rojo wrote:
1. Weldon is so compromised on this one it's going to be hard for him to objective but i'm sure he'll try.
2. It's disconcerting to me that someone who wanted the blood values out there a few months ago now doesn't want them out there. If you actually go to the Original source......
When did they get internet on international flights? I was going to sleep on my way to Worlds. Instead I'm writing this.
1) I am extremely compromised. I consider Paula and Gary personal friends, but that doesn't have anything to do with one being clean or dirty.
Case in point - Paula is the one who told me in 2002 (when I first met her prior to her running her first marathon but I was so impressed with how she talked about it and the pace she ran in training and hearing about how she was made or the marathon, that Robert and I went and bet on her to win the London marathon and won I think $500)
that "You only know about yourself being clean" and she told the story of how her and Gary became friends with Ali Saidi Sief and started wondering, "maybe he is clean (because they were friends with him)" and soon after he was busted.
2) Her stance on the blood values makes me less likely to believe she is clean.
3) I'm not convinced she was dirty.
a) I will start with Robert's line above, " If you actually go to the Original source......" and then he proceeds to totally botch it. As others have pointed out in this thread, Paula in December said she wanted the list revealed TO THE IAAF, I don't see anything about her saying she wanted the blood values public.
If you want to criticize her for being a hypocrite you need to go back further to the 2002 quotes people are mentioning. She could turn that around and say she wanted her blood tests results released, not the details. Problem is pre 2009 you couldn't be sanctioned for a blood test so a blood test doesn't mean anything.
The Paula I know always stood for transparency so I assumed she would be for values being out there.
b) IF we assume the blood values of the anonymous British athlete are hers, that athlete supposedly had 3 blood values that were 1000 to 1. The article did not say they were proof she was dirty, it gave the impression they would need to be followed up on.
That to me is not conclusive proof at all.. If it was more conclusive proof the others should have written about it differently, "One British athlete's blood values were so off the charts on 3 different occasions, they had certainly to be doping." They never wrote that.
They said there are reasons athletes could have high values: illness, altitude, pregnancy.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33749208b) Let's say you are Paula and you are clean. The Times of London comes to you and says, "We have these suspicious blood values on you. We're doing a big expose, we've got Shobukhova, Ramzi, we're going to publish it." I can understand not wanting to be bunched in with those others without some context.
c) My inclination would be like Robert's "I have nothing to hide, let's publish this data because I am for clean sport. I am clean. There IS an explanation let's figure it out. If the blood tests are not accurate when they first started out, let's get that information out there. If tests need to be done at a consistent time pre or post competition, let's get that out there."
However, my livelihood is not based on being a commentator for the next 30 years, no other sport I know of releases blood values (I thought cycling did, but I don't think they do anymore, can someone let me know), and if I thought the public would not put anything in context and I'd be associated with being a doper, then I can see the argument for being against them being published. I hope I wouldn't follow what people told me in that case. (Where are the Freud PR firm jokes in this thread?)
Even if the details weren't released and she had a suspicious value I may be naive but I still wish she'd say, "You know what I understand some of my values were suspicious, I know I am clean, I have nothing to hide, but there is a reason blood profiles aren't public and explain it." Actually that doesn't work. I wish she had just said, "I call on WADA to launch an independent investigation of my values. They will release a report on them and put them in context. Get the Sunday Times to agree to this and pay for it."
There must be a good reason other sports including cycling don't release values right?
d) In our editorial on the Sunday Times story, there was debate whether blood profiles should be public. I said they should be. Jon thought they shouldn't be. However, we concluded if they should be released they ALL should be public. That way there might be some context.
What if the testing in the initial years wasn't that accurate or standard? Are there values in Paula's tests that look like errors instead of anomalies, etc. What if she was ill etc? The BBC said illness, altitude, etc could affect your blood values.
The head of WADA said, "“It would be reckless to draw conclusions on the basis of limited information.”
If there is a stronger case on why we should draw conclusions let's hear it from the British press. Instead, I do have a big problem with how the Sunday Times handled the one suspicious British athlete. They cleared Mo Farah and Jessica Ennis and then cast suspicion on everyone else. Release all the names or none or come out and specifically accuse the British athlete of something.
4) I think the values will be leaked. Might as well address it head on now.
5) I will tell Paula these things directly in Beijing. Her and Gary are always receptive when I speak with them.
Even if Paula explained away the blood values, it wouldn't prove she was clean, but it would make me sleep better because I have never been more impressed with an athlete in my life than Paula Radcliffe.