Paula Radcliffe: A super injunction stops the British press from reporting her blood values?

This thread seemed to have disappeared earlier (still showed up in google results, but clicking through went nowhere), but has now returned. Anyone know what happened?

een on twitter

"If Armstrong is a sociopath, Paula Radcliffe is not far behind : beats doper's performances but call them out. Not just hypocrite. Insane."

Ok I hadn't seen this thread but just posted in the other one that I haven't seen any evidence of a super injunction. The whisteblower asked the Times not to print the names. The Times said it was only printing values of convicted dopers and that for many people the values aren't proof of doping.

And I didn't add this to other thread but see it now searching for something else, "They (the two Australian experts) have asked that their judgments on individual athletes not be published except for a few extreme cases and be used only to show a more general picture of suspicious activity across athletics."

And what is this you all are talking about google?

No way google US is not going to index certain threads because of an injunction in the US. LetsRun threads don't get indexed right away.

What I posted in the other thread:

Where is there a talk about there being a super injunction? That is wrong from my reading.

My reading on it is the IAAF tried to get an injunction and lost.

There is no injunction against naming athletes names, however the whisteblower requested that athletes not be named so that is why they are not named.

"The whistleblower believes that athletes with abnormal results may be under pressure from national training programmes, and has requested that they are not humiliated by being named. The Sunday Times has disclosed only the identities of a handful who were subsequently banned."

So he gave the info and said don't name people. That is the reason I assume the Times isn't printing it.

Legally in the US I bet the Times could release all the data, just saying, "here is so and so's blood values." It's factual data. (Ignoring the fact the leaker asked them not to reveal names).

People would make their own conclusions. However in Britain they legal laws are stricter and they could get sued. My own read is the Times own experts said with the British athlete it isn't conclusive proof of doping.

From the article, "The results presented a difficulty for the IAAF testers. The experts said that the athletes blood tests were suspicious but required further investigation to determine whether doping had actually taken place."

(I'm not sure who the "experts" are. I think it is the 2 experts the Times hired to analyze the results, but it could be IAAF testers..)

The same article says, "On three occasions during their career the athletes test results were so abnormal that there was only a one in a thousand chance that they were natural."

and "A top UK athlete is among seven Britons with suspicious blood scores. The athlete scored the single most abnormal blood score of all the 490 tests on British athletes"

Worth a read if you have a paid Times account:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.u...ngscandal/

I think all passport data should be public, maybe anonymized or something but then the public could be assured suspicious values are followed up on.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6669431&page=9#ixzz3i5OQiWXU

You are in denial m8, total denial. Its obvious its her. One of the biggest and most outspoken anti dopers and she hasn't said one word about doping scanal that has been on the FRONT pages of UK nespapers. Get your heads out of paulas arse and wake up. She is an EVIL doping nasty succubus.

THE SALT wrote:

You are in denial m8, total denial. Its obvious its her. One of the biggest and most outspoken anti dopers and she hasn't said one word about doping scanal that has been on the FRONT pages of UK nespapers. Get your heads out of paulas arse and wake up. She is an EVIL doping nasty succubus.

Did you even read what he wrote..?

Bozo detector wrote:

Make sure you're spelling is correct

Oh the irony....

The star British athlete along with many others on the list has been requested by the press to allow her data be revealed

She has refused permission

From the telegraph,

coach.. wrote:

The star British athlete along with many others on the list has been requested by the press to allow her data be revealed

She has refused permission

From the telegraph,

British Athletics has warned track-and-field stars past and present against allowing their blood data to be revealed after it emerged several had been asked to authorise its publication.

From the actual Telegraph article.

"One of those to produce suspicious readings was a well-known British star, who has already declined to allow such data to be published."

Thus following the advice of her governing body not to allow publication. Are you incapable of reading?

British athletics advice has only come out after the stars refusal. British athletics don't want other athletes to release their data as that could make her refusal stand out and look guilty. Whether the UKA star athlete (whoever it is) has or has not doped, there appears to be a British Athletics cover up going on.

Critical thinking wrote:

Bozo detector wrote:

Make sure you're spelling is correct

Oh the irony....

You must be new hear

Can't be serious can you wrote:

You must be new hear

I no ewe can!

Can't be serious can you wrote:

Critical thinking wrote:

Oh the irony....

You must be new hear

I considered mispelling correct but thought that might be too over the top.

The injunction is to do with a famous footballer and an extra marital affair, nothing to do with athletics.

Joe Hart and Katie Price.

jezlad wrote:

Joe Hart and Katie Price.

he must have been really drunk

wejo wrote:

Where is there a talk about there being a super injunction? That is wrong from my reading.

Perhaps you should talk to your contacts in the British media and ask them if there is a super injunction to prevent the naming of the athlete with "blood test scores which, on three occasions, were so unusual that there was only a one in a thousand chance of them being natural".

If some of them say, no there is no super injunction about that, then you have your answer.

But if everyone says that they are not allowed to talk about any super injunction, then you also have your answer.

I'm sure they know the identity of the athlete, as if seems quite clear that Paul Kimmage knows who she is.

3 lions wrote:

The injunction is to do with a famous footballer and an extra marital affair, nothing to do with athletics.

Two injunctions. One for Hart/Pryce, one for Radcliffe. Both of them are talked about on twitter