dopers, while running with what probably wasn't very efficient biomechanics. It just seems like a lot of things being a coincidence instead of the easy answer "she was a doper."

The other other guy! wrote:( her 2:15 equates to 1:59 for a man, btw)

no

this is the nonsense thought by fools

womens' times are p!ss-weak above 400m & even 47.60 is pretty sh!te

paula's 2"15'25, despite being drafted all the way round is worth no better than

2"04-mid

i can't find those calculations but irc answer & can offer something substantial as to = for other distances :

african women running track/roads are scullery maids to the genetic talent who don't have to contemplate such drudgery in african cities

2"15'25 = ~ 29'29

from

28'00 = 2"09'12

27'00 = 2"04'57

for track runs

which is sh!t seeing as wang jogged to 7k in her 29'31wr

see some other = here for just track times :

find

"Ventolin"

Ben L Wrong wrote:

For me, it's like the Lance denials. "Everybody is doped except Paula for... (put your favourite excuse, including "genetics" or "superior talent")

No, it's not genetics. 2:15 is the biggest fraud of all records. Nobody is near. Nobody attempted to run 2:15. London it's not the fastest elegible course. Chicago is not the fastest elegible course.

Illegible ... El vegetable ... Illegal ... electable ... just keep trying and you will hit on it eventually.

Ben L Wrong wrote:USADA did with Carl Lewis

i hope your peabrain doesn't think a nasal decongestant bought from 7 - 11 for buck 50c is your "USADA/IOC" banning case ???

Everyone knows that Radcliffe is dirty, and is simply being protected by politics.

Good thing there is no evidence that asthma drugs aid performances.

HardLoper wrote:2:04-mid for a male. That's faster than any white dude has run, but some speculate Carlos Lopes, Stefano Baldini (who always made OG / Euro Champs a priority, not London), or Steve Jones could have run that in the right conditions

those guys are italians/portuguese or limey fools

as 1st 2 certainly were biased

you can't run 2"04 ( on a track ) without this = for ~ intrinsic then 10k

2"04'59 = 27'00.47

2"04'00 = 26'46.49

it's nonsense to consider any of those 3 to have 2"04+, because it requires a damn fast basic intrinsic 10k speed & rubbish 27'15/27'30 won't cut it

ventolin^3 wrote:

The other other guy! wrote:( her 2:15 equates to 1:59 for a man, btw)

no

this is the nonsense thought by fools

womens' times are p!ss-weak above 400m & even 47.60 is pretty sh!te

paula's 2"15'25, despite being drafted all the way round is worth no better than

2"04-mid

No way, Paula's World Record is statistically the strongest record of any record, man or woman.

Mercier, the only calculator set up for comparing men's a women's times (using 4 yrs of rank-ordered data) predicts 1:59:42.

The other other guy! wrote:

ventolin^3 wrote:

no

this is the nonsense thought by fools

womens' times are p!ss-weak above 400m & even 47.60 is pretty sh!te

paula's 2"15'25, despite being drafted all the way round is worth no better than

2"04-mid

No way, Paula's World Record is statistically the strongest record of any record, man or woman.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090206085120/http://footloose.runnersworld.com/2009/02/mark-denny-a-ge.html

Mercier, the only calculator set up for comparing men's a women's times (using 4 yrs of rank-ordered data) predicts 1:59:42.

Article is from 2009. If Mercier ran the same calculations today he would get totally different (slower) results, which is why they are basically useless.

Explain this, Mary Keitany's PB, run three years after he did his analysis, "converts" to 2:02:10. Do you think he still stands by that?

Paula's half-marathon WR "converts" to 57:55... which was obliterated this year by Florence Kiplagat. Her 65:12 is now "worth" 57:35. That tells you everything you need to know about the accuracy of these calculators.

PS - strongest WR is probably Jan Zelezný's javelin mark

HardLoper wrote:

PS - strongest WR is probably Jan Zelezný's javelin mark

By strongest I mean biggest outlier, not necessarily in the most competitive event

Nice one!