Radcliffe says she's not releasing blood values

Obvious isnt it? wrote:

The Scot wrote:

The interviewer was pathetic. He should have made the questions specific about HER results rather than what she thought about the WADA advice in general. He could also have asked if she has viewed her graph and what her reaction to it was, was it flat like Mo's or bumpy like Shobkhuva etc. I expect the questions were all agreed to in advance so he couldn't.

These questions should be standard track side at Beijing! Then watch everyone suddenly claim they don't speak English...

Hypothetically speaking one could imagine a scenario where a journalist referring to specific allegations may not be possible

I guess so, yes. Ive been wondering whether the whole topic got so obfuscated that some people watching (who maybe don't follow the sport that closely or remember which years she ran etc) were left unclear whether there even IS a Paula Radcliife graph to show us.

I have always been a big fan of Paula and always thought she was clean, but this announcement is very disconcerting.

The only thing I can say in her defense is that if she does release the data, her detractors (and they are legion for whatever reason) will find fault with the numbers regardless of what they are.

Ben L Wrong wrote:

fred wrote:

What if you run 160 miles a week at 6,000 feet elevation? What should your values be? What if you are a strong responder to altitude?

Still a lot we don't know. Paula clearly going from the strongest vocal advocate of anti doping to being guarded and using the excuse it could help others? Great defection by her and her team.Guilt by association now is a cloud over her that cannot be erased unless she steps up and publishes her blood values. If they are out of line and she is clean, let the researchers figure out why so they can recalculate the baseline or anomalies in the system.Otherwise lets start of the process of decertifying her world record and re-asigning medals.

Not many chances of "naturally abnormal blood values". Read this.

http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762.full

little doubt now that she's the top british star with the 1 in a 1000 chance of being clean

the blood data is probably highly incriminating with little room for doubt

that's why she won't release it

Jorst Heinenen wrote:

Brits are not fit wrote:

1783 and 1812

Head to head 2 - 0.

Socially you have Elizabeth Hurley and Posh. Not much else.

Enjoy your haggis and fish and chips and warm beer. Roll brittania roll.

The head bobber won't release her data. Lanced.

Enjoy your Lance Armstrong, gun culture and W.

High fructose corn syrup

The KKK

Highest homocide rate in the developed world

Bread that tastes sweet

A nasty addiction to oil

Highest prison population in the world

The death penalty

No paid maternity leave

Dunkin donuts

Basically no functioning public transport system

Legal drinking age of 21

Deep dish pizza

Detroit

Budweiser

The Tea party

Having a World Series in a sport that the rest of world ignores

Nike Oregon Project

And the list goes on.....

God bless America. The most uncivilized country in the developed world.

The Scot wrote:

Obvious isnt it? wrote:

Hypothetically speaking one could imagine a scenario where a journalist referring to specific allegations may not be possible

I guess so, yes. Ive been wondering whether the whole topic got so obfuscated that some people watching (who maybe don't follow the sport that closely or remember which years she ran etc) were left unclear whether there even IS a Paula Radcliife graph to show us.

Silence and obfuscation is a masterful PR strategy as far as the general public is concerned. There's so much going on the world, peoples attention naturally moves on in short time.

However within the athletic community it can have the opposite effect, the way she's acting is starting to make her look guilty as sin.

rotten teeth

soccer

soccer hooligans

highest candy consumption in the world

fewest toothbrushes per capita in the world

wish they would give you the death penalty if you have to live there

no maternity (the men are all gay)

spotted dick

haggis

hull

piss warm beer

tea

cricket

bobblehead radcliffe

camilla parker bowles

boy george

God save the queen and her bloody regime.

Looks Bad for Paula wrote:

I have always been a big fan of Paula and always thought she was clean, but this announcement is very disconcerting.

The only thing I can say in her defense is that if she does release the data, her detractors (and they are legion for whatever reason) will find fault with the numbers regardless of what they are.

Maybe, but on the other hand I haven't heard a single person say Mo Farah's graph looks dodgy. If hers looks like that I'm happy to move on.

It's just that I'm >90% certain it doesn't look anything like Mo's!

ecchecazzo wrote:

..give your blood tests to the authorities..

Requesting the IAAF give the scores to themselves is either total ignorance on her part or more intentional obfuscation about testing. One or the other. I fail to see any probable middle ground.

EPO cheats out, Paula.

The irony of that coming that came back to cripple your public image is wonderful.

A European defending Brits? Oh, unsolicited commonality in jealous envy against the USA. Four helpful hints: homicide not homocide; The Tea Party was awesome; a sport the rest of the works ignores? cricket = crickets;

No denial that it is Hurley and Posh and then molars in the front.

I should add Kate Beckinsale to be fair but the list ends there it does not go on and on.

Care to take on the USA? Go ahead and declare war against us.

The head bobber is so analogous to Lance that it is ridiculous:

denials, exceptional outlier performances against athletes proven to be doping; more denials; retired and still denying

the past looms over these people

the truth will out

Soccer? Candy? What language are you speaking? This is not English. No matter, Spanish will be your national language soon enough anyway.

No doubt that Paula is the British athlete with the suspect values who has taken out a super-injunction to stop anyone in the UK reporting on her blood data or even mentioning that there is such an injunction. However, I think she has been badly advised with this course of action. We’re beginning to see the results of this here on this message board with the almost universal belief that she doped. I also think we’re seeing in her interview how uncomfortable she is with this approach.

I can, however, understand why she took the non-transparency route (which obviously grates against everything she has said in the past). Up until these recent events she had to deal with a huge whispering campaign claiming she doped solely because she ran 2:15. How much worse would this be if she let information open to interpretation out into the public domain? But far better for her, assuming that she is clean, would have been to release her blood data and let an open debate on her blood scores take place. She can say, look I’ve always been open and honest, I really don’t understand how it can show this, but let’s let the scientists figure this whole odd thing out.

I used to believe 100% that Paula was clean, now I’m less sure, but still think she was likely clean. The marathon was her perfect distance and it is an event that you can nail given a perfect storm, and I think male pacemakers, good weather and being in the zone was that perfect storm and hey voila - 2:15!

I really wish Paula had taken the transparency approach and I really think that would have turned out better for her.

Take all the Brit/European/USA bashing to your own thread. You're mucking this one up.

It seems that the BBC studio pundit for the distance events of the WCh will be Jo Pavey ...and not Paula.

Surprise?

Bashing wrote:

Take all the Brit/European/USA bashing to your own thread. You're mucking this one up.

not much to muck up is there?

summary:

head bobber says she would release her data to stop drug cheats

athletes are given opportunity to release their data

head bobber says she won't release her data

public reaction: hmmmmmm

Brit reaction: leave her alone

presidentjoe wrote:I really wish Paula had taken the transparency approach and I really think that would have turned out better for her.

That would be the karma thing to do considering the aspersions she's cast on other people over the years, now she's got something to cast on herself. Lance had a vicious response defending himself, Paula does it by casting aspersions on others. My main point is that's the difference between men and women.

Dutch:stinky wooden shoesstinky rotting tulip smellstinky cannabis cafesstinky Dutch porn"What's that smell??"

Brits are not fit wrote:

Bashing wrote:

Take all the Brit/European/USA bashing to your own thread. You're mucking this one up.

not much to muck up is there?

summary:

head bobber says she would release her data to stop drug cheats

athletes are given opportunity to release their data

head bobber says she won't release her data

public reaction: hmmmmmm

Brit reaction: leave her alone

Most of the Brits I know either think she is guilty or are not aware that she is a big part of the story. A few people where I work were a bit confused why she was the lead story on the news the other night.