Radcliffe declared innocent of blood doping by the IAAF

I wonder if to us Americans, Brits can easily put a gloss of sophistication or intelligence over innate unintelligence and poor character. Paula seems to me of the same ilk as Coe: arrogant, at times both befuddled and guilty-looking, accusatory, defensive, yet curiously accepted by the average onlooker as somehow credible and even admirable. They are like what B-movie actors would be in the States.

It's called "keeping a stiff upper lip" and applies to the British.

One who has a stiff upper lip displays fortitude in the face of adversity, or exercises great self-restraint in the expression of emotion. The phrase is most commonly heard as part of the idiom "keep a stiff upper lip", and has traditionally been used to describe an attribute of British people, who are sometimes perceived by other cultures as being unemotional. A sign of weakness is trembling of the upper lip, hence the saying keep a stiff upper lip. When a person's upper lip begins to tremble, it is one of the first signs that the person is scared or shaken by experiencing deep emotion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiff_upper_lip

rekrunner wrote:

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

?? Seppelt's data says otherwise.

Do they pay Internet Community Coordinators much for posting this kind of nonsense?

Do you get some Addidas shoes? Maybe a swoosh-branded bag made by children?

Apparently they have a hell of a long way 2 go as far as corruption is concerned.

Evian Mars wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34948287

Glad that's all been put to bed.

Sophisticated doping programs like this r just too far ahead of the game at this point. Her endocrinologist and team of doctors run circles around these so called tests. Only total hacks get busted - they simply don't have the money to win the dope wars.

Who pays you? I've won stuff at races, but not much, and that was another time.Seppelt's data shows no such thing. An Excel spreadsheet with blood values is incomplete, missing, for example, urine tests, and contextual information, and how the IAAF reacted to which results.Which federation is the example that the IAAF should have modelled themselves after? Who has done more?

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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

?? Seppelt's data says otherwise.

Do they pay Internet Community Coordinators much for posting this kind of nonsense?

Do you get some Addidas shoes? Maybe a swoosh-branded bag made by children?

To me the most annoying thing was all that time Paula spent calling out others, without solid evidence, and then so upset to even be scrutinized for what were clearly unusual readings at very least. I smell a rat there, and not a very empathetic one. Preaching for drug control and then upset when that very monitoring sets off alarms about her, that lost me respect for her forever. And the very me me me way she defends herself after all the attacking back when. She may have been right about some, but she certainly was not worried about innocent until proven guilty when it came to others. http://www.paularadcliffe.com/serialisations-taking-on-the-cheats/

kiowavt wrote:

To me the most annoying thing was all that time Paula spent calling out others, without solid evidence, and then so upset to even be scrutinized for what were clearly unusual readings at very least. I smell a rat there, and not a very empathetic one. Preaching for drug control and then upset when that very monitoring sets off alarms about her, that lost me respect for her forever. And the very me me me way she defends herself after all the attacking back when. She may have been right about some, but she certainly was not worried about innocent until proven guilty when it came to others.

http://www.paularadcliffe.com/serialisations-taking-on-the-cheats/

Indeed.

Radcliffe accused Yegorova with no evidence whatsoever, and THEN Yegorova was banned, which makes me think the evidence was created.

Just out of interest, what is the impact of dropping down from altitude for a very brief period of time, and then returning to an altitude camp - perhaps over a period of a couple of weeks.

Font Romeu is about 3 hours travel from the various spots in the UK that Paula ran during September / October 2003. So its entirely realistic for her to have dropped from altitude to a race, then returned back to altitude etc etc over a number of weeks.

Yegorova failed an "A" test in 2001, hardly "no evidence whatsoever". She got popped again in 2008, along with 6 of her teammates. Gotta give her credit for sticking with the system.I feel that Paula quite possibly cheated, but we know that Yegorova did.

Inside corruption wrote:

[quote]

Radcliffe accused Yegorova with no evidence whatsoever, and THEN Yegorova was banned, which makes me think the evidence was created.

Good to know, I can sleep well tonight again.