Sunday Mail Has More Details on Paula's Blood Values and Off Scores + News She'll Put up £1m for an MRI lie detector

Yes, we've already established that her husband is a bully, and he's playing the role of Lance for her. That's why he hates the comparison.Of course WADA advised her to stay quite--the only thing they care about is process, and leaked databases don't follow process. As for her long-running staunch anti-doping talk, remember this:Catholic priests are the only ones on the planet who say they don't have sex, but they're one ones most likely to molest a choir boy.Male Republican politicians spew the loudest anti-gay rhetoric, and they're the ones most likely to be having sex with a male staffer.Anyone who has been as vocal about drugs as Paula has been for so long shoul be attracting additional scrutiny. It's a classic way to compensate for behavior one is ashamed of.

time for ramzi to speak out on cera coverup by iaaf involving mr saggy even bigger posible scandals like igf-1 lr3 use..

It's Martial time wrote:

Martial Saugy seems to be the jigsaw piece in any number of doping stories!

Martial Saugy has already admitted to meeting with Armstrong and US Postal manager Johan Bruyneel to explain how the EPO test worked in 2001, a year after Armstrong returned a ‘suspect sample’ at the Tour de Suisse, which had been tested in Lausanne.

Yeah I missed that, along with most of the elite track athletes of the 90s.

Pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

The 90's called to tell you EPO was/is a revolutionary ped. Apparently you didn't see that either?

rekrunner wrote:

It's easy to see improvements in mediocre, untrained subjects, over a short term study.

Now repeat the tests with sub-2:10 athletes (or sub 2:20 women) who have been trained to the point where there is no more natural room for improvement, over the marathon distance. Let me know the results when someone has done that, for any drug or method, for the marathon distance.

It's very easy for anyone to say "I hate doping" "I want more tests" and as time goes on more athletes realize this and say it.

Claiming to be anti doping or saying "boo, I hate the Russian (scapegoat) who tested positive" costs nothing.

And therefore means nothing.

The only people who deserve credit and some sort of leeway are those who actually make some sort of a sacrifice for anti doping.

Because just saying that you are anti doping is like a politician saying they don't want to raise taxes. Easy and free. Everyone is anti doping.

What sacrifices has Paula made?

coach.. wrote:

It's Martial time wrote:

Martial Saugy seems to be the jigsaw piece in any number of doping stories!

Martial Saugy has already admitted to meeting with Armstrong and US Postal manager Johan Bruyneel to explain how the EPO test worked in 2001, a year after Armstrong returned a ‘suspect sample’ at the Tour de Suisse, which had been tested in Lausanne.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lausanne-laboratory-gave-armstrong-key-to-beating-epo-test-says-tygart/

Wow. I love the internet for many reasons, but this sort of crowd source journalism is near the top of the list. Do we know who asked Saugy to look into Paula's data? Was it Paula herself? Coe? I get the feeling that the whole house of cards is about to come down on Paula

All what this says is that newspapers are not entirely correct their reporting. So why cherry pick and assume that there are only 3 abnormal blood test scores for the athlete in question, as they reported, and say that they are incorrect in their reporting on other important details regarding the abnormal scores? I would instead be more much more cautious (and you say we have to be, in the aftermath of Lance Armstrong's story) and say that the athlete has at least 3 abnormal blood scores because they have indeed admitted to these and we really do not know the rest of the story. This is the problem with the lack of anyone willing to be totally transparent from the start of these revelations about the abnormal tests (which happened back in December 2014). No one has taken the position of "here are all my blood test scores, all dated, here is where I was training/racing on those dates, here are all my other drug test results". Instead we have been just drip fed selected pieces of information.

OK, shall we agree that, a few months back, certain British athletes were quite forthcoming in releasing subtantial amounts of their blood data (yes, one could be cynical and argue they were only releasing data that supports them being clean and not releasing potentially incriminating test results) and until now, others have not been so? In fact, as I stated above, so far they have only released very selected pieces of information to try and support their case when they have felt under pressure to do so.

So, I should have availed myself of the internet I claim to love. My reading of this is that it was Paula herself who asked Saugy to investigate!

http://www.paularadcliffe.com/statement-september-2015/

If that's right, then it's very very suspicious. Very suspicious.

All of these are different explanations and none have been presented all at once. If some of these explanations are proven to be false, such as the lab equipment being faulty, or impossible such as the level of deyhdration needed to produce such a change in blood scores, then it does not look good whatever you think will likely happen.

I disagree, as I wrote in my reply to Wejo, the only thing that you can safely assume regarding this story is that the athlete in question has had at least 3 "suspect" blood values because that is what they have admitted to.

We don't know whether the Times has all the blood-test data over the entire career for the athlete in question. And regardless of this, Wejo has in fact stated that the Times has not released higher off score values among British athletes. Why are these being covered up - who knows? Again there has been no transparency since these revelations were first made in December 2014 so you have have to be very cautious in what you can "safely assume".

Thank you for your anwswer which I believe to be honest, but these two issues are entirely related with each other. The whole reason that using PEDs is defined as cheating is because PEDs are assumed to significantly enhance performance. They would not be defined as PEDs if the case was otherwise. If the performances of the athlete in question were aided by PEDs then they have gained a big advantage over competitors who were respecting the rules and they have effectively stolen millions of dollars from the sport. This is why there has been such strong reactions to this story. However, if you don't really believe that things like EPO/blood doping give a big advantage in distance running (as you believe with athletes such as Lombard even though they made big improvements after taking EPO) then you really have nothing to defend if an athlete is accused of taking EPO because you cannot believe that they really gained any unfair advantage over their competitors. I would be arguing for the rules to be changed so that time and money is not wasted on testing for drugs which are ineffective regarding performance improvement.

ahhhh yes,paula.she wont go away,will she?

Link wrote:

So, I should have availed myself of the internet I claim to love. My reading of this is that it was Paula herself who asked Saugy to investigate!

http://www.paularadcliffe.com/statement-september-2015/

If that's right, then it's very very suspicious. Very suspicious.

Martial Saugy is a busy man..

Disposing of russian samples

Advising Lance Armstrong how to beat the EPO test

Clearing Paula Radcliffe of doping

He even pops up for Bernard Lagats B-sample analysis when they found all the problems with heat etc. and the case got thrown out

preciously jaded wrote:

All of these are different explanations and none have been presented all at once. If some of these explanations are proven to be false, such as the lab equipment being faulty, or impossible such as the level of deyhdration needed to produce such a change in blood scores, then it does not look good whatever you think will likely happen.

^This.

Plus, the new explanations differ from the ones given in the IAAF document. Can't get any more suspicious than that.

Oh wait. Then PR picked Saugy as "independent expert" to "prove" her claims. Now it really can't get any more suspicious than that.

This is the video of Sebastian Coe’s evidence on Blood Doping in Athletics:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e06f4ee4-b276-4606-86ab-15f60aa6be51

[The video will be available on the 02 December 2015 at 2.15pm (GMT)]

This is Dr Michael Ashenden’s video evidence that was given at the Blood doping in athletics inquiry in the UK on the 04 September 2015. In this video, he is talking about the leaked database and not specifically about Paula Radcliffe:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3a5b7865-0b05-4206-8aaa-4e6e51df4b01

I must be missing something - where is the link that evidences that the expert used by Paula was Saugy?

preciously jaded wrote:

All what this says is that newspapers are not entirely correct their reporting. .

Sorry, "in" their reporting ...

“Another senior independent expert who WADA recommended and who is head of the WADA accredited laboratory in Lausanne”

http://www.paularadcliffe.com/statement-september-2015/

The head of the WADA accredited laboratory in Lausanne, Switzerland is Dr. Martial Saugy

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/laboratories/accredited-laboratories

Thanks, that seems clear enough!

PR is going down in flames!

Bottom line: no matter how much her buttboys the brosjo and coe cover for her, bobblehead paula is a filthy cheating doper. That is a fact beyond dispute.

EPO cheats out, paula. EPO cheats out.