Official: Paul Radcliffe statement

People keep saying this so who exactly did she call out that hadn't failed a test?

This ^

OMG... 1 million times this ^

Coach.. wrote:

David Walsh has tweeted that he will be writing about Paula in this week's Sunday Times

He is the journalist who brought down Lance Armstrong

At the London Diamond League meet (whilst PR was threatening to sue anyone who printed her name) she went and asked David Walsh for his help.

He declined due to his employment with The Times.

My guess is he sits on the fence here.

Leave Paula alone!!!!

She's a human!!!!!!

Chris Crocker wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/34204775

Leave Paula alone!!!!

She's a human!!!!!!

In general, she sounds like she has lost the plot.

She says won't release her blood data because she doesn't want other innocent athletes to go through what she's been through. Surely releasing the data and explaining the context which says hasn't been considered would have been a better way to argue innocence than letting the situation build & build until she was backed into a corner.

She also says someone from the IAAF should have been at the parliament committee meeting, didn't she hear that her buddy Seb Coe is going to be there?

I was speaking about the researches for understanding the effects of doping, not about the validity of blood values, if investigated in longitudinal way.

While for any person, from the sedentary till the WR holder, we can build a Biological Passport based on several blood tests (not less than 10) carried out in a logic period of time (for example one year) looking at the fluctuation of the values, and the validity of the process doesn't depend on the value of the person in some specific event (so, probably, if we want to build a BP for normal people, we can discover many are doped without knowing... thank to all the medicines and supplements they take, not because they need, but because easily influenced by the heavy publicity bombarding continuously the brain of the most part of persons..... but this is another story), when we speak about "researches" looking at the effects of doping, ALWAYS we see that the subjects are part of a general population, very far from the specific class of top athletes.

I never become tired to explain that for speaking about effects of doping we MUST, before, to know the effects of training.

And training is not something "generic", but has very specific features.

What does mean "well trained" for a Group of athletes, generically called "elite" ? Is 40 km in 3 hours a workout producing on the body the same physiological effect, in some athlete with 2:50 of PB and in another athlete with 2:05 of PB ? Is 10 x 400m in 72" an example of "good specific training" for an athlete with PB of 16:00 in 5000m, or for Mo Farah ?

Accepting the fact that the physiology works in the same way for everybody, for increasing the personal ability to perform in some direction, how much is the influence of different training (as volume and intensity) or/and of the assumption of some PED, in order to modify the physiology itself for achieving more important results ? And how much is the influence of the COMBINATION of training and PEDs ? And how much the increase of quality and volume of training can reduce the importance of PED's, till cancelling completely the possibility of further improvements due to the PED assumption ? Or, on the contrary, how much the increase of doping can limit the effects of training (so more doping = less training, and also increasing training the athlete can't improve, because the development of his qualities depends more on the pharmacs he takes than on the level of his training) ?

Not every doping is the same, and putting in the same pot the assumption of steroids and of EPO and derivates is a great mistake. If NEVER (sorry for J.O.) it's possible for athletes using roids to reach the same level of muscle strength using clean training only (so in this case the effect of PEDs assumption on the final performance is evident, how the WR in throwing and all the events based on muscle strength clearly shows : no WR after 1988), ALWAYS it's possible to reach the same maximal level of competitivity in the sport of endurance not using external equipments (such as skies, or bikes), particularly running and swimming long distances, ONLY with proper training and a right modulation between training loads and recovery.

For doing this, we need to know which effects the training of top athletes can have on their physiology. And I'm quite sure that NOBODY about all the scientists involved in antidoping have real data about the effects of training of the best athletes in the world, because they don't know what athletes do, and don't have possibility to test with continuity these athletes during their periodization.

For a real research, there is one system only : to ask many of the top in the World to control their blood values periodically (for example, every 3 weeks) at charge of WADA or some other Agency, during all the season, putting the values in relation with the training period and the current shape of the athletes. This for knowing and understanding the effects of training.

And this MUST be the first step, before speaking about effects of doping.

flimsy attempt at defending her at best. Regardless, Radcliffe has been very vocal about releasing everything the IAAF has on her in the past for public scrutiny. She knows her values are so messed up - and honestly, speaking as an athlete that some would consider elite, I do not feel that altitude, hard training, dehydration, and other minute factors can have such a huge effect on values such as these, based on what I have read. They seem to be very, very suspicious and until she releases them with an official explanation she will continue to look guilty.

Someone answer me this:

If Paula Radcliffe was a doper, will she be forced to admit it, or be "disgraced" a la Armstrong? So how will she be caught?

There is no Betsy Ardue, Floyd Landis or Tyler Hamilton.

Would it be reasonable to surmise that blood samples from dopers circa 2003 would likely show much greater manipulation and therefore a single blood sample may provide reasonable certainty of doping.

At the time there was no biological passport and only a rudimentary EPO test

David B wrote:

Someone answer me this:

If Paula Radcliffe was a doper, will she be forced to admit it, or be "disgraced" a la Armstrong? So how will she be caught?

There is no Betsy Ardue, Floyd Landis or Tyler Hamilton.

Doesn't Great Britain have any of those guys with guns and badges to start asking the questions?

I'd agree about her losing the plot. She's clearly fired all her guns at once with that statement and now she's playing the most desperate and lowest of all cards - claiming that she is being 'abused' by the media !

This doesn't seem like the conduct of a person who has nothing to hide.

She is being hoist by her own petard because she has played the anti-doping campaigner for so many years and now, with the spotlight on her, she's coming up with all sorts of excuses and misdirections rather than opt for the transparency she has trumpeted so fervently in the past.

She lives in Monaco now, so fat chance.

I just think it will be covered up. British Heroine, friend of Seb's (same Uni), Nike cover girl.

I will be amazed if she goes down. Needs to admit it, and only will with overwhelming evidence against her, but i cant see it coming.

Did anyone see Newsnight on BBC yesterday ?

When I saw that Steve Cram was going to be on talking about Paula I thought 'what a waste of time, one of her mates coming to the rescue'. However, it turned out to be a little gem...

Cram clearly thought he'd be allowed to just give a load of bland answers, play it down and do a good all round job for his chum Paula. He was wrong.

It all seemed to kick off sweetly enough for Steve, and he was just starting to get into his confident stride when the interviewer (Emily Maitliss) asked the entirely reasonable question '...why doesn't she just release the data...'

Steve tried to avoid it, bat it away, anything but address the issue head on. One of his weak efforts was '..well people might not understand it....' -even he seemed embarrassed by that effort which was easily countered by the interviewer. And he was getting more and more uncomfortable as it went on. You could see he wished he was anywhere but in that chair as the sweat bubbled on his top lip..

And therein lies the problem for him and Paula; you can't expect people to believe your explanations for abnormal data if you aren't prepared to reveal what they actually are.

The inescapable truth here is that a truly innocent person would publish it and supply the explanation, and be prepared to accept that some will believe you and some won't.

The press seem to be in the early stages of tearing her apart

She needs to stop talking as she is not helping her cause

She also says if she released her blood scores along with an expert's analysis then it would clear her. Strange then that she has chosen not to do this

The British press have started to bury this.

It was the 18th story down on BBC sport website last night & made no mainstream bulletins, that I saw/heard, this morning on TV or radio.

We don't point the finger at our own over here.

"Trust me" is a believable defence.

Why does she repeatedly state that the temperature at Vilamoura Half Marathon Worlds in 2003 was around 30 degrees? In reports about that race it's stated as 22 degrees. Sure, the temperature could have been rising throughout the day, but 8 degrees is a lot for a race already starting at midday. 22 at the start and roughly an hour later 30? Seems like an exaggeration.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbmarathon-Weltmeisterschaften_2003

Ok Renato is basicaly saying that WADA does not know how to interperate bllod doping test results as they do not understand training effects.

That would make testing a complete waste of time or easy to manipulate.

I always thoguht all athletes where taken to doping controll after an event but was obviously wrong.

The main thing if I am correct which hopefully I am not is that you are not classes as a doping suspect unless there is agreat that 1 out of 100 chance that your blood test could natural. That seems very generous in itself. 1/10 would be a better level.

Not sure if I am undertanding this correctly but the tests have showed she was doped with more accuracey that a test would show you are pregnant.

Correct me if I am wrong. her reult she is hiding is probably something like there is a 1 in 700 chance this is natural which is basicaly no chance

Cram on newsnight last night looked out of his comfort zone, really struggled. I also find it funny how everyone who is 'outspoken' or involved is nike associated.