Radcliffe says she's not releasing blood values

Performing the test and the science behind it is complicated

Interpreting the tests is not. They even routinely come with a normal range guide and indicator of results outside of that. Even the layman could have some understanding of the results.

Pilgrim_S wrote:

In the paper they reported that one of the 3 suspect scores showed a 40% rise from the previous test. So over 50 or not, that's suspicous.

I'm more excited about the revolutionary accidental or intentional regimen that achieves this kind of oxygen capacity increase if she was clean. This would be bigger than the invention of intervals and long runs. I just hope having a baby isn't one of the necessary ingredients.

Brits don't want to talk about doping when it is their own snaggle toothed idol who is guilty. Brits have a massive inferiority complex. For instance, in WWII the Brits were defeated at every single battle in Asia and Europe. When the US came over and rescued them, the Brits (led by the entirely incompetent poofter toff Montgomery) insisted on being in the spotlight at the head of the column. No different here. The Brits just couldn't stand their precious bobblehead or mo getting the boot. And mo ain't even british; that shows just how desperate they are. Brits so desperately want to move up from third-world status.

Not every brit has horrible teeth, just most of them. Not every brit male is gay, just most of them. Not every brit is supercilious and dangerously innerbred, just most of them. Not every brit talks like they have a mouth full of marbles, just most of them.

Britain is third-world. Brits are leaches. Brits do look funny and talk funny. Brits do provide some comic relief and remind us how much worse off we could be.

Aside from that, Radcliffe is a doper. Coe and the other brits will do anything to protect her because brits just can't stand another hit to their fragile ego. I'm not saying that Americans are even close to perfect, or even good at all. But they are better than brits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh dear, quite the hissy fits. I guess that you are still upset about losing to North Korea and the Viet-Cong.

paularatchet wrote:

I ran a sub 30 10k and there's no way I would be anywhere near 215 or let alone sub 218 for a marathon. She's definitely dirty, no legit chick could take me to school like that. The evidence is obvious , and she's not as good as lance at lying to a camera. Hopefully that pig Coe won't cover her up like the rest of his IiAAf clowns. But we all know he will.

Dick Beardsley's 10K PR is 29:12. Marathon PR is 2:08:53. You couldn't even get into his school.

Pilgrim_S wrote:

In the paper they reported that one of the 3 suspect scores showed a 40% rise from the previous test. So over 50 or not, that's suspicous.

Not if she was pregnant.

Phil O'Pian wrote:

Pilgrim_S wrote:

In the paper they reported that one of the 3 suspect scores showed a 40% rise from the previous test. So over 50 or not, that's suspicous.

Not if she was pregnant.

If it was that easily explained away then she'd have no reason to fear the publication of her results.

I was wondering when someone was going to mention this. It's pretty convenient to say give your blood tests to the authorities when you know that they are being accused of trying to obstacle the publication of suspicious results! Everyone knows the IAAF has always protected dopers so.....

Even if they eventually prove she was dirty they will probably keep her marathon records anyway!

I have now completely lost faith in the sport.

America could lose to Inner Mongolia and still be better than England. Limeys lost WWI and WWII, and we saved their boarding school butts.

Two things: Camilla Parker Bowles and nasty rotten teeth. You brits should be proud.

Best post ever? Nothin' but the truth. Except you forgot that the Brits are funnier than the Yankess. Take the Brit "the Office" versus the American version. No comparison.

Yeah that old 'Battle of Britain' we lost that did we? I think not. 1940, no sign of the USA, still deciding which side to be on.

Any chance you fellas can go and argue over on one of the 'British Teeth' threads?

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8687477133452597%3Ay2r7jtxdt15&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=british+teeth&sa=#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=british%20teeth&gsc.page=1

dkny64 wrote:

no blood on my hands wrote:

If my training is going very well (75+ m.p.w. with consistent workouts) I can squeak under 4:10 for the mile and 8:20 for the 3k. As a young man, my father could run more or less in the same range. That's with a good amount of training under our belts.

A high hematocrit does not, in my experience, indicate an automatic capacity for high endurance. As a coach, I know that some of the best athletes I worked with (running in mid 13:30 range) had hematocrits more in the 38 range. Their oxygen utilization capacity was far superior to mine.

So, I don't think that there is some one to one relationship between hematocrit and endurance capacity.

I think it would be interesting to see what happens if you take that 13:3x 5k runner at hematocrit 38-40 and boost his hematocrit to, say, 43-45.

Maybe you should as Paula :-)

Joking aside the pro cyclist were boosting their scores from anything in the 30's up to 50. Anything over 50 and they would be banned. So they had the ridiculous situation where a whole team of riders scoring 49 or 50 so the authorities knew they were doping but they were within the rules. They obviously did it because there was an improvement.

They even sought out riders with lower scores as they knew there would be a bigger improvement when the doped. The doctors involved (Francesco Conconi and Michele Ferrari) were very sophisticated.

They can probably tell you what would happen.

Apologies if you know this already.

The interview didn't go into too many specifics. Whilst she was challenged about her world record time, it didn't ask for her opinion on the leaked scores in reference to results in the major marathons during the time she was racing.

Something like the Sunday Times says that 29% of the major marathons between 2001 and 2012 were won by athletes with suspicious scores, how do you feel about that Paula?

Actually I've only seen the interview online, is there more, as the first question seems to come in part way through the interview?

The person in question "looked shaken" as they told the Sunday Times they "never cheated".

Referring to Lance Armstrong's libel action against the Sunday Times following suggestions he doped during his Tour de France victories, which he later admitted and then had to repay the paper, the athlete added: “You print it and I sue you [and] you won’t be getting any money back in future like Lance Armstrong — I promise you that.”

Pilgrim_S wrote:

The interview didn't go into too many specifics. Whilst she was challenged about her world record time, it didn't ask for her opinion on the leaked scores in reference to results in the major marathons during the time she was racing.

Something like the Sunday Times says that 29% of the major marathons between 2001 and 2012 were won by athletes with suspicious scores, how do you feel about that Paula?

Actually I've only seen the interview online, is there more, as the first question seems to come in part way through the interview?

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

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.

Over here in the UK the running community is split in relation Radcliffe...many (me included) judge her performances with a degree of suspicion and, given her recent change on heart in relation to transparency, the number who are suspicious is growing by the day.

All this said...for me the biggest issue is the NGBs and IAAFs handling of the whole doping scandals that are threatening the integrity of the sport we all love so much. One could argue that many of the NGBs and even the IAAF itself have either ignored the issues or, even worse, have been complicit in the doping.

With the Worlds coming up this weekend I wonder how many who finish 4th, 5th or 6th will end up being given a podium medal over the coming years...

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.