Radcliffe declared innocent of blood doping by the IAAF

You did some good work. But you are fighting against the powers that be who are trying to keep this covered up. None of the other blood tests have been released, despite pressure from the media and public and this makes you wonder whether there are several other blood tests which are so bad that they could not even be excused by "altitude training".

The lack of transparency in all this stinks and reminds me of the Lance Armstrong when he was orginally busted for cortisone - the excuse of saddle sores was used with a fake doctor's prescription given as evidence.

paula claims the press has been hounding her a lot.seems theres a lot of people who think her performances were unbelievable,and suspicious.

The Brothers Johnson think that UK Anti-Doping concluding "that Paula has nothing to answer" means that their heroine is free and clear.

But they're either too stupid or too big of fanboys to realize that the only things UKAD looked at was what IAAF provided them. In other words, IAAF gave them none of the info we've all been hollering for.

Guys, you should just shut your mouths about this topic. Every sentence you write is illogical, and it makes it look more and more like there's a cover up for Paula. Hell, I had no worries about her until I started reading your defenses of her.

You protestations have every marking of a circle the wagons mentality meant to protect the guilty.

jeff tallon wrote:

paula claims the press has been hounding her a lot.seems theres a lot of people who think her performances were unbelievable,and suspicious.

Again, Seppelt has the data to make a case one way or another. Paula has made it clear she will lawyer up to keep it out of the press.

Very likely Coe is in on keeping it quiet worldwide because the data hasn't appeared in a story published from another country.

On the strength of Paula's broken excuses, she's as never tested positive as Armstrong in every way.

radcliffe received infusions based on the data says this fella. duh.

i would be glad to slug it out with an iaaf fake scientist. lets look at your track record my scientist buddy and lets look deeply into your credentials. lets take the shirt off and go.

this invitation will never be accepted.

the iaaf can do what they want and say what they want. and do. no matter how obnoxous and blatently unethical.

that is untill they get thrown in jail, audited for tax evasion and fraud. and how about looking at those research and consultant fees?

these pigs have been at the trough so long they have come to believe that their twisted thinking is normal. well that twisted thinking is normal to the jerk elite but to the the common man with a bit of an I Q can see the foul sickness of this lot.

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

"Altitude training" is a foolproof blood doping escape clause. Good thing she's clean.

EPO cheats out Paula.

NOP cheats out!

"The IAAF says Radcliffe had been altitude training at 2,400m in Kenya from January 3 to 29, and had used an oxygen tent on her return.

"The result was examined by a panel of experts who concluded 'altitude was a plausible explanation for the values reported… and there was no basis to pursue the case'."

^THIS explains why Salazar has his runners all use altitude tents. Just one of his readily acceptable answers for any positive test. All buried forever because of "plausible" explanations by Honest Salazar.

The brojo's naivete regarding Paula amidst all the drama and corruption is a glaring example of favoritism and delusion guiding their assessments. They portray themselves as staunch in regard to doping and latch onto ANY whiff of wrongdoing of those they dislike like baying hound dogs, but when it's their buddy and heroine PR, they are completely soft and willing to accept the most outlandish premises and excuses to justify their faith in what is clearly becoming the case of a female Lance Armstrong, complete with the competitive arrogance towards her fellow competitors ("drug cheats out!") and critics combined with complicity to the top of her governing federations.

The difference between Paula and Lance is her ability to put on, alternately and according to her needs, a smiling or victimized countenance to her Machiavellian deeds. Lance was emotionally unattuned, had one gear of combativeness, and and set himself up for constant, unwavering scrutiny and villification by the media and those he crossed. Paula made sure to line up her stooges in her personal life, the media and the governance to keep a thick protective bubble. Lance thought he was above even Nike in his arrogance and power, Paula knew how to game within the system to protect her interests to the end.

2:15 will go down with the Chinese women's records as history's biggest taint of veracity in our sport, all the more glaring for the style in which she pulled it off, bathing in the limelight rather than hiding behind the reclusive and mysterious shroud of a Ma's Army, and all after the EPO test. Truly breathtaking in it's brazen glory of the deed. Bravo Paula, you pulled it off. Sleep well on your accomplishments, you earned them in ways the hoi polloi could never quite fathom.

Colonel Jagger wrote:

A large dose of humble pie has been served to many members of this forum. Tuck in lads, do enjoy!

You mean one corrupt Nike brand ambassador has cleared another?

I am shocked. Shocked!

I'd be interested to hear Frank Shorter's take on the Paula situation.

Shorter has nothing to do with PR's situation? He could offer nothing more than a personal opinion.

Perhaps, but that's all we are doing, and I'd be at least as interested in hearing what he has to say.

IAAF investigating doping allegations? Isn't this like a country's anti-doping agency policing its own athletes? Or the Warren Commission looking into the JFK assassination?

Might as well read Keynes defending his "apology for the prevailing policies of government." (quote from Ludwig von Mises, Planning for Freedom)

IOW, when shills, stooges and political interests are involved, the methods of any internal investigation will be questionable at best and the findings should never come as a surprise.

Ashenden and Parizotto think she's dirty!

Technically, the IAAF is trying to clear itself, and not Paula. Against accusations that they did nothing, they show us that:

- they followed up suspicious values to the extent permitted by existing rules and limits

- they are among the leaders, if not the leader, of federations effectively policing their athletes

Paula was only an example of what happens when journalists pretend to be armchair doping analysts and attempt judge the data (Ashenden and Parisotto comments don't seem to me to be directed at Paula -- this looks more like wishful thinking on the part of skeptical/cynical English journalists and anti-fans of Paula):

- the 2003 sample had blood parameters within the 2003 limits. No reason for IAAF to escalate. Based on 2009 rules, the sample would be rejected.

- the 2005 sample was well within the 2005 "OFF-Score" threshold. No reason for IAAF to escalate. Based on 2009 rules, the sample would be rejected.

- the 2012 sample was within the "altitude" threshold, after a period of altitude training. While it might be initially suspect, based on supplementary information, could be reasonably rejected.

The problem with the scientists is not their professional evaluation of the blood data, but their criticism of the IAAF for not stepping outside the process, or pushing the boundaries more. The IAAF did a lot against anti-doping, and did more than most -- (putting aside Russian/IAAF bribery scandal) are the scientists' expectations and criticisms realistic or fair? It's not clear to me that using your anti-doping budget to fund questionable legal precedents is the most effective use of the funds (and would have let many others get off).

Those "so-called experts"!

Ashenden wrote:

Ashenden and Parizotto think she's dirty!

So even casual readers and fans can readily verify lies in this IAAF statement with only so much as a Google search engine.

Great.

>> "The result was examined by a panel of experts who concluded 'altitude was a plausible explanation for the values reported… and there was no basis to pursue the case'."

If altitude training can explain high off-scores, then surely the off-score value system needs to be torn up and re-written.

From now on, anyone who gets high off-scores can defend these by saying "I was altitude training".

cleans wrote:

>> "The result was examined by a panel of experts who concluded 'altitude was a plausible explanation for the values reported… and there was no basis to pursue the case'."

If altitude training can explain high off-scores, then surely the off-score value system needs to be torn up and re-written.

From now on, anyone who gets high off-scores can defend these by saying "I was altitude training".

And those who have altitude tents/rooms at home have a full-time alibi.

Or even "I was using an altitude tent", whether they really were or not.

cleans wrote:

>> "The result was examined by a panel of experts who concluded 'altitude was a plausible explanation for the values reported… and there was no basis to pursue the case'."

If altitude training can explain high off-scores, then surely the off-score value system needs to be torn up and re-written.

From now on, anyone who gets high off-scores can defend these by saying "I was altitude training".