Radcliffe possibly being outed as one of the doping British athletes

There are only two athletes in the UK with enough money to keep this out of the papers, one is Mo Farah and the other is not Kelly Holmes. Your friend at the Times is badly informed.

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.

But if they are "natural" levels, then of course they would be high on all 3 tests. It implies that they have a genetic pre-disposition to those blood values. I agree with Criminal Defense Attorney - a professional athlete is more likely than an average Joe to have a natural advantage, and 1-in-1,000 isn't crazy.

Think about NBA players. there is a 1-in-1,000 chance that a male is over 6'4" tall, but what % of NBA players are at least that tall? Are they all using HGH, or is it more likely that they are naturally tall, which gave them a natural advantage at basketball?

I get your logic of ^3, but that math can only be used for 3 **independent trials. The tests aren't independent of one another if the person has a genetic pre-disposition to those blood values - that would lead to a pretty strong correlation between the tests, don't you think?

I don't think I have a good handle on the what 1 in a 1000 means exactly (I guess, since I'm avoiding work by being on here, I can avoid work by digging around the intertubes and find out for myself....), but, I'm pretty sure your interpretation is wrong. It does not mean that 1 in a 1000 have values that far out of the range.

My guess is that it has to do with the accuracy of the measurements.

I am really hoping now that this thing will snowball all through track and field as well as road racing. All levels including masters and scholastic sports. Could it become irresistibly cool to aid transparency? LR had the thread "who would you be most disappointed to find out was cheating ", how about "Which individual confirmation of cheating would you be most relieved by or vindicated by?" A lot of people deserve to be vindicated.

Does "natural" levels mean levels that the numbers should be consistent out of training, for life? does 1/1000 match the individual athlete 1:1? Or, does it go up against the general population? The general population has all sorts of oddities. In other words is the biological passport being used to the fullest? Say no to obfuscation.

Mail Online:

"The star British name was on the highest colour red tier of suspicion for blood counts HCT and HGB — so should have automatically been target tested for the blood-boosting drug EPO. But ARD’s IAAF insider says the necessary follow-up tests were not done at that time. And if so, very sparingly"

B.S. You are rumormongering.

You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. 1 in 1000 is easily enough. And no, athletes being outliers with respect to some physiological parameters does not imply 1 in 1000 isn't very strong evidence of blood doping.

The scientists who studied the blood values are, unlike you, very familiar with the sort of blood profiles seen in elite athletes.

What about Dai Greene? After all, two other Welsh 400/800 guys have been caught doping in the last couple of years

Evian Mars wrote:

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.

Maybe Mr. Coe can shed some light on his results.

Here's the thing, Radcliffe is a doper.

Where are the famous frozen samples? Where are the samples?

Yes...I see your point. Makes sense.

I wonder if the blood values on the 3 tests were all similar.

asdfsadfsa wrote:

Ingrid Kristiansen's marathon WR from 85 stood for 13 years.

Cause guess what was still legal in 85.

Given the fairly crude threat to sue I doubt the athlete in question is the sharpest tool in the box.

I've never understood how Ohuruogu peaks so well for major championships yet is totally out of shape at any other time, sure it's a training method, but is that too much?

Counter argument would be that her sister is also a top athlete so there is clearly a genetic predisposition in the family.

Ennis' lost medal is surely 2007 Worlds - Kluft, Blonska, Sotherton, Ennis should probably be Kluft, Sotherton, Ennis; Blonska was banned for life in Beijing for her second offense.

I can understand why people would think Ohuruogu, but doesn't this part imply it isn't her?

Ohuruogu served a ban didn't she?

Don't get me wrong, I don't really trust her to be clean, but they appear to be talking about someone that hasn't been sanctioned before.

Did Ohuruogu ever call for more money to be spent on stamping out blood-doping?

Perhaps she did but I don't remember it.

an ex sunday times journalist (paul kimmage)had some pretty harsh things to say about the athlete yesterday

in a thinly veiled reference to the athlete he said she is due to receive an award at a ceremony in about 2 weeks?

what award would that be?

athlete. wrote:

an ex sunday times journalist (paul kimmage)had some pretty harsh things to say about the athlete yesterday

in a thinly veiled reference to the athlete he said she is due to receive an award at a ceremony in about 2 weeks?

what award would that be?

I've been on vacation and I'm a little late to the party. I don't live in the UK and want to know who the athlete is. I don't know what ceremony is happening in two weeks. I can't see how this isn't Radcliffe but I could be wrong. Can you help me out please?

Time period was '06 to '08 so it isn't Holmes, she retired in 2005, so who could it be?