So Wejo, Did you talk to Paula

Link wrote:

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that she was clean. I wish I could. But think about this as someone not close to her might. She ran, in the middle of the EPO era - in fact, just before a reliable test for EPO came online - a time that even doped Kenyans haven't come within 3 minutes of for the last 12 years. She left you, as a pacer, when you weren't too far off 28 flat 10k shape, nearly in the dust when you tried to pace her.

She had male pacemakers the entire way and the wind at her back most of the way. Second best marks are more indicative of ability.

Yikes! You might want to double-check everything you wrote. It doesn't sound right that 2003 blood samples were even used at all for "getting busted", either then, or later.In any case, IF only one value was above the "1 in 100" threshold, then what is the Sunday Times writing about when they say 3 results were "1 in 1000"? The open question is where does this discrepancy come from (rhetorical)? Are they talking about two different things? If "1 in 100" is sufficient to "get busted", or trigger an IAAF response, why would the Sunday Times need to exaggerate?

The Scot wrote:

Wrong. The protocol ONLY gives the 1/100 threshold and that alone can be enough to get you busted, or lead to further testing.

There may of course be some unwritten further rule/guideline we don't know about. I have wondered if in fact the procedure is that they will bust you on passport alone if you meet the 1/1000 level.

Lemond accused Lance as early as 2001 ("greatest comeback or greatest fraud" quote).L'Equipe accused Lance in 2004.This triggered the arbitration in 2005, where Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly, and others, testified.Somewhere around that same time David Walsh also wrote a book, where Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly discussed their experience.

Link wrote:

Maybe I'm just forgetting, but it wasn't until 2009 - 3 years after Armstrong dodged a bullet similar to the one PR is facing - that anyone but the Andreu's were publicly accusing Lance of anything. It was still 3 years after that before he was finally brought down.

...

rekrunner wrote:

Lemond accused Lance as early as 2001 ("greatest comeback or greatest fraud" quote).

L'Equipe accused Lance in 2004.

This triggered the arbitration in 2005, where Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly, and others, testified.

Somewhere around that same time David Walsh also wrote a book, where Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly discussed their experience.

Link wrote:

Maybe I'm just forgetting, but it wasn't until 2009 - 3 years after Armstrong dodged a bullet similar to the one PR is facing - that anyone but the Andreu's were publicly accusing Lance of anything. It was still 3 years after that before he was finally brought down.

...

I haven't thought about the whole Lance story for a while. I thought that Lemond has always claimed that he was set up a little by that quote. That he was asked 'what if Lance is cheating' and then he replied 'it would be the greatest fraud'. Of course, we know that Lemond suspected and, privately, at least identified Lance as doper.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying the timeline. I always thought it was remarkable that Lance wasn't outed sooner, given how many people knew... the conspiracy of silence involved dozens, perhaps even hundreds of people. Of course, most of them were benefiting handsomely from Lance's success and celebrity.

If Paula was a doper, then because she didn't really train with a group, it's much less likely that anyone is going to come forward with some big revelation. The only people who might be able to give first hand accounts, are likely to be the people directly involved in administering it. They all have a very strong interest in keeping their mouths shut.

Like I said, it will be very interesting to see if any of her contemporaries come to her defense.

Wejo, I'm having difficulty following the logic that Radcliffe communicated to you and then to us.

If her blood values are "odd" and have a logical explanation then it doesn't take weeks or months to do that. Just throw it out now.

If her values are off then which ones are off? Hematocrit, T:E, TH, liver and kidney enzymes? What? All of them?

Where there's smoke there's fire.

rekrunner wrote:

Link wrote:

Like I said, it will be very interesting to see if any of her contemporaries come to her defense.

they already have today

Links, please.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

She had male pacemakers the entire way and the wind at her back most of the way. Second best marks are more indicative of ability.

That she dropped like hobby joggers. Seems legit.

rekrunner wrote:

Lemond accused Lance as early as 2001 ("greatest comeback or greatest fraud" quote).

L'Equipe accused Lance in 2004.

This triggered the arbitration in 2005, where Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly, and others, testified.

Somewhere around that same time David Walsh also wrote a book, where Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly discussed their experience.

Link wrote:

Maybe I'm just forgetting, but it wasn't until 2009 - 3 years after Armstrong dodged a bullet similar to the one PR is facing - that anyone but the Andreu's were publicly accusing Lance of anything. It was still 3 years after that before he was finally brought down.

...

Actually before that even. A cast of minor characters who never made it out of national-level rankings were talking about it and getting blackballed by USA Cycling. Others include Genevieve Jeanson and Tammy Thomas.

And then there's this:

Chris Carmichael doping Lance Armstrong as a teenager along with Lance's pals at the time.

Like the NOP rumors, the stuff was trickling out for over a decade before something happened on an international scale.

rekrunner wrote:

Yikes! You might want to double-check everything you wrote. It doesn't sound right that 2003 blood samples were even used at all for "getting busted", either then, or later.

Yes, this highlights some technical problems with her statement. I'm perfectly willing to grant her a free pass on these details though because then a statement to MPs is a mess.

You know who else had doping experts claiming they were clean? Lance Armstrong.

If she would release the data to Ashenden and Parisotto from the start, then she would have had something of a reputation left in the extremely unlikely event she was clean.

Sadly, I think this is really starting to look like Lance 2.0.

One thing that is pretty clear about Paula - if she is clean, then she is arguably the greatest female runner that the world has ever seen.

On the other hand, if she did in fact dope, then she isn't just another cheater. She is a rotten sociopath. The worst of the worst. Cheating wasn't enough, she had to try to bring down everyone else around her while manipulating friends and media to believe she was the greatest thing that ever happened to women's distance running.

I really hope she is clean.

Not how it works wrote:

Isn't it at all worrying to you that she can apparently condemn these Russian athletes as cheats based on evidence that was gathered using exactly the same protocols that the evidence against her was gathered? Can you not make the logical link that, if we are assigning guilt based on evidence gathered under a previous paradigm, either all the people she has been accusing of cheating over the years are equally as innocent as she is, or they are all guilty?

You can't have it both ways.

Those Russians were convicted for such evidence.

Why wasn't Radcliffe???????????

When will we know. wrote:

Ok, papers are saying 3 tests in the "1/1000" Mark, Paula is saying none above "1/100". Wejo, you've seen the readings - just tell us.

You're asking a guy who can't spell, to interpret the readings from a test?

I didn't write that.

Since it sounds like you still can't be bothered to read the protocol here are the relevant extracts.

"9.3 An initial review of Athlete profiles shall be conducted by the IAAF Medical and Anti-Doping

Department using the Adaptive Model8 and any profile in which the Adaptive Model identifies the

Hb or Off-hr score as abnormal with a 99% probability or more shall be submitted for further review

by a panel of three experts in accordance with 9.4 below (Expert Panel)."

...

Based on such review, the Panel shall render one of the

following opinions:

9.6.1 that, in the Panel’s unanimous opinion, absent a satisfactory explanation from the Athlete, it is highly likely that the Athlete has used a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method; or

9.6.2 that the information received is suspicious for doping and additional investigation should be pursued. The Panel may advise what additional information it recommends; or

9.6.3 that the information does not warrant any special additional Testing effort or investigation

at this time."

I have noted the 'discrepancy' about the different thresholds referred to before either here or on other forums. I don't know the answer which is why I made the speculation I did in my previous post. But again, if you read the ST article on Shobukova they take you right through all her readings and the thresholds they break through right up to 1/1000000000. The whole thrust of part two was to ask why it took them so many years to take her down when she was already way past anything which could conceivably have a natural explanation.

pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Lemond accused Lance as early as 2001 ("greatest comeback or greatest fraud" quote).

L'Equipe accused Lance in 2004.

This triggered the arbitration in 2005, where Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly, and others, testified.

Somewhere around that same time David Walsh also wrote a book, where Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly discussed their experience.

Actually before that even. A cast of minor characters who never made it out of national-level rankings were talking about it and getting blackballed by USA Cycling. Others include Genevieve Jeanson and Tammy Thomas.

And then there's this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dope-and-glory-10-04-2001/

Chris Carmichael doping Lance Armstrong as a teenager along with Lance's pals at the time.

Like the NOP rumors, the stuff was trickling out for over a decade before something happened on an international scale.

Which is why the Paula situation is nothing like the Lance situation. Has any other competitors accused Paula of doping? Has anyone that ever worked with Paula accused her of doping? I have yet to hear anything, outside of the 3 samples, that would suggest Paula has ever cheated.

The 3 samples are big but if they can be explained as she claims, then there is no reason to believe she is a cheater IMO.

Has been there been any clarification on the "facts" in her rebuttal statement

The dehydration and the timing of the doping control etc. as influencing factors

Was the blood sample actually taken immediately post -race

1) The difficulty people have in discussing these values and what is a 1/100, 1/1000 threshhold, what affects altitude, dehydration, etc have on these things I think shows it is a very difficult subject matter.

I think the advice Paula got was that the granny on the street in England would hear her name associated with doping so first her group needed to get everything in order, have experts analyze her data, clear her name, and then issue some sort of report rather than just have some sort of "suspicious" offscore released. She told me there was no super injunction involving herself. Any publication that had access to the data was free to publisher her values and none chose to do so. I assume the Times of London wasn't the only ones who saw it.

I only conceptually know what an off score is. I couldn't calculate one and I have no idea what causes a person to get sanctioned. From the way the Sunday Times wrote about this as well I think they rely on experts so I think we can agree this is a complex subject matter.

I told Paula and Gary from the beginning the truth would come out eventually and experts could assess this data and the public was smart enough to figure out what they were saying so I advocated for the data to come out immediately and was confident long term all the data would come out. Journalists already had her leaked blood data. There was no way it was going to go away.

Believing she is still clean (which I do) I think they took bad advise. If on the other hand her values are indicative of someone who cheated once the blood values were leaked there was no way she could keep them from being analyzed so might as well come out with it.

Paula showed me the values as 1) she assumes I'm more informed than the average person on the street 2) She wanted to show me she was clean and had nothing to hide. I think people share things with friends they don't share with the general public. She shared me the info off the record

As I said yesterday all along Gary and Paula indicated to me, the full story would eventually be told, they just didn't want to do it on the Sunday Times schedule.

As for the Russian there is a big difference. Most of them have been busted in other ways. Also there is a history of state supported doping.

I need to research a little more what the 1/100 threshhold is. Does anyone know the threshholds and for altitude athletes? I'm not sure exactly how simple it is. I am confident all the data will come out. The more I learn on this the more confusing it is as I was hearing today how offscores become individualized for athletes over time. I'm going to do a little more research on this and try and publish something more informed. But for now my post from the other day when I said after running with Paula in Beijing that she was clean, that was after seeing her scores and hearing her explanations.

I think people are missing the back part of Paula's statement from yesterday where she says "I understand the team from WADA found nothing and I fully expect that once the Independent Committee publish their report I will again be found to have no case to answer" and talks about an independent doping expert saying, "Therefore, I consider that any interpretation of this profile, which would be done by ignoring the confounding factors cited above, is abusive. Furthermore, any interpretation of these data implemented in an individual and longitudinal blood profile between 2001 and 2008 can be considered to my eyes as intellectually dishonest and scientifically biased."

I think Paula should have just come out yesterday and said, "I am the athlete in question. I have nothing to hide. I welcome WADA and independent experts not associated with the Sunday Times issuing a report on this. I have" if she wanted to get across she was not happy with the Sunday Times.

I guess people would clamor for details in the interim. She could have then said, "I have encouraged WADA to have independent experts look at my data and while their investigation is not done one expert has said XYZ" and have the stuff she had yesterday.

I think Paula is clean but I am shocked at how many other journalists, athletes, and industry insiders think she is as well. I figured most of the British press would think she was dirty. That was not the case in Beijing.

That isn't conclusive proof of anything, but people are comparing this to Lance. With Lance, well before he doped I think most industry insiders concluded he was doping.

Read this tweet by David Monti:

There is no chance -none- that @paulajradcliffe used PED's. If you think that, you simply don't know her at all.

I wouldn't go that strong because people can always disappoint you, but it shows how much of a limb he is willing to go out on. It was retweeted by Hannah England and Alvina Begay as well.

And I see Paula is confirming publicly what I said the other day, there was no super injunction. She tweeted, "While we are clearing things up. I never had any injunction Super or otherwise. Not needed when you have the Truth."

So I guess her thinking was unless someone was going to print something directly accusing her of something why should she come out and say anything? My counterargument would be eventually the stuff would be leaked and she'd have to answer anyway.

Wejo.....so she will not be releasing her blood data. What are your thoughts now?