Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

Besides, it was very easy to detect if the warm of that day have some effect to higher the test values. Its just to check what were the value and the effect of the high temperature on the other runners that were tested on the same occasion.

Mr Cabral has made disparaging comments about Paula Radcliffe in the past. I would therefore take what he writes with a pinch of salt

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4245676&page=1

Maybe that's how it works now Dr Canova, but not back then:

http://www.dis-sportschiedsgericht.de/files/regelwerke/IAAFProcedGuidelinesDopingControl.pdf

No mention of pre-competition testing AT ALL, and selection of athletes is EITHER position OR random.

I'm just as much at liberty to be judgemental about other posters here as anyone else. We are all expressing opinions, very few of us who post here (and Lord knows, I don't know why I do!) have insight into real information other than what is publicly available to all.

The "guff" about proving her innocence is entirely relevant on this forum. This forum is full of people voicing opinions about Paula. You're right, I happen to have an opinion that she is clean. I hold that opinion because of what I consider to be some factual observations:-

- no failed tests

- what I consider to be a consistent and persistent opposition to doping throughout her career, and a very public one at that

- a principled stand which I understand the logic of in relation to maintaining some anonymity about blood results

- the fact that she is the highest profile female marathoner in the world, and a presumption that WADA has followed its own processes and fully investigated any untoward blood values to its satisfaction

(Some) innocent people (can) do some very odd things when they are put under pressure. Paula gives the impression of being someone who is very highly strung - in my experience, just the sort of person likely to make what appear to be poor judgements in the cause of defending themselves.

I make no bones about it - everything I read from this point onwards is read with a prejudice that I believe her to be innocent. I try to keep an open mind, though recognise this is impossible. But I have seen and heard NOTHING on this board from those who accuse her of doping that (in my judgement) trumps the facts as I see them.

In years to come, feel free to wheel this out as a post of a naive, gullible fanboy. But at the moment I feel she is the victim of an unwarranted witchhunt and as someone in athletics that I respect, I can't help myself but try to convince other forum posters that they are wrong.

No, this system works from 2001. During WCh in Edmonton, all the athletes were tested during the 3 days preceding the competition.

In 2005, Dorcus Inzikuru (winner of the first Championship of 3000 steeple for women) was tested 3 times (with blood) in the same morning : one from WADA, one from IAAF and one from the Finnish National Agency. This clearly shows a total lack of coordination. Dorcus came to me crying "coach, I have no more blood...", and I explained "your final is after one week, you medulla now reacts producing new Red Cells, and after 7 days you are in the best shape of your life...".

You must understand that all the test before WCH must be considered as normal OOC tests. It's very easy for WADA and IAAF to collect the most part of samples when all the athletes are together. This explains because there is not a specific note regarding blood tests in the days immediately before the competitions, but the reality is that Always there are test with the most part of athletes, and Always with the components of the best Teams (I speak about enduranec events, I don't know if also for the athletes of other events there are blood tests before Championships).

Im British and i can assure you that Paula is as clean as a whistle

Nobody has any doubt here and i would stake my house on it

Lol, I was sure I'd registered my name.

larkim

I have to admit, I don't really follow your chain of logic here?

Radcliffe is clearly lying about the pre-race test, because she says that the DCO who took the sample knew the result at the post-race testing. Whether or not the pre-race test happened, the result would not have been reported back to the DCO, who would not have passed it back to the athlete.

What we do know, and what you have confirmed, is that there is a pre-race sample which, if normal, would absolutely vindicate Radcliffe, but which she is absolutely silent about - I wonder why?

My chain of logic is very simple : I try to describe FACTS, and don't do any comment about SUPPOSITIONS regarding Paula.

Facts :

1) There were blood tests BEFORE the competition, may be for more than 50 athletes.

2) The temperature during the Women race started from 29° reaching or overtaking 32° at the end (about 40 minutes after midday)

3) With those conditions, the values are not reliable and it's not possible to give them any validity, since the deviation from the individual values in normal weather situation follows individual trends, and also if know how much this deviation is for other tested athletes, this doesn't mean the deviation for Paula must follow the same trend. Don't forget there were athletes who, in their contracts with the organizers of Major Marathons, wanted the possibility to be authorized not to start in case of temperature higher than 17° (Vincent Rousseau, for example) renouncing their appearance fee, buit at the same time being free to compete in another Marathon during the next 30 days.

If hot and humidity have the same effect for everybody, of sure we couldn't see the Italian Ruggero Pertile, 41 years old, number 4 in WCh in Beijing...

I have my personal opinion about Paula, but I don't want to discuss here with people using their belly instead their brain.

I read too many things without any meaning, products of incomplete knowledge or prearranged opinions : for example, the fact Paula didn't win anything till 2001, as proof she began to use doping when started to win, forgetting she started to win SOMETHING ELSE, changing distance and, of course, competitors. I'm pretty sure that also the Radcliffe 2003 if had the opportunity to compete in 5000 and 10000m against the best Dibaba and Defar could only continue the same trend of before : to pace all the competition for finishing 30m behind them in the last lap.

I've read the Sunday Times story again and it confirms what you said. She was tested 2 days before and then after the race showed a 40% rise in her blood scores from the test 2 days previous. The paper then goes on to say that this could have been achieved through blood doping but that it is not proof.

The thing I don't get is, if you know you've been tested and know that you are likely to win the race and get tested again in 2 days time, why would you blood dope in the period between the 2 tests? It just seems a crazy thing to do.

Seen this analysis?

http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

So even if all the blood experts say Paula is clean you still think she cheated?

This is why Paula never wanted her values leaked.

Seems to me the more experts that get involved, the better she looks so I wish she would just release everything and let the experts weigh in.

Who holds all of this data? WADA? IAAF? Paula herself? I cannot really see each individual athlete having all the results of every blood test they ever took so what exactly goes into 'releasing the data'?

Anyone know?

Here's a fact for you Dr Canova; the IAAF utilised the exact same protocols for testing all athletes of that period, some of whom were banned following adverse results. If we follow your chain of "logic" all of these bans should be overturned because the tests weren't "reliable".

You perhaps ought to use your own brain a little before commenting on others.

Not how it works wrote:

Here's a fact for you Dr Canova; the IAAF utilised the exact same protocols for testing all athletes of that period, some of whom were banned following adverse results. If we follow your chain of "logic" all of these bans should be overturned because the tests weren't "reliable".

You perhaps ought to use your own brain a little before commenting on others.

Tell him armchair quarterback. I'm sure you know the process much better than a world class, gold medal winning, WR setting coach does.

Please tell us more.

Maybe you know more than me what happened to many athletes.

Since I want Always to learn something that I don't know, can you, please, write the names of the banned athletes, and when they had the test ?

Thank you.

Does EPO even work for british white ladies?

If the conditions were so extreme as to cause her such dehydration, wouldn't Paula have mentioned something of it in the section of her autobiography specifically dedicated to that race? instead, she makes no reference to the heat nor dehydration.

joho wrote:

Who holds all of this data? WADA? IAAF? Paula herself? I cannot really see each individual athlete having all the results of every blood test they ever took so what exactly goes into 'releasing the data'?

Anyone know?

IAAF has all the data. What test scores they have is an open question.

Mr. Canova could tell us if the IAAF was collecting detailed blood parameters prior to WADA testing standards.

Once ADAMS was implemented, whatever testing Paula had would be in her account. It would be detailed data. But, prior to ADAMS, I don't know how it worked. Again, it's a great question for Mr. Canova.

pop_pop!_v3.0 wrote:

joho wrote:

Who holds all of this data? WADA? IAAF? Paula herself? I cannot really see each individual athlete having all the results of every blood test they ever took so what exactly goes into 'releasing the data'?

Anyone know?

IAAF has all the data. What test scores they have is an open question.

Mr. Canova could tell us if the IAAF was collecting detailed blood parameters prior to WADA testing standards.

Once ADAMS was implemented, whatever testing Paula had would be in her account. It would be detailed data. But, prior to ADAMS, I don't know how it worked. Again, it's a great question for Mr. Canova.

The Sunday Times has at least some of the data if not all, certainly more than 3 scores.