She is all over the place and no hard questions anymore? Guys, let's ramp up our attention mileage here!
Or did I miss some memo since Beijing?
She is all over the place and no hard questions anymore? Guys, let's ramp up our attention mileage here!
Or did I miss some memo since Beijing?
You have to understand the BroJos are fans, first and foremost. Do you remember the way they fawned over her? They were star struck. They're not going to ask tough questions to somebody they probably consider a friend.
They exhibited the same behavior with Bolt when they met him.
I think you have to realise that when there is no story, there's nothing to write about.
Although she didn't go about it in the way I would have done, Paula has put the issue to bed, it appears, to the satisfaction of those journalists who were stalking her based on chinese whispers and internet rumours.
I remain convinced by the evidence available that she was clean. And no journalists appear to be contradicting this.
When Coe was appointed, I felt like either there would be an aggressive follow up to the smoke that was billowing from diverse sources on doping transgressions or that there would be a studied silence - depending on Coe's and the sports top echelon's intentions.
The cat is now out of the bag. Look the other way is the order of the day.
I used to have nothing but respect for the integrity of UK sports. I'm over that now.
The sport is growing increasingly grotesque.
larkimm wrote:
I think you have to realise that when there is no story, there's nothing to write about.
Right. Her blood values only pointed towards doping, because they were taken either just two months after a brief altitude stint or after her racing for over an hour at a whopping 75 F, causing a 25% dehydration.
Nothing to see her. Plus, she handled even rojo's tough questions extremely well yesterday.
casual obsever wrote:
larkimm wrote:I think you have to realise that when there is no story, there's nothing to write about.
Right. Her blood values only pointed towards doping, because they were taken either just two months after a brief altitude stint or after her racing for over an hour at a whopping 75 F, causing a 25% dehydration.
Nothing to see her. Plus, she handled even rojo's tough questions extremely well yesterday.
Yet no other runners running at altitude and in the same race as Paula had suspicious blood values? It only happens to the one person MOST suspected of blood doping?
yeah...uhmmm yeah?
Coincidences happen.
Let her off WHAT hook?
Get therapy
Guys let it go. She just had one off score that was off the charts. Afterwards, she never got caught again.
Kenyan runners could go to Hilton Airport pharmacy in Nairobi and buy whatever they want.
Paula was still the best female runner of all time.
Also, it was a level playing field.
casual obsever wrote:
larkimm wrote:I think you have to realise that when there is no story, there's nothing to write about.
Right. Her blood values only pointed towards doping, because they were taken either just two months after a brief altitude stint or after her racing for over an hour at a whopping 75 F, causing a 25% dehydration.
Nothing to see her. Plus, she handled even rojo's tough questions extremely well yesterday.
Armchair analysis is easy and more than likely flawed (and you are being selective about your data intepretation too).
You don't think those have been looked at either by the IAAF (who no doubt you'll say are too afraid to point a finger at one of their stars, though I might interpret that as the sort of response someone wearing a tinfoil hat might make) or by journalists (for whom you cannot make the same accusations)?
There is no smoke, because there is no fire.
Can't agree more! The strategy of Coe and the IAAF was clearly to let the story fade from public consciousness and then do precisely nothing about the unfortunate revelations published by the Sunday Times. UK Athletics was never going to take any action that carried with it the slightest chance of proving Paula had cheated - not saying she did but nobody was going to look very hard to find out!
More worryingly, we have already had the email from the head of UK Anti Doping Agency to the effect that his organisation will do nothing to spoil the mood of optimism as Rio approaches - ie won't go looking for breaches of the rules, will only do their job if the situation puts them in a position where they have absolutely no other choice.
You are correct; UK sport is beginning to put out a very unpleasant stench!
mark b wrote:
More worryingly, we have already had the email from the head of UK Anti Doping Agency to the effect that his organisation will do nothing to spoil the mood of optimism as Rio approaches - ie won't go looking for breaches of the rules, will only do their job if the situation puts them in a position where they have absolutely no other choice.
You are correct; UK sport is beginning to put out a very unpleasant stench!
Can you link to this please.
UK Runnr wrote:
Guys let it go. She just had one off score that was off the charts. Afterwards, she never got caught again.
Kenyan runners could go to Hilton Airport pharmacy in Nairobi and buy whatever they want.
Paula was still the best female runner of all time.
Also, it was a level playing field.
It wasn't "off the charts". That means way above the threshold, not right next to it, and dipping below.
The real question for the one-time-test-result fools is: where are the rest of the variant test charts? There should be tons more, but there are none that the fools can produce.
UK Runnr wrote:
Guys let it go. She just had one off score that was off the charts. Afterwards, she never got caught again.
Kenyan runners could go to Hilton Airport pharmacy in Nairobi and buy whatever they want.
Paula was still the best female runner of all time.
Also, it was a level playing field.
"best female runner of all time"
NO
Not even close here
one world record
one WC gold
3 world cross gold
Tirunesh Dibaba on the other hand
3 oly golds
5 wc golds
5 World cross gold
not even close to best female runner of all time
segoihwegijwe wrote:
"best female runner of all time"
NO
Not even close here
Tirunesh Dibaba on the other hand
Who?
casual obsever wrote:
larkimm wrote:I think you have to realise that when there is no story, there's nothing to write about.
Right. Her blood values only pointed towards doping, because they were taken either just two months after a brief altitude stint or after her racing for over an hour at a whopping 75 F, causing a 25% dehydration.
Nothing to see her. Plus, she handled even rojo's tough questions extremely well yesterday.
Riiight because she compared her scores to other athletes, which is not how the scores work AT ALL.
If she compared her score to her estimated off-scores, Paula's "altitude camp" is more than a little suspicious. Coe has declared her clean and that's all that matters.
We know from her own biography apparently the IAAF had very current and detailed scores. Which Seppelt apparently now has and Paula forbids public discussion. If she were clean, it would be very clearly indicated.
Paula is never tested positive.
Repeat Performance wrote:
UK Runnr wrote:Guys let it go. She just had one off score that was off the charts. Afterwards, she never got caught again.
Kenyan runners could go to Hilton Airport pharmacy in Nairobi and buy whatever they want.
Paula was still the best female runner of all time.
Also, it was a level playing field.
It wasn't "off the charts". That means way above the threshold, not right next to it, and dipping below.
The real question for the one-time-test-result fools is: where are the rest of the variant test charts? There should be tons more, but there are none that the fools can produce.
Paula forbids discussion of her case beyond her carefully constructed explanation that does not fit other facts. Does that sound familiar?
If she were clean, then this would have been over with British press declaring Ms. Radcliffe clean because the data supported it. I wonder why it wasn't resolved like that?
If she were NOT clean, then this would have been over with British press declaring Ms. Radcliffe NOT clean because LRC TROLLS WOULD PROVIDED the data TO support it. I wonder why it wasn't resolved like that?
Why? What has she been found gulity of? Muppet.
larkimm wrote:
[quote]casual obsever wrote:
Armchair analysis is easy and more than likely flawed (and you are being selective about your data intepretation too).
You don't think those have been looked at either by the IAAF (who no doubt you'll say are too afraid to point a finger at one of their stars, though I might interpret that as the sort of response someone wearing a tinfoil hat might make) or by journalists (for whom you cannot make the same accusations)?
I was being selective, yes: mentioning her worst data together with her lamest excuses. IAAF -> Coe. And we all saw how balanced the journalists are when they didn't ask let alone investigate how long after the altitude the data were collected.
Armchair or not armchair: the hydration issue is simple math/physics. You can try that in your kitchen too. If a concentration of something goes up by 25% because of water loss, how big do you think the water loss is? Hint: much more than 10%.
And then consider how much water the winner of a half marathon at 75 F could possibly have lost. Hint: much less than 10%.