Radcliffe says she's not releasing blood values

Kimmage knows. wrote:

Article today from Paul Kimmage on the hypocrisy of the Brits:

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-bbcs-former-athletes-show-admirable-talent-for-backpedalling-31487856.html

God, I love Paul Kimmage!

I note here that you quoted "To the gills", and not any "independent recognized experts".If you show me the expert quote that says "99.9% chance of doping", I will concede that this overrides anything us idiots can say, including me.Alternatively, find me the expert quote you think says it the best, and I will show you the gap between that quote, and "To the gills" quote.

This is it... wrote:

This is it, if the independent recognized experts say "1/1000 chance of being explained by something other than doping. That's 99.9% chance of doping" then that's going to override any thing us idiots who according to 'rekrunner' can't be "trusted to intellectually process the blood scores in an unbiased, and unprejudiced way?".

And I certainly don't trust the IAAF to do the right thing just because 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.

rekrunner wrote:

In any case, the IAAF already have the data,

They certainly do. The question is what have they being doing with them over these last 15 or so years? As has been shown on several occasions by investigational journalists, the IAAF has been sweeping at least hundreds (maybe into the thousands) of abnormal blood test readings under the carpet during this period.

I'd like to see a proper debate between Ashenden and Radcliffe with her results on the table, if she had nothing to hide then that's exactly what she'd do. After all he is now saying that he can clearly interpret what pre 2009 readings mean. Instead she is having cosy interviews with hand picked people and her employer.

Its blatantly obvious that the blood data doesn't stand up to scrutiny whatsoever

All we need now is Paula to show us her blood values then perhaps the "independent recognized experts" can override anything us idiots say, after all her releasing her blood values is what the thread is about.

rekrunner wrote:

Unless Ashenden has a deeper insight into how the IAAF followed up the blood testing,

Wow, you will not let the dream die.

The whole point of the article was that the IAAF is not following up at all. They aren't even in WADA compliance and that's saying things are bad.

There's no way Paula's releasing values. There's no way anyone in Britain or anywhere else is releasing Paula's values. EPO cheats out, Paula.

Let it go. She's red-hot positive and the IAAF did nothing, like so many others.

While that may be the point, is this point justified? Do the ARD/Sunday Times experts have complete information? For example, following up with urine testing is something, not nothing, and this wouldn't be in a blood database. The IAAF adopted and used the blood passport. They use it the most. That is something. And we know that many Russians and Kenyans have been sanctioned since, before the Hajo Seppelt articles came out. That suggests the IAAF did something. You could argue it was too little, or too late, as Ashenden tries in his open letter, but you cannot honestly say they did nothing. Then other elements like budgets, priorities, and logistics, need to be considered, before concluding they turned a blind eye to doping.Why would you say they are not even within WADA compliance?There is still an on-going WADA investigation into IAAF's actions/inactions. That's the only meaningful next step, to wait for WADA's response. WADA is in a better position to make an independent conclusion with more complete evidence than Ashenden and Parisotto.There is no reason Paula, or anyone, should release her values to the public. It's still possible she is only guilty of oxygen tents and calf's blood.

pop_pop! wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Unless Ashenden has a deeper insight into how the IAAF followed up the blood testing,

Wow, you will not let the dream die.

The whole point of the article was that the IAAF is not following up at all. They aren't even in WADA compliance and that's saying things are bad.

There's no way Paula's releasing values. There's no way anyone in Britain or anywhere else is releasing Paula's values. EPO cheats out, Paula.

Let it go. She's red-hot positive and the IAAF did nothing, like so many others.

rekrunner wrote:

My basis:

- race reports at the time, including an interview from Paula, describe winds from the southeast.

- statistical calculations of marathon performances at

http://www.arrs.net

, specifically their "race time bias" calculations.

Avocado's Number wrote:

What is the basis for your assertion that London 2003 had a tailwind that helped the runners "on a scale comparable to Boston 2011"?

The ARRS "race time bias" calculations provide little support for a contention that any tailwind at London 2003 had a net favorable effect that was anywhere close to the net effect of the tailwind at Boston 2011, and I'm not aware of any race reports, including the post-race interview to which you are referring, that provide much support for such a contention. Nor does the layout of the London course, which had its start and finish lines within thirty percent of the total race distance and significant stretches during which a wind from the southeast would be a headwind or crosswind. I know that you very intelligently discussed some of these very points in a thread last year. Saying that London 2003 had a tailwind that helped the runners "on a scale comparable to Boston 2011" seems a bit over the top.

Nevertheless, I generally agree with your contention that the race conditions, including the use of male pacemakers for Paula, were highly favorable for a fast time. (Although Paula would later assert her belief that she could have run just as fast without pacemakers, neither she nor Dave Bedford appeared willing to forego male pacemakers, despite objections by Catherine Ndereba and many others to the employment of male pacemakers in a race that allowed only female competitors. And Bedford himself, prior to the race, had estimated that using male pacemakers could reduce Paula's finishing time by as much as ninety seconds.) I don't believe that Paula's time in that race, by itself, provides particularly compelling evidence that she was violating WADA doping rules. Nor do I believe that Paula's performance in that race was so superior to her earlier performances in the 2002 London marathon, the 2002 Chicago marathon, and the 2002 European 10,000-meter championship (an unpaced race with unspectacular competition, pretty bad weather, and a wet track) as to suggest that she likely engaged in some sinister doping program in the winter or spring of 2003.

In fact, I may be one of the few "non-fans" of Paula who remain somewhat inclined to believe that her best race performances did not result from any knowing violation of WADA doping rules. I do, however, believe that she engaged in practices that were intended to, and did, stimulate the production of EPO and could not reasonably be classified as "natural" practices like living and training at higher elevations. I also believe that her blood test results contain embarrassing information suggesting that her practices had effects that were very similar to the effects of expressly prohibited practices. And I certainly believe that she would release her blood test results if they showed no evidence of effects on blood composition that were similar or identical to the effects of prohibited practices.

rekrunner wrote:

There is no reason Paula, or anyone, should release her values to the public.

You are wrong yet again (but at least you are consitently so in all of your posts). If she was receiving funding from the UK athletics federation to support her training then in part she was being supported by the UK taxpayer. This alone is a good enough reason for all of her values to be made public by default because you have to be playing by the rules to recieve tax payer's support for something. In this case the playing by the rules means not taking any perfomance enhancing drugs.

If you are not following the rules to recieve taxpayer's support then this is is the same thing as benefit fraud or UK politicians claiming false expenses. These kind of things are made public in the UK and when is there is any suspicion that someone is not playing by the rules then they have to prove that they are.

I would also say that anyone who competes in an event where tickets are sold to the public (including marathons finishing in a ticketed stadium, or world xc) can't argue their blood values are 'private'. This could be a good angle to use should the authorities change their mind (highly unlikely of course).

Admittedly, the race time bias includes all factors unique to that course on that day: weather, temperature, humidity, pace-making, race tactics, the crowd, etc. We can't break out just the effect of the wind, so it's possible that the wind was a major, or minor, or a non factor. But I just note:- the favorable wind was significant enough to be mentioned by both the race organizers, and Paula, at that time.- the race time bias is an average of all the elite women (around 20 eligible performances for London 2003); the calculated benefit was due to something common to all the elite women, and something unique to the course conditions that day, at that time. (The men, for example, ran 45 minutes later, in warmer temperatures, and the race bias was about half: -1.3 sec/km)- Although Paula had two male pacers to run with, not all of the other elite women did (although there were eight pacemakers in total).- Regardless of the source, the absolute race time bias for London 2003 was even greater than the windy Boston 2011. With math and statistics, there is always uncertainty, but it's not "over the top" to say "comparable scale".According to the London marathon race report still available on their website:"Radcliffe also had the assistance of a south-easterly breeze for much of the race".https://www.virginmoneylondonmarathon.com/en-gb/news-media/media-resources/race-reports/race-report-2003/Paula commented to the BBC moments after the race: "We got a good day. It was a bit windy but it seemed the wind was behind us more than it was in front of us."http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/london_marathon_2003/2943913.stmOf course the 2003 reports wouldn't compare it to Boston 2011.Looking at the course map, with a favorable wind, after the first 3 miles against the wind (downhill), 14 miles would be a tailwind, 4 miles would be a headwind, and 5 miles would be a crosswind.The race time bias computed for Boston 2011 for the women: http://arrs.net/HP_BosMa.htm-2.4 sec/kmThe race time bias computed for London 2003, for the women: http://www.arrs.net/HP_LonMa.htm-2.5 sec/kmIn another article, Paula said she raced her pacemakers, rather than using them as windshields. Even this would also benefit her time in a way that is so far unique to her.http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2015/jun/30/secret-paula-radcliffe-2003-london-marathonWhat other women has had the opportunity to race at a 2:15 pace in a group with two pacers/competitors in a non-tactical time-trial? Seems like a solo effort would be more difficult to maintain.

Avocado's Number wrote:

The ARRS "race time bias" calculations provide little support for a contention that any tailwind at London 2003 had a net favorable effect that was anywhere close to the net effect of the tailwind at Boston 2011, and I'm not aware of any race reports, including the post-race interview to which you are referring, that provide much support for such a contention. Nor does the layout of the London course, which had its start and finish lines within thirty percent of the total race distance and significant stretches during which a wind from the southeast would be a headwind or crosswind. I know that you very intelligently discussed some of these very points in a thread last year. Saying that London 2003 had a tailwind that helped the runners "on a scale comparable to Boston 2011" seems a bit over the top.

If you think that's a good enough reason, good luck with that. I'm not a UK taxpayer. In the US, we have medical privacy laws (HIPAA). But we also have a FOIA.

It's possible that factors like living and training at altitude, oxygen tents (if she used it), and treatments from her German doctor, all of which were permitted, could produce blood levels that would be accepted by experts, with explanation, yet not understood by all of the public.I wouldn't call living and training at altitude "unnatural", but could understand why oxygen tents and actovegin injections would "cross the line" for some, even if allowed.

Avocado's Number wrote:

In fact, I may be one of the few "non-fans" of Paula who remain somewhat inclined to believe that her best race performances did not result from any knowing violation of WADA doping rules. I do, however, believe that she engaged in practices that were intended to, and did, stimulate the production of EPO and could not reasonably be classified as "natural" practices like living and training at higher elevations. I also believe that her blood test results contain embarrassing information suggesting that her practices had effects that were very similar to the effects of expressly prohibited practices. And I certainly believe that she would release her blood test results if they showed no evidence of effects on blood composition that were similar or identical to the effects of prohibited practices.

rekrunner wrote:

It's possible that factors like living and training at altitude, oxygen tents (if she used it), and treatments from her German doctor, all of which were permitted, could produce blood levels that would be accepted by experts, with explanation, yet not understood by all of the public.

I wouldn't call living and training at altitude "unnatural", but could understand why oxygen tents and actovegin injections would "cross the line" for some, even if allowed.

^^^This.

I can't let go of the 99.9% thing either.

99.9% natural says that 1 in 1000 people will naturally have this disposition. So line up a random list of 1000 people and take their readings. One of those will in the in the 0.1%.

Now line up 1000 athletes. 1 of them might be a world record holder. 999 not.

It is entirely plausible that Paula is that 1/1000 athlete. I actually reckon she is more like 1/1,000,000, but other factors such as mental toughness come into play with her.

Face it, she is clean. Abnormal, possibly (almost certainly!), but clean.

rekrunner, I also ran my PB at London 2003 and I can assure you that the wind direction you see on any weather map for that day was not a reliable indicator of wind direction in the race. This is becuase much the race is run along or the near the meaders of the river Thames and when you combine this with thermals coming of buildings, you get wind swirling in all directions.

I remember the strongest headwinds coming from the south west at 15 and 25 miles and the strongest crosswind coming from the south at 13 miles. Conditions that day were good but not ideal.

You know very well that one of the key determinants of a race time bias is the course itself, and you also know that, on average, the London marathon produces significantly more negative race time biases than Boston does. You may not be aware that ARRS has computed average race time biases for all major marathons based on times of elite runners in races from 2000 through 2012. Here is its list:

In 2003, the London marathon -- which is, in an average year, significantly faster than most marathons -- produced combined time biases that were somewhat more negative (that is, faster) than average, but not indicative of unusually favorable weather conditions, particularly when the use of male pacemakers in the women's race is considered. Overall, the time biases at London that year were similar to Berlin's time biases in an average year.

In contrast, the Boston marathon, on average, produces a time bias that is about two minutes and eighteen seconds higher (that is, slower) than the average London time bias, but at the 2011 race, the combined time bias was about three minutes and thirteen seconds faster than average, considerably faster than London in an average year and even faster than Berlin in an average year and London in 2013.

The dramatically faster times at Boston in 2011 are, as you know, generally attributed to the strong tailwind all along the point-to-point course. Although I have no reason to doubt that there may have a net tailwind at London in 2003, your statement that it helped the runners "on a scale comparable to Boston 2011" is not supported by anything that you've cited or anything that I've yet seen.

Avocado's Number wrote:

even faster than Berlin in an average year and London in 2013.

That should read "even faster than Berlin in an average year and London in 2003."

rekrunner wrote:

I wouldn't call living and training at altitude "unnatural"

I wouldn't call living and training at altitude "unnatural," either. In fact, I referred to "'natural' practices like living and training at higher elevations."