The Scot wrote:
...
What we've been denied is a face to face debate between the 'publish' and 'don't publish' factions. And the reason for that is the the don't publish group would look stupid and worse, doping suspects.
kal wrote:
Plainly and simply, she is NOT wanting to come under scrutiny. Which plainly and simply means that she has got something to hide.
As often turns out to be the case by so called 'do gooders', "Do as I say not as I (secretly) do".
kal wrote:
Radcliffe incriminates herself more and more with each word that comes out of her mouth..
Absolutely horrible technique, and yet a time 3 mins faster than anyone has ever managed before or since, in the women's race that would equate to what? 1km or just over? (2.5% race distance). Which is equivalent to running 10m ahead of WR pace every lap for 100 straight laps. Hilarious, and yet people think of the 100, 200 and 400 as being untouchable.
And iirc wasn't her WR paced by men ?
Just because a WR wasn't set in the 80's does NOT mean it is any cleaner whatsoever than those that were
Ghost wrote:
Paula trained at altitude for several months each year, often slept in an altitude tent at home.
Her blood values may be anomolous despite not being guilty of any infraction.
Paula has said that at present, if blood values were released - those values might be mis interpreted, hence Paula's reluctance to release those values.
Sooner or later her values will be released, but when that happens 'better science' will be needed to dis culpate her.
Ghost in Khon Khaen, Thailand
Rubbish coe wrote:
New Ashenden article suggests the IAAF can clearly see doping in pre 2009 blood tests. Coe and co. Are full of it.
rekrunner wrote:
I think this thread alone provides enough proof that the values should NOT be made public. The OP posted two articles and concludes it represents a "change of stance". In the first, she says to turn the information over to the IAAF, and later says to NOT make the data public. These are not contradictory stances. Yet many posters, despite this being pointed out several times in the first two pages, seem unable to grasp that basic distinction. How could they be trusted to intellectually process the blood scores in an unbiased, and unprejudiced way?
Of course, there are many level headed, smart people in the public, some engineers and scientists, that would be able to interpret the data, and even take the time to establish context, such as trips to the Alps, or illness, or dehydration, or pregnancy, or whatever many other factors that an independent committee would find, to establish whether the blood scores have a reasonable explanation other than doping. But, as this thread shows, there are many who will not, or can not.
Look at some of the contributors here. One guy went from 100% sure she was clean, to 90% sure she doped, on the strength of Paula's alleged change of stance. Surely both opinions were uninformed. Too many cynics (and tabloid journalists) would jump to conclusions that all spikes mean doping. This generates a lot of unnecessary gossip, and unnecessarily damages the reputations of clean athletes.
At this point, we don't even know that Paula is the one, and people are not even clear what "suspicious" means. They can't tell yellow flags from red flags. Making partial data public (and releasing the full blood data is only one part of the data) would only result in a lot of gossip among people too lazy to bring themselves to a point where they could properly assess the data in context.
The Scot wrote:
...
What we've been denied is a face to face debate between the 'publish' and 'don't publish' factions. And the reason for that is the the don't publish group would look stupid and worse, doping suspects.
rekrunner wrote:
London 2003 had a favourable tailwind, which helped way more than hurt, not only Paula, but measurably helped the other 20 elite women too, on a scale comparable to Boston 2011.
rekrunner wrote:
I think this thread alone provides enough proof that the values should NOT be made public. The OP posted two articles and concludes it represents a "change of stance". In the first, she says to turn the information over to the IAAF, and later says to NOT make the data public. These are not contradictory stances.
To the gills wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I think this thread alone provides enough proof that the values should NOT be made public. many posters, despite this being pointed out several times in the first two pages, seem unable to grasp that basic distinction. How could they be trusted to intellectually process the blood scores in an unbiased, and unprejudiced way?
The Scot wrote:
...
What we've been denied is a face to face debate between the 'publish' and 'don't publish' factions. And the reason for that is the the don't publish group would look stupid and worse, doping suspects.
On 3 separate occasions she registered blood values that, according to experts, had a 1/1000 chance of being explained by something other than doping. That's 99.9% chance of doping,
3 different times. The fact that she hasn't disputed, or explained this is pretty telling. I don't need to see the blood values because I wouldn't know how to read them. But if an expert says 99.9% on three different occasions and Paula goes silent on the matter, I'm okay rounding that up.
This is it... wrote:
the anti-doper Coe is at the helm, it's one thing to say something to get elected it's another thing to actually do something once there. Anyway, in his eyes and many others Radcliffe is untouchable.
Avocado's Number wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
London 2003 had a favourable tailwind, which helped way more than hurt, not only Paula, but measurably helped the other 20 elite women too, on a scale comparable to Boston 2011.
What is the basis for your assertion that London 2003 had a tailwind that helped the runners "on a scale comparable to Boston 2011"?
pop_pop! wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I think this thread alone provides enough proof that the values should NOT be made public. The OP posted two articles and concludes it represents a "change of stance". In the first, she says to turn the information over to the IAAF, and later says to NOT make the data public. These are not contradictory stances.
Wow. You just type that stuff out as comes out the top of your head.
THE IAAF IS THE ONE WITH THE TEST SCORES.
The rest is just a mess of layers of conjecture, one as false as the next.
I don't think I've seen such a detailed and thoroughly misleading post since USATF online media coordinators were trying to pollute the NOP story. Good job.
