IAAF say Radcliffe innocent of blood doping:
IAAF say Radcliffe innocent of blood doping:
She still hasn't released her blood values like other athletes have, which Wejo said makes him less likely to believe she was clean.
Is wejo and Paula update?
Since only an expert in blood doping and the passport procedure could categorically declare Radcliffe innocent, I would like to know which expert the IAAF consulted in order to reach this conclusion of innocence.
Shizzy d wrote:
She still hasn't released her blood values like other athletes have, which Wejo said makes him less likely to believe she was clean.
there are clearly plausible explanations for the values in her profile that are entirely innocent is not the same as UKAD found her innocent of blood doping, yet the BBC run that as their headline...
As has been proven many times over the years, the IAAF and UK athletics are hardly reputable governing bodies and absolutely nothing they say should be taken seriously regarding this matter.
There has been zero transparency in this case and of the limited blood tests that have been leaked to the public three have been proven abnormal. The excuses given for these three abnormal blood tests were very debatable, and for all we now there may have been several other blood test results that were completely off the charts.
Paula, like Geb, Bekele, and Bolt, is untouchable.
Geez. The governing body of the sport goes out of its way to specifically demonstrate why it has no evidence of doping, despite focussed testing, on a specific athlete.
And that STILL isn't enough for keyboard jockeys to accept that what they "know in their hearts" doesn't actually stand up to any scrutiny.
I despair!
The Governing body of the sport had no issues with Russia a month ago, yet it had all the data that was used to suspend the 5 athletes last week.
larkimm wrote:
Geez. The governing body of the sport goes out of its way to specifically demonstrate why it has no evidence of doping, despite focussed testing, on a specific athlete.
And that STILL isn't enough for keyboard jockeys to accept that what they "know in their hearts" doesn't actually stand up to any scrutiny.
I despair!
Do you really believe that IAAF had "no issues" with Russia? You, my friend, live in a parallel fantasy world which I cannot conceive of.
larkimm wrote:
Geez. The governing body of the sport goes out of its way to specifically demonstrate why it has no evidence of doping, despite focussed testing, on a specific athlete.
The evidence has probably been destroyed at this point.
I have so many problems with that, don't even know where to start. Ok, in no particular order: 1) A governing body that investigates itself will always find that it behaved perfectly. 2) An institution where the highest leader was evidently correct and covered up doping in exchange for money cannot be trusted, as long as it doesn't fire all its leaders. 3) Then Coe. Oh boy. The VP during these corrupt times ("are you corrupt or incompetent?"), with no understanding whatsoever of the conflict of interest principles (Nike's money anyone?), is now defending as President both IAAF and Paula, one of his best friends, at the same time. Again ignoring the blatantly obvious conflicts of interest. 4) "The governing body of the sport goes out of its way" That's exactly the problem, a consequence of my points 1 - 3. For example, they- claim that Paula ran that HM in October in "29° heat", though the weather statistics show 20 - 22°- pretend that values above the altitude limit can be explained with an altitude stay- leave out inconvenient details, e.g. while stating that a "concentration of the plasma volume" causes an HGB increase, they didn't mention the outrageous >20% increase in HBG concentration, or that while altitude may lower RET% without admitting to her crazy change therein, three weeks later- repeatedly just accept Paula's claims without verification ("Ms. Radcliffe has confirmed that...", "she noted that...",...) - pretend that a negative urine test proves the innocence of an athlete. Conclusion: this is highly suspicious.
larkimm wrote:
Geez. The governing body of the sport goes out of its way to specifically demonstrate why it has no evidence of doping, despite focussed testing, on a specific athlete.
lol at all the other PR threads being deleted as soon as they appear.
It must be hardcoded into the software at this point.
larkimm wrote:
Do you really believe that IAAF had "no issues" with Russia? You, my friend, live in a parallel fantasy world which I cannot conceive of.
Please tell us more.
I would love to hear about how the IAAF is but a weak actor, Were they kowtowed by Russia? How?
Radcliffe's off-scores were clearly beyond the positive threshold and there was nothing. Zero. Red flags waving and nothing from the IAAF. How much did that cost Radcliffe's sponsors?
cleans wrote:
Since only an expert in blood doping and the passport procedure could categorically declare Radcliffe innocent, I would like to know which expert the IAAF consulted in order to reach this conclusion of innocence.
Why Lord Coe himself, who else?
What I would like to understand is why the IAAF were sharing blood test results with Paula in 2004. And, to a lesser extent, why Paula was monitoring her own haemoglobin levels at the time. Was that normal behaviour ten years ago? Fair enough if it was.
https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664
paula claims the press have been hounding her a lot.seems a lot of people think her performances are suspect.