Radcliffe says she's not releasing blood values

Select commitee hearing in Britain with MPs kicking off now. Follow matt_lawton_dm on Twitter for updates. Really hope the papers do something soon and name her. She is scum

rekrunner wrote:

The next relevant step is to see WADA's opinion regarding the allegations.

No. WADA has no authority to do anything. The IAAF directs/authorizes WADA to perform tasks for them.

Separately, if athletes are failing urinalysis tests for EPO, then they either:

1. Know the system is a joke and don't care. That's worked out great for a long time.

2. Failed an IQ test.

My vote is for the former, not the latter.

so I thought wejo said there was no super injunction, but they used parliament to get around something.

was there / is there a super injunction or not?

and is she saying she will now release her blood values? or still no?

not so super wrote:and is she saying she will now release her blood values? or still no?

Emphatic "no!" with extra personal attacks and misdirection.

EPO cheats out Paula.

WADA has full authority to issue press releases and express an opinion. They also have full authority to conduct an independent investigation, with the full cooperation of the IAAF, as the IAAF has authorized them to conduct an independent review of the ARD allegations, from Dec. 2014.A press release will be enough to determine to what extent Hajo Seppelt and the Sunday Times journalism was right, or sensationalist.

pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The next relevant step is to see WADA's opinion regarding the allegations.

No. WADA has no authority to do anything. The IAAF directs/authorizes WADA to perform tasks for them.

Separately, if athletes are failing urinalysis tests for EPO, then they either:

1. Know the system is a joke and don't care. That's worked out great for a long time.

2. Failed an IQ test.

My vote is for the former, not the latter.

not so super wrote:

so I thought wejo said there was no super injunction, but they used parliament to get around something.

was there / is there a super injunction or not?

I can't comment on any superinjunction, but Parliamentary privilege means that no MP can be sued for slander (which was Radcliffe's big threat against the Sunday Times) for something said in the House.

pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:

No. WADA has no authority to do anything. The IAAF directs/authorizes WADA to perform tasks for them.

That's not entirely correct; the IAAF, in order to remain as the governing body of athletics in the IOC (and therefore be able to run the sport at the Olympics) authorises WADA to conduct its anti-doping regulatory business, but it cannot tell WADA what to do in terms of anti-doping management.

If the IAAF interferes with the functions of WADA, it runs the risk of being removed as the governing body of athletics by IOC, and therefore would not control the athletics portion of the Olympic Games (where most of the IAAF revenue comes from).

Not how it works wrote:authorises WADA to conduct its anti-doping regulatory business,

WADA is not an anti-doping regulator. The sports federations are anti-doping regulators. WADA's primary job is to write a standard and administrate it through NADOs. That's all.

Seppelt's work and the Armstrong scandal makes this clear.

It's time for the perception that WADA has some authority to end.

Not how it works wrote:

If the IAAF interferes with the functions of WADA, it runs the risk of being removed as the governing body of athletics by IOC, and therefore would not control the athletics portion of the Olympic Games (where most of the IAAF revenue comes from).

Nobody told the cycling federation that when USADA put a recommendation together to sanction Armstrong. It didn't bother anyone at the IOC one bit. Diack was howling mad about a NADO actually doing something at the time.

EPO cheats out !

So, you've stepped back from claiming WADA has some authority to do something.Now you are claiming stating an opinion is doing something. That makes them only slightly more effective than an anonymous Internet poster on LR. Which, is exactly what the IOC/sports federations wanted from the start.And then you claim WADA has authority to conduct an independent investigation but they don't have that either. As you state, the IAAF can direct them to investigate. Did they? Or, is IAAF investigating themselves again. You will rework that claim soon enough.For whatever reason, you are polluting this thread with misinformation.

rekrunner wrote:

WADA has full authority to issue press releases and express an opinion. They also have full authority to conduct an independent investigation, with the full cooperation of the IAAF, as the IAAF has authorized them to conduct an independent review of the ARD allegations, from Dec. 2014.

A press release will be enough to determine to what extent Hajo Seppelt and the Sunday Times journalism was right, or sensationalist.

pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:

No. WADA has no authority to do anything. The IAAF directs/authorizes WADA to perform tasks for them.

Separately, if athletes are failing urinalysis tests for EPO, then they either:

1. Know the system is a joke and don't care. That's worked out great for a long time.

2. Failed an IQ test.

My vote is for the former, not the latter.

No way hozay wrote:

It's already been said by knowledgable experts and journalists who have seen the list that the figures of the British athlete on the list showed a huge jump over the course of just 3-4 days and the most likely reason for this was a blood transfusion. These figures have nothing to do with the marginal increases you would see after altitude or 'legal' EPO producing methods. This is the reason why the records won't be released.

I agree with this at least until we can see the full results

For 5 months this year I had daily blood tests. The levels do not change that much due to dehydration and they tend to be reasonably consistent

They are also not that hard to interpret. We might not be able to design these tests or carry them out but noticing discrepencies is not that difficult for the layman to have a basic understanding.

Paula Radcliffe releases her blood values...

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe

Well, but if you are looking for artifacts of EPO use, it's not easy. That's a legitimate reason for the great lengths in the WADA standard to control for false positives.

ella guru wrote:

Paula Radcliffe releases her blood values...

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe

That's not what the article says.

The article says the IAAF declared it non-positive at the time. The same time 1/3 of all T&F podiums had extremely abnormal values suggesting doping. So, yeah Paula is "never tested positive."

Then she goes on to hopelessly confuse WADA and UKAD. You don't request analysis from WADA. She's not an anti-doping authority so UKAD wouldn't re-analyze the results. Conveniently, the IAAF is the only one with the authority to request a re-analysis.

It's a retelling of her statement to the MP's yesterday, now with even more misdirection and confusion.

From the article:

Radcliffe's "off-scores", the measures used to gauge an athlete's blood values, in the three tests were 114.86, 109.86 and 109.3.

ella guru wrote:

Paula Radcliffe releases her blood values...

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe

Don't believe me. Her own words on releasing her scores are here at the BBC's site:

Asked if freeing data would clear her, she said: "I don't need to. I'm clean.

She doesn't want anyone but the IAAF discussing her values and guess what the IAAF will report?

Sorry this response is somewhat belated.Can you elaborate what you meant by "do something" and "stepped back"? Maybe you mixed me up with someone else, but I think I never claimed "doing something" beyond giving an opinion. I'm not stepping backwards or forwards, but standing in place.As you can see from the quotes you preserved, my starting point was "(let's) see WADA's opinion regarding the allegations". Finally, I claim "WADA has full authority to issue press releases and express an opinion". Between the first and last step, I don't speak of WADA's authority to do anything more than offering their opinion regarding the allegations.Then I claimed what? That WADA "has (the) authority to conduct an independent investigation". And you counter-claim "but they don't have that either". Can you explain how WADA is overstepping its authority by appointing its own independent commission? At no point did I mean to express that WADA's opinion would be uninformed. That WADA is investigating, and the IAAF supports it, is also public knowledge.WADA decided (decision from the president) to form an independent commission to investigate the ARD claims against the IAAF:https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/independent-commission-terms-of-referenceI didn't say the IAAF "directed" WADA to investigate. I said the IAAF "authorized" WADA, as in "having official permission or approval". I don't have to rework that claim so much as un-work your mis-expression of the claim. Luckily for me, you preserved the quotes so everyone can see for themselves which words are mine.The IAAF welcomed, and offered it's full support and cooperation:http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/iaaf-welcomes-wada-investigationI'm also curious what you think "misinformation" means. Can you give specific examples of my "misinformation" in this thread?And I will re-iterate my prediction, from this point forward, all of the gossip in all of the Paula threads, and Sunday Times threads, are meaningless. The next significant step will be the publication of WADA's independent commission results.To be more bold, and blunt, here are my predictions for 2015:- The Sunday Times, ARD, and the Australian experts have played all their cards -- they will add nothing significant between now and Dec. 31.- WADA will find that, despite the hype and sensation, the IAAF did nothing wrong then, generally, and specifically, with respect to Paula's "suspicious" results.- WADA might find that it took too long to bust Shobukhova, after the ABP in 2009.