Egun wrote:
Her story sounds like 'the dog ate my homework'.
Nobody would believe you.
Egun wrote:
Her story sounds like 'the dog ate my homework'.
Nobody would believe you.
I'm actually having a change of mind on this after weighing up the accumulated evidence
It does appear that she may actually be clean
Witch-hunt... This story is more and more like Lance's... it'll be fun to see this cheater eat it...
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/10/iaaf-select-committe-paula-radcliffe-data
And "Lord" Coe can kiss my American ass!!!
The context behind her unusual blood result following the half marathon world champs was explained years ago in her autobiography (from Russ Tucker's Twitter):
https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664
I am starting to believe her but also think she has handled this situation terribly.
27m27 minutes ago
Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport
So with a Hb of 12.0, to get an Off-score of 114.9, you need a retic % that is incredibly low (
There are no units attached to the Sky report of results. There are no dates quoted for all the tests. The test lab and test methods are not quoted. You would want all the results of all the tests to cross correlate values. So. Too many true morons are involved in this process. The problem with many so called scientists is that they can get by with saying bulshit to people that don.t know anything. It is not like track where you run your 28.00 min. 10K and there is no doubt you are good. Public domain science ain.t like that. Most of your scientists are deluded fakes who can.t hold an einsteins jock strap. The public has no idea about this farce. A lot of the top guys simply stay out of the public process because it is like trying to play tennis with baboons. What are you going to do?
Is everyone missing the key part here?
"They did blood tests BEFORE the race."
I thought it was straight afterwards? Yet more misdirection or just a blatant lie.
Also, why would you go into such great detail in explaining your haemoglobin levels and the context around testing in that race in an autobiography? Unless you knew you'd tested high...
And trying to say the time was poor because she eased off is bunk, the rest of the fiedl were roughly the same distance back as weeks before, the conditions were slower, it was hotter and so on.
Just utter nonsense.
[quote]wejo wrote:
See this article we just posted:
Both Ross and I think there needs to be more transparency.
The problem being yesterday seemed a bad day if you hoped PR was going to be transparent. At same time as she said she wouldn't release her data, Sky releases snippets of it (with her permission?) that are impossible to interpret alone but state they show she is 'clean', Lord Coe declares that we all know she ran 'clean' , and her husband states WADA should declare at this moment that she has no case to answer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/34215779) . So at this point the most vocal advocate for more rigorous testing in athletics and calling out 'cheats' has got the chair of the IAAF declaring her clean and wants WADA to do the same before there has been full independent examination of her data, and indeed at the same time as saying she won't release her data. Remember that this story was started by a whistleblower who leaked data because the IAAF were not acting on suspicious blood values. As an outsider who wants to believe PR ran fairly, yesterday was a dark day. I hope PR remains true to her conversation in Beijing with Wejo. But I don't see how that was consistent with yesterday.
Blood test before the race
She knew there was no epo in the sample
She knows a helluva lot about haemoglobin for someone who said she didn't know what an off-score is
wejo wrote:
1) Renato Canova posted on here it was very hot int he sun that day. The IAAF recap of the race says,
https://web.archive.org/web/20071211152829/http://www.iaaf.org/WHM03/news/Kind=2/newsId=23335.html"From the beginning, the world best seemed to be on the cards. Radcliffe after less than two minutes was forging ahead and until an unexpected burn-out before the 15k marker, it seemed Meyer's mark set in Tokyo, was destined for the dust bin.
But the scorching Algarve weather with temperature rising rapidly from 22 degress after the start, seriously blunted any ambitions Radcliffe may have had in that direction.
If the temperature at the start was 22, there's no way it rose more than 2-3 degrees in 67 minutes.
I had no opinion on her doping until I read her statement. But her words, and those of her defenders, smell of the desperation of knowing she's about to be exposed.
The little lies (temperature, and timing of the test) all serve to hide bigger lies.
Her protests are cut-and-past straight from the Lance saga. Paula got away with it longer because she's more likable, so has more defenders. Lance would've slipped through if he hadn't been such a douche bag.
Yesterday's data release was a non-event as the values were without any context whatsoever.
I find it hard to believe that Ashenden & co would have raised concerns about her blood values had they been as marginal as Paula was trying to suggest yesterday.
Has her recent conduct been that of someone who should be relaxed safe in the knowledge that everything is in order and they have nothing to worry about? I think not.
I suspect there may be more to come on this. Perhaps even in this weeks' ST ?
We are all boiling wrote:
wejo wrote:1) Renato Canova posted on here it was very hot int he sun that day. The IAAF recap of the race says,
https://web.archive.org/web/20071211152829/http://www.iaaf.org/WHM03/news/Kind=2/newsId=23335.html"From the beginning, the world best seemed to be on the cards. Radcliffe after less than two minutes was forging ahead and until an unexpected burn-out before the 15k marker, it seemed Meyer's mark set in Tokyo, was destined for the dust bin.
But the scorching Algarve weather with temperature rising rapidly from 22 degress after the start, seriously blunted any ambitions Radcliffe may have had in that direction.
If the temperature at the start was 22, there's no way it rose more than 2-3 degrees in 67 minutes.
I had no opinion on her doping until I read her statement. But her words, and those of her defenders, smell of the desperation of knowing she's about to be exposed.
The little lies (temperature, and timing of the test) all serve to hide bigger lies.
Her protests are cut-and-past straight from the Lance saga. Paula got away with it longer because she's more likable, so has more defenders. Lance would've slipped through if he hadn't been such a douche bag.
The passage from her autobiography on the race doesn't even make mention of the alleged hot weather or dehydration. You would think if it was so severe she would have included something about it. She just that she had low energy, which she linked to her bout of food poisoning and the antibiotics which drained her of her normal strength.
Exactly, we're supposed to believe she only just worked out what an off score is?If I was her, I'd sack my lawyers. They've spent a lot of time crafting a statement that has more than one inaccurate and possibly misleading statements.
coach.. wrote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664Blood test before the race
She knew there was no epo in the sample
She knows a helluva lot about haemoglobin for someone who said she didn't know what an off-score is
pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/10/iaaf-select-committe-paula-radcliffe-dataPaula is never testing positive. Coe won't authorize it.
The head of the IAAF should never be coming out in support of any athlete in that way. Especially ones that are effectively under investigation (or should be).
Also her husband asking WADA to treat her as a special case and declare her innocent is totally wrong. She should have her scores investigated by WADA like anyone else. Even then WADA should know better than to come out and declare anyone clean (look at Lance). If they don't find anything then they just say nothing.
Pilgrim_S wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/10/iaaf-select-committe-paula-radcliffe-dataPaula is never testing positive. Coe won't authorize it.
The head of the IAAF should never be coming out in support of any athlete in that way. Especially ones that are effectively under investigation (or should be).
Also her husband asking WADA to treat her as a special case and declare her innocent is totally wrong. She should have her scores investigated by WADA like anyone else. Even then WADA should know better than to come out and declare anyone clean (look at Lance). If they don't find anything then they just say nothing.
Are you deliberately missing the point. WADA never publishes the outcomes of investigations which prove someone innocent, they only publish the outcomes of investigations which result in a doping charge.
Her results HAVE been investigated already by WADA, and they've concluded she is clean. Its just that they won't say so, because they don't comment on investigations which result in innocence!!
Imagine if they had come out and declared Lance clean. They'd be looking pretty stupid several years down the line. She shouldn't get special treatment.
letsassshat.com wrote:
wejo wrote:I corrected the LRC headline about 40 minutes ago. I read it and told Rojo it wasn't accurate.
The Sky News headline is sensationalist in Radclife's favor, but I'd say the Sunday Times was sensationalist in the other direction or at least cast a lot of suspicion without releasing values and test results themselves. Headlines won't sort this out, the full blood profile being analyzed will.
I assume in due course all of the values will come out with experts assessing her full profile. I do see how people just discussing a single score and a threshhold gives some credence to the idea that values can be misinterpreted (in either direction).
We need independent experts looking at Paula's full profile. After talking to Paula in Beijing I was confident this would all get out there and be discussed. People want this to be all sorted out instantly but I do think it takes more analysis than that. Otherwise people would be sanctioned for doping by computers.
As much time and analysis as you and your sister took to believe Marshmallows screed that led to a decade plus of your libelous enabling and smearing of certain other individuals?
Atchoo-ASSSHAT.
Is Eric Lindsey aka A Duck having another psychotic episode again? You are a proven liar and a fraud.
It would help some of us who have followed doping with EPO over the last few decades if Radcliffe's Hematocrit levels were released. In the books I have read about Armstrong he seemed obsessed with raising his Hematocrit levels. I believe lab work for for Hem. levels was the first method used for identifying dopers. If anybody could explain what exactly Reticulocytes
are and provide some historical perspective of the evolution of this type of lab
work/testing it would be appreciated. The magic number for Hematocrit
seemed to be 50. I recall some XC skiers not being allowed to compete
because their Hem. was over 50.
Also would be curious to know what Shobukhova's hematocrit levels were?
JAXDUKE wrote:
It would help some of us who have followed doping with EPO over the last few decades if Radcliffe's Hematocrit levels were released. In the books I have read about Armstrong he seemed obsessed with raising his Hematocrit levels. I believe lab work for for Hem. levels was the first method used for identifying dopers. If anybody could explain what exactly Reticulocytes
are and provide some historical perspective of the evolution of this type of lab
work/testing it would be appreciated. The magic number for Hematocrit
seemed to be 50. I recall some XC skiers not being allowed to compete
because their Hem. was over 50.
Also would be curious to know what Shobukhova's hematocrit levels were?
I THINK:
The Ret score gives a measure of how many new red blood cells the person herself is producting. If you compare that with how many red blood cells there are, you get some sense of whether there are more red blood cells than there should be -- given the person's natural process. That's why it's called an OFF score.
Altitude may have an affect since the body produces more blood cells there but then the ret score should be higher. So, I don't quite understand why time spent at altitude gives runners a pass.
The most logical explanation for a high off score is that that blood has been added to the body - blood doping.
I"d like an explanation as to why dehydration is more likely to affect the ret count than the red blood cell count.
I might have this completely wrong, though...
Coach Cookie wrote:
Interesting that Lance Armstrong's ABP was "normal" and he was doping and Paula Radcliffe's ABP is suspicious and... she's clean???
PR is going the way of LA. Sooner or later she'll be doing an interview with the UK equivalent of Oprah, crying on camera and saying she's sorry she cheated, that everyone was doing it, that she was racing in a level playing field, all the usual BS.
The USADA report into Armstrong said 1 in 1 million chance for Armstrong's ABP values being natural, sounds worse than Paula's values