You are more than welcome to look at the list on the IAAF website, or are you claiming that Radcliffe had a test that nobody else did?
You are more than welcome to look at the list on the IAAF website, or are you claiming that Radcliffe had a test that nobody else did?
Exactly how it works wrote:
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.
Are you suggesting that the testing protocols weren't followed in Vilamoura? Please post some evidence of this.
PilgrimS wrote:
pop_pop!_v3.0 wrote: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.
Here we are again. In theory, Seppelt/Sunday Times has lots of data on Paula and "clean" Paula refuses to let the data be discussed in detail.
Ashenden or Parisotto could clear things up if her data were non-positive. Transparency would end the whole drama. But, the IAAF refuses to support transparency.
For those that haven't seen it, parts of her official statement don't fit her biography.
https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664Bored of stupid people wrote:
Exactly how it works wrote: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.
Are you suggesting that the testing protocols weren't followed in Vilamoura? Please post some evidence of this.
No, I'm stating that COACH Canova knows more about the subject than you do.
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.
.
Answering my own question, it appears the IAAF had VERY detailed blood parameters during Radcliffe's career and somehow very rapid results.
https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664If we believe Paula's biography, Seppelt's data has granular detail on her.
If she were clean, then there would be no problem supporting a public discussion of her data.
Wow. Expert witness not subject to nike money and ass kissing coe and his good old boys club. I gotta assume.
pop_pop!_v3.0 wrote:
PilgrimS wrote:The Sunday Times has at least some of the data if not all, certainly more than 3 scores.
Here we are again. In theory, Seppelt/Sunday Times has lots of data on Paula and "clean" Paula refuses to let the data be discussed in detail.
Ashenden or Parisotto could clear things up if her data were non-positive. Transparency would end the whole drama. But, the IAAF refuses to support transparency.
For those that haven't seen it, parts of her official statement don't fit her biography.
https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664
Autobiography suggests there was no EPO test? I believe she said yesterday there was one.
It would help us if she made public some more blood data
The Scot wrote:
Autobiography suggests there was no EPO test? I believe she said yesterday there was one.
Shhh!!! You aren't supposed to notice that.
There are a number of problems with her statement. Some of them can't be helped others can.
Getting specifics of when/where testing occurred from your own biography suggests someone else prepped the statement and did a terrible job of it.
Incredible journalism by brojos. Rare.
Since I'm still waiting from you the names of athletes banned following adverse results, maybe better I explain you something.
The Biological Passport became effective for IAAF in 2009. Before that date, athletes could be banned ONLY IF WAS POSSIBLE TO FIND THE ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE IN THEIR URINE.
This means that IAAF didn't ban any athlete in periods before the adoption of BP, using the exact same protocols for testing the athletes, following adverse results.
So, it was not possible some athlete was banned in the same situation of Paula in Vilamoura, for the simple reason that in the urine of Paula it was not possible to find anything illegal.
Speaking again about FACTS, is a fact your deduction was completely fruit of imagination, and wrong.
"You perhaps ought to use your own brain a little, before cooking up stories which don't exist".
Looks like Paula didn't think they would blood test after the race since a WR was very unlikely to happen in those conditions... And then surprise!
From her biography she says her hemoglobin was low before the race but she didn't have that info until after the race. However, if she did know her hemoglobin was low before hand, she could rationalize it in her mind that she was blood boosting only to bring back to her normal level. Kind of the rationale for a therapeutic use exemption.
[quote]Renato Canova wrote:
The Biological Passport became effective for IAAF in 2009. Before that date, athletes could be banned ONLY IF WAS POSSIBLE TO FIND THE ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE IN THEIR URINE.
/quote]
And the athletes knew that
That's why theres so many suspicious athletes.All they had to do was avoid an epo positive test at the time
Now ,they would all be banned
Pilgrim_S wrote:
[quote]Renato Canova wrote:
The Biological Passport became effective for IAAF in 2009. Before that date, athletes could be banned ONLY IF WAS POSSIBLE TO FIND THE ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE IN THEIR URINE.
/quote]
And the athletes knew that
That's why theres so many suspicious athletes.All they had to do was avoid an epo positive test at the time
Now ,they would all be banned
Which is why she not dare discuss unfreezing samples. Let's be fair to her, unfreezing samples is not likely in many ways.
There are too many problems with her explanations to post them all at once.
Another one of many: she's trying to minimize the wild swings in her scores by comparing her score to others. That's an apples to oranges comparison. It's like comparing height or weight. Every body is different.
Another one: I'm still not sure how she can justify food poisoning, anti-biotics, heat, and dehydration THEN dropping everyone at an elite event.
Almost nothing adds up.
EPO cheats out Paula.
Wada have issued a statement pretty much confirming the tests were useless
Pilgrim_S wrote:
Wada have issued a statement pretty much confirming the tests were useless
Yeah, only because she was ahead of the game:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6742577Not guilty by a technicality!!
As per Herald Scotland:
In 2002, Radcliffe won the World Cross-Country title, London Marathon, Commonwealth and European track gold, and the Chicago marathon in world record time. During this spree, I was grilled along with other UK journalists about the credibility of her performances.
The inquirer, Stefan L'Hermitte of the French sports paper L'Equipe, proceeded to write, without reference to the opinions he had sought, that Radcliffe's performances were suspect, and insinuated that she had doped. Fluent in French, Radcliffe phoned him at home. He maintained he was entitled to the opinions he expressed, but gave what she described as "a half-hearted verbal apology".
More pertinently, Radcliffe confirmed yesterday that after she smashed the 16-year-old European record for 10,000 metres in 2002, she requested the IAAF freeze her blood samples so that future advances would permit retesting to demonstrate she was clean.
"However the issue is that once I do that, I have no control over them whatsoever, where they are stored or when they are retested.
"Frozen samples are retested on a regular basis. For example, I think I am allowed to confirm that my Helsinki '05 samples [where she won the World title] were just recently retested again with others, as better EPO tests come in. They were of course negative. What I have done is waive the 10-year rule, to confirm that my samples can continue to be retested past the 10-year threshold now in place. This is of course providing there remains enough left to keep retesting!"
300 posts in and the thread title keeps saying paul. amazing, isn't it?
Renato Canova wrote:
The Biological Passport became effective for IAAF in 2009. Before that date, athletes could be banned ONLY IF WAS POSSIBLE TO FIND THE ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE IN THEIR URINE.
So, it was not possible some athlete was banned in the same situation of Paula in Vilamoura, for the simple reason that in the urine of Paula it was not possible to find anything illegal.
You should think before typing.
Talk about freezing samples is so disingenuous.
Refrigerating is one thing.... freezing however....
Makes paulas words even more suspect