Radcliffe possibly being outed as one of the doping British athletes

asdfsadfsa wrote:

Indeed. wrote:

No it isn't

Men's Marathon is much more competitive than womens

Also she was paced

^this

Ingrid Kristiansen's marathon WR from 85 stood for 13 years. Paula's isn't even that old yet. Women's marathon is extremely shallow.

You mean, the American men's marathon is extremely shallow.

It's common knowledge in the press who it is and it isn't Kelly Holmes. The name had been linked numerous times on twitter. It won't come out while Seb is running for president though.

There are at least 5 details in the article which pretty much give away the identity of the athlete

The timeframe is pre-2009

Altitude training is mentioned as a mitigating factor

Dehydration is mentioned

9 other atletes were tested in same event

Article says j Ennis hill is not suspicious

Not Holmes? Why?

Dooer wrote:

It's common knowledge in the press who it is and it isn't Kelly Holmes. The name had been linked numerous times on twitter. It won't come out while Seb is running for president though.

B-Sample wrote:

Not Holmes? Why?

Dooer wrote:

It's common knowledge in the press who it is and it isn't Kelly Holmes. The name had been linked numerous times on twitter. It won't come out while Seb is running for president though.

I think this is the key sentence:"The athlete firmly states that they “never cheated” and supports calls for more money to be spent on stamping out blood-doping."

Isn't the directly pointing the finger at Radcliffe? I don't think Holmes is known for that and I don't think this could refer to Ohuruogu considering she's already been suspended once for doping.

They've done everything except name her

Lance Armstrong ×100

That's what we're looking at here

Dooer wrote:

It's common knowledge in the press who it is and it isn't Kelly Holmes. The name had been linked numerous times on twitter. It won't come out while Seb is running for president though.

And?

Just google twitter and a few leading British Athletics stars from the last ten years, doping list and ARD

Ditto wrote:

Just...

Just fvcking say who it is if you've already done the search, FMD you won't get sued.

Just tell us. wrote:

Ditto wrote:

Just...

Just fvcking say who it is if you've already done the search, FMD you won't get sued.

What he says!!!

It is not Radcliffe

Ditto wrote:

Just google twitter and a few leading British Athletics stars from the last ten years, doping list and ARD

Idiot.

Criminal Defense Attorney wrote:

1 in a 1000, that's it? wrote:

A 1 in 1000 chance that their blood values are natural? We are talking about 1 in 1,000,000 sorts of athletes, right? And these 1:1,000,000 sorts of athletes are presumable doing everything possible that is legal, such as intermittent hypoxia at over 20,000' and all sorts of craziness like that.

I'm not saying they are clean, but a 1:1000 chance is not nearly extreme enough to ruin someone's reputation.

My thoughts exactly. I just wasn't going to take the time to try to explain that to the LRC mob.

It's a 1:1000 chance that their blood values were natural...on three separate and distinct occasions. Therefore it is a 1:1,000,000,000 (1 billion) chance that the blood values were natural on all 3 tests.

One in a billion? Seems pretty extreme me.

PTF wrote:

Criminal Defense Attorney wrote:

My thoughts exactly. I just wasn't going to take the time to try to explain that to the LRC mob.

It's a 1:1000 chance that their blood values were natural...on three separate and distinct occasions. Therefore it is a 1:1,000,000,000 (1 billion) chance that the blood values were natural on all 3 tests.

One in a billion? Seems pretty extreme me.

You don't understand the limitations of probabilistic models to the real world.

get some real life experience wrote:

PTF wrote:

It's a 1:1000 chance that their blood values were natural...on three separate and distinct occasions. Therefore it is a 1:1,000,000,000 (1 billion) chance that the blood values were natural on all 3 tests.

One in a billion? Seems pretty extreme me.

You don't understand the limitations of probabilistic models to the real world.

Ha ha ha...thanks for the laugh...

It's not Radcliffe being referred to in that article. I can safely assure you of that, a good friend of mine works for The Times and had involvement in that article.

Evian, can you confirm it is a track and field athlete?

1 in a 1000, that's it? wrote:

A 1 in 1000 chance that their blood values are natural? We are talking about 1 in 1,000,000 sorts of athletes, right? And these 1:1,000,000 sorts of athletes are presumable doing everything possible that is legal, such as intermittent hypoxia at over 20,000' and all sorts of craziness like that.

I'm not saying they are clean, but a 1:1000 chance is not nearly extreme enough to ruin someone's reputation.

Yes, they are. Bayesian statistics are incredibly useful in this scenario. Also, the system in place goes to great lengths to prevent a false positive.

Since you've never bothered to read the WADA standards, you wouldn't know they permit a wide range of doping.

The testing itself is mostly in-competition urinalysis which is easy to defeat. Don't dope within a couple of days of your meet and you too will never test positive. Suspicious? Maybe if you are bad at it.

If it isn't clear by now, the IAAF is not sanctioning podium positives despite the efficacy of the bio-passport. Which, is totally within the rules.

If the blood values for what tests are not disclosed, how can we judge whether they are or are not suspicious?