UKC

Headline news even here in NZ. Is the net closing in or is she innocent? I really hope she is innocent and really did think so but now there is some smoke.

In reply to Thickhead:

I would like to think she was clean, but then she did drop some shit in a grid.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


She was shitting out the dope before the mandatory test at the end of the race

In reply to Thickhead:

It would make this look pretty stupid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/1483621.stm

In reply to WB:

It would but Linford was quite outspoken before fingers were found in the dirty pie?

In reply to Thickhead:

Would be so sad. I'll back her. Such a shame that such a pure form of sport has come to this.

In reply to Thickhead:

Here is her statement on the subject.

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

It's been an open secret online for a while. I can totally understand why she couldn't talk about it, but I am glad it has come out so can be properly addressed.

It has been suggested that she had a super injunction, but she claims that not to be true.

In reply to Thickhead:

Here's the BBC report http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/34190297

Obviously I've no idea whether she doped or not, but from what I understand of the bio passport you might see a lot of "suspicious" results which turn out to have legitimate explanations. It's not like a drug test, you don't get straight forward positive and negative results, it's down to analysis by experts. Unfortunately I've not seen this important detail in the media reports- far easier to create a story that way.

In reply to The New NickB:

That's a pretty impressive and comprehensive statement - works for me.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Me too.

In reply to Rampikino:

And me.

I've read her book & followed her since she won the Junior world cross country in 1993. SHe's the last person who would cheat. As a junior, a rival once went the wrong way in a race. Paula felt this was unfair - so waited for her. I think she then was beaten by the girl ... says it all really.

Clean.

In reply to Rampikino:

It's a strong statement and I would say it works for me too.

My gut instinct is innocent and I really hope and trust this is the case.

I wonder though if we would all stand by her if she was Russian, Chinese or even American?

In reply to Thickhead:

Probably not. And your point is, caller?

In reply to Thickhead:

The Chinese women circa 1993 were suspicious from the off and there have been so many Russia's caught doping, that we will be automatically suspicious. With regard to American distance running, there are certainly a number of female distance runners where I would be as surprised as I would be with Radcliffe. Shalane Flanagan, Kara Goucher and others.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

My point is fairly clear I would have thought, are we trusting her more because she is British.

In reply to Thickhead:

I hope to god she's clean and think she is.

The usual results weren't that unusual, if what Ive seen in reports is what the suspicions were.

She's been pretty open and more anti-drugs than anyone, ever, as fa as I can tell.

Linford said he was but did he campaign against fellow athletes? he was slightly before my time though so maybe he did.

She should be open to questions though and its good she is still questioned, she's 3 minutes quicker than anyone, ever. However I still think she's clean but noone should be above being questioned.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Is or has it been on news in the US? The news reporters and sports correspondents here have definitely changed their view from "certainly not" to she "needs to answer questions"

I don't honestly know whether linford was campaigning or not about Johnson or anyone else.

In reply to Thickhead:

No, I saw this on the mail. Athletics doesn't really get mentioned in the U.S. Press, even flanagans run recently breaking the 10k U.S. Record wasn't in the news at all..

In reply to Thickhead:

No, we are trusting her more because Britain has demonstrated less of a culture of cheating than some others, though no doubt there are exceptions.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I find myself trusting her because (to me) she comes across as having integrity, like cheating would be against her character with her hating cheating, and like she's 'too nice'. I hope so anyway as I've grown up being impressed by her.

In reply to Thickhead:

I ran the London Marathon in 2001 and 2002 when she was doing amazingly well - she was an inspiration. All the way round people kept asking the crowd "how is Paula doing?"

When you look at her performance earlier this year - her farewell marathon with nothing to prove except to herself and nothing on the line, she still ran a fantastic time for a 41-year-old - she was only 13 minutes slower than the winner.

The woman is an extraordinary athlete and one we can be proud of. I have no doubts myself that she is clean.

In reply to Rampikino:



Me neither.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The fact that the head of WADA, the IAAF and UCI are all British says something (or is evidence of massive conspiracy). And Britain has a tradition of being stricter - the olympic rule was unique, until CAS stepped in. And I don't think many countries would have banned Ohurughu - not least because there was far less out-of-comp testing at that time - Jamaica being notoriously lapse around then. The USA had a reputation for keeping positives quiet in the 80s and 90s, whilst there is similar suspicions over Russia and Kenya more recently. And of course the cowardly decision by Spain to destroy the Puerto evidence, and try to portray it as merely a cycling issue, casts a shadow over many of that countries sporting successes.

None of which proves Radcliffe's innocence - and her stance against EPO could have been a bluff.

But I do find the explanations for her results credible - particularly the unreliability of results immediately after a race. Certainly a bit more credible than "I went on a massive bender and drank 32 shots of vodka 2 days before the world championships"

In reply to Roadrunner5:

"..even flanagans run recently breaking the 10k U.S. Record wasn't in the news at all.."

Athletics is apparently becoming less popular, particularly in the US. Many say that if Bolt was ever found to be cheating it would kill the sport completely (not sure about that myself) so the IAAF are conflicted in following up suspicious blood data (not saying Bolt has any suspicious data, just highlighting a potential conflict of interest) which is probably the Germans main point.

In reply to Phil Murray:

I believe she dopes.
People dope for their Saturday park 10ks.
Expecting anything less is naive and ignorant.

In reply to zimpara:

Ha ha, thats either bad comedy, bad irony, or trolling. Do parkruns, do u? Me too. I ran 18.51 last sat, EPOed up to the max, then helped clean up the needles after. Back on planet earth now & I hope u get there too, soon.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I think Bolt or Farah would seriously damage it, especially the 100m..


In it will never die because so many love running and I think the marathon is fairly clean.. I'm less sure at the sprint distances.

I'm against life time bans, especially for recreational drugs and also for first time offenders.

But we need to start going after coaches. The stables which are bringing up 10-20 good runners and doping them. Jamaica and Kenya I think are bad for this. They take people from poor backgrounds, take them around europe racing (sometimes fairly low standard, low 60's for a half) and take the winnings and I think its management teams who push the drugs. They often appear in batches.

When Jeptoo was caught it really made me doubt a lot more about who actually was clean. But again, we'll ban her and her coaching staff will find another up and coming kenyan and train and dope them..

In reply to zimpara:




I don't think we should expect they dope... question the top people, the outliers, we certainly should.

And she certainly doesn't dope, she may have done, I think it highly unlikely, but she's now a hobby runner.

But to freeze your samples if you did dope is crazy behaviour.

In reply to Phil Murray:

In the US people at the sub elite, winning 500-5000 a race have been doping because at that level they won't test.. upper 60 min half marathoners, nothing that great. Again Kenyans.. but there have been others caught doping who werent that good to say they were doping..

In reply to zimpara:

You seem to believe everyone dopes!

In reply to The New NickB:


Indeed we do. Just this last weekend I used up all of my EPO prior to a race.

EPO = Extra Pies Ordered

In reply to The New NickB:
Having read some of the the books and articles around doping in Cycling, especially the one by Tyler Hamilton and Danny Coyne ( youtube.com/watch?v=0IaOAo1NwNI& ) and learning just how widespread doping was and how it was covered up with culpability in the commercial teams and governing bodies I think the expectation has to be any sport with large amounts of money involved will be tainted significantly. I think of the other clients of the 'cycling doctors', EU football in particular is doing remarkably well to get as little press on doping as it does.

What is important in this is to separate mud slinging from facts if specific individual accusations are made. The Sunday Times seem to me to be more in the mud slinging area than the fact based one with Paula.

In reply to Thickhead:

Impossible to be 100% confident she didn't dope, but I would be very very surprised if she did.

That said, I didn't think it was wise for her to release the statement. People will believe what they want, regardless of facts.

In reply to Bob:


Energy Providing Offal

In reply to Offwidth:

I agree completely.

I've known for a while that Radcliffe was the unnamed athlete with 'suspicious' blood data, as a fan of her and athletics more generally, I've wanted it out in the open so it can be looked at properly.

It's interesting that Kara Goucher, who remember was the source of many of the allegations against Rupp and Salazar, has publicly defended Radcliffe.

In reply to Offwidth:

There's a degree of truth in that. Poor old cycling and running, the two sports I care about most, suffer badly from a lot of their dirty washing being done in public and numerous high profile public displays of muckiness. Fans of other sports meanwhile rarely get to hear or see about their sports' washing habits. Given the bung-centric nature of some sports' governing bodies you'd be forgiven for thinking they'll do what they can to keep it that way, meanwhile sniggering and laughing behind their hands at those sports gamely trying to do the right thing.

In reply to zimpara:




Do people do Saturday park 10ks? I do a Saturday parkrun 5k and I'm doped up to the max on banana and SIS gel.



Your troll is poor.

In reply to SteveRi:

Could it be (and i'm going to get flamed for this) that cycling and running has a lower skill level than the other sports you are implying? I'm thinking that tennis/golf/football for example have a skill/endurance ratio more weighted to skill and as such, taking PEDs will have less of an effect on the result than it would in a runner or cyclist?

In reply to Thickhead:

I didn't believe Lance, but I do believe Paula. I will eat my hat if she is exposed as a doper.

In reply to Thickhead:

Lazy cow.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Tennis? Nadal hasn't faired too well has he.....

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Is that not simply that performance enhancing drugs enhance endurance (i.e. enable you to stay at a higher output for longer). So endurance sports are more influenced by their use.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Exactly, and as such, those sports come under greater scrutiny

In reply to galpinos:
There are plenty of good reasons to use PED's in tennis and football, mostly to stops skills disintegrating as fatique kicks in. There are lots of rumours about testing and PED's in continental football

I would be very surprised. She has always been very honest and open, and generally considered too nice for her own good. Given her liking for altitude (haemocrit up) and history of anaemia (haemocrit down) her numbers would be interesting to see and require a lot of interpretation

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

American Football and Rugby appear to have major PED problems that are largely ignored!

In reply to The New NickB:
I wonder if the team element makes them less of interest to the media. Also, rightly or wrongly...I come back to the perceived skill level...for example would Messi's skill level be enhanced by steroids or EPO or whatever drug? I suspect most would believe those skills are born into him and not really improved by drugs, whereas a runner smashing the world record in an endurance running race and then that record not being touched for over a decade in a sport (and as you admit, most sports) which have been rife with PEDs....I think she has done remarkably well to keep out of the mud slinging for so long

Coming back to the Messi point...I don't think many people watch a game of football and take in the effort a particular player is putting in as much as the killer pass, dribble or goal or tackle....it's not as obvious. So a footballer who's fitness is enhance by PEDs would be able to disguise it much more easily as it's not his fitness that the fans are particularly intertested in....just my view anyway

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It is an issue in football, but players like Messi are less reliant on speed and strength, compare him with the other great player of our time, what would Ronaldo be without his speed and strength. I'm not suggesting Ronaldo is doping, but there is much more to the game than just skill.

In reply to WB:

14 years on.......

In reply to Thickhead:

More bull shit from the media.

Athletes should not have to defend themselves if they have not proved positive for anything

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: I am quite surprised you didn't know this - this is for Operation Puerto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Puerto_doping_case but there have been plenty of rumours re. spanish and to a lesser degre italian football for the last 15 years

In reply to mark s:



You have to be so damn careful with the media. They appear to have gone on a fishing expedition and got exactly the result that they were seeking

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Although I agree we have been caught with our fingers in the cookie jar less than others the "exceptions" list is increasing.

In reply to Thickhead:

Do these "exceptions" include people with perfectly reasonable records and among their hundreds or thousands of clean test results there are one or two outliers that not only can be explained but actually could be predicted by simple statistical variation? If you're going to lynch every athlete with a very occasional outlier test result you may find you don't have many athletes left. That's why the the testing programmes don't penalise people for 'suspicious' readings, only for ones which can't reasonably be explained by other factors or by statistical variation. But of course if you read the Daily Mail you'll get a quite different view - one that sells newspapers.

In reply to Thickhead:

If there are good reasons for PRs blood results then the same presumably applies to others under suspicion, so why all the hoo - hah?

In reply to john arran:



No.

I was referring to proven doping athletes like Christie and Chambers or those who have been banned for missing tests like Ohurougo or those who have less serious offences but still received doping bans like Williams and Warburton.

In reply to Chris H:


Big name and a serious allegation sells newspapers.

In reply to Chris H:


There may or may not be, the point is the blood data needs to be considered individually in the context of a whole load of factor, such as altitude, dehydration, medical conditions.

In reply to Chris H:


Because her's are way below the others.. hers are just outside of normal range, the others are far outside.

In reply to mark s:



Unfortunately I think they do. They shouldnt but they do now. If you have an abnormal result you should show an explanation at the very least.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



This depends on the player..

Look at Ronaldo or Bale, still skillful but just huge athletes. Those guys are olympic level fitness. Ronaldo has basically redefined it in football.

I can't think of many/any players who have his level of shear fitness, probably up there with someone like Mayweather as the ultimate sportsman or a XC skier.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Is there actually enough knowledge yet to determine what is "abnormal"? I think we sometimes place too much reliance on science and its infallibility.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
The thresholds are set to cover natural variations between athletes as well variations in the profile of an individual athlete (post-race dehydration, altitude training, etc.). Regardless of whether we are talking about EPO or steroids, levels just within the threshold already have a performance enhancing effect. The best thing is therefore to continuously be at the upper limit of what is allowed (see also Armstrong and his post cancer medical steroids), since you gain a benefit that is only sporadically present without doping.

"Just inside the range" is what a professional doper would aim for, and values way beyond the norm just reflect an unprofessional doping regime.

In contrast, multiple values just outside the norm are exactly the profile you would expect when catching a professional doper.

This whole thing sounds extremely dodgy to me, and PR´s statement has the air of an attempt to put sand in the eyes of the public, similar to Froome´s power "data".

CB
edited for clarity

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Do you know what the numbers are Iain? Ashenden seems to be suggesting 1/1000, whereas Radcliffe is saying not much over the 1/100 level. I guess this will be critical in any assessment.

I sat through the a video of the whole Select Committee last night, it was clear that Norman was particularly interested in the London Marathon, as he raised it with Ashenden as well as the UKAD chair. In my mind he clear knew the online rumours and was looking to expose it with his Parliamentary Privelidge.

In reply to The New NickB:

The numbers I saw were 114 where as others were 140. 103 is abnormal.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


There is for people, I don't think there is for elite athletes who train at altitude.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Thanks, is 103 the 1/100 level?

In reply to The New NickB:

Can you guys explain what these numbers mean?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I'm trying to get my head around them myself, but I'll try and explain later if no one else does.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I’ll keep it as simple as possible, because the more detail I go in to the more I am likely to get wrong. If anyone want to correct anything, I really won’t be offended.

The numbers that are being talked about are an athletes off-score, this is a measure of the amount of red blood cells in the blood, obviously red cells are the oxygen carriers enabling your body to supply oxygen to your muscles more efficiently.

For a female the average off-score is around 70, but it can naturally be higher, with the ‘suspicious’ figure of 103 being likely to happen naturally in 1 in 100 women. The off-score can rise or fall in an individual subject to illness (anaemia would make it fall), medication both banned and authorised (I think), training at altitude and dehydration. Men naturally have a higher off score and the ‘suspicious’ trigger is higher for them.

Radcliffe’s off-scores predate blood passports, which establish a baseline for an athlete, allowing an expert to assess the likelihood of a ‘suspicious’ off score based on a baseline for that athlete and any recorded factors such as those identified above. At least one of Radcliffe’s blood samples was taken immediately after a race in very hot conditions, which would invalidate it now, as there is a two hour rule to try and eliminate scores being affected by dehydration. I hope that makes some sense.

In reply to The New NickB:

Thx, it does

In reply to The New NickB:

Is the 1 out of 100 women for the general population or for athletes? I'd expect athletes to have a naturally higher value than the the general population. I.e. the averag of the general female population might be 70 but the average of female athletes might be 90. That doesn't affect the suspicious level though.

In reply to Thickhead:


Let's not forget that newspapers' 'experts' are not always that - remember the bloke who The Sun was using to detect MRSA in his garden shed?

In reply to Bob:


Do we know enough about training response to say that the suspicious level is x? (not a sport scientist, but how much data is there from truly elite athletes? a friend of mine was at Loughbrough when Seb was there and said his performance data was guarded like the crown jewels)

Anyway this from the physio http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/09/paula-radcliffe-physical-thera...

FWIW I hope she's clean.

In reply to Bob:
Not sure, from what Michael Ashenden said to the Select Committee, he suggested women generally. It would make sense that the very best athletes have a naturally high off-scores and V02+

The Gerrard Hartman article linked above suggests Radcliffe's V02+ is amongst the highest ever recorded for a woman!

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I would guess (and I stress it's a guess) that the suspicious level was derived statistically along the lines of a level of deviation from the mean.

In reply to The New NickB:
That's my understanding too.. There's surprisingly little to explain it all (what the scoring system is) you get the feng even the journalists reporting these scores don't actually understand what they mean.

In reply to The New NickB:


This is the crucial bit. Could it be that the reason for some many "suspicious values" is that they were still ironing out the kinks in the testing methodology?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The IAAF are saying that these test are problematic when it comes to 'longitudinal testing', Ashenden is saying not. I assume the blood passport is an example of longitudinal testing.

In reply to Thickhead:
I agree - how can a single value be appropriate for everyone? I would rather assumme the point of a blood passport is to track trends over time and look for unexplainable spikes or block rises.
You could quite easily and meaningfully take that individualised data and calculate P99 and P99.9 values for that , as probable deviations from the average. But remember that the average and deviations need scrutiny . Somebody genetically high, but prone to anaemia if not monitored will get their average sucked down, and vice versa if you doped or blood doped all the time.

Poor understanding of data is the problem of releasing this stuff, like power data, to public scrutiny (and the reason most use of pulse meters is essentially flawed but that's another story!)

In reply to The New NickB:

That's my understanding too. It's not as simple as the old days of having a 50% haematocrit level - very flawed, very open to abuse. Some people naturally have high levels - that may be why they are such good athletes. The passport builds up a profile so that odd spikes can get flagged and investigated. Such spikes may be the result of doping or transfusions, but there also legitimate explanations too (dehydration, altitude). Thus a "suspicious" result is not the same a positive.


If PR is to believed then her suspicious values can be explained. Not only that, but the procedures have been changed because it was realized that the methodology was flawed. Now is Ashenden claiming that those changes were unnecessary, that the system was correct from the start and the data is valid ?

I do think that both the IAAF and its critics, or at least those reporting it's critics, could help the athletes and the fans by explaining their position a bit better, using more facts and less rhetoric.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Ashenden claimed to the Select Committee that the IAAF have sanctioned athletes based on this blood data prior to the blood passports, I suspect this is true.

The problem is Ashenden is only working with half the data and he probably needs to be more forthright about that. Equally the IAAF clearly have issues with disclosure!

In reply to The New NickB:

Very detailed analysis here

http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transpar...

The conclusion being, the results are inconclusive. The author seems to think PR should be more transparent and release more data to prove her innocence, I'm not sure she should have to.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Thanks, that was interesting, for the science anyway, not so much the public relations advice!