Brits don't dope?

[wendybnt]

Re:

Paula Radcliffe it appears has taken a super injunction out in the UK to prevent the publication of her blood values!!!!!!!!!

If that is not the actions of a doper...........

Very strange, because just a few months ago she was campaigning to get blood values released

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11361591/Paula-Radcliffe-urges-doping-documentary-maker-to-reveal-all-about-suspicious-blood-values.html


And asking for her own blood test results to be released:

"The elite marathon runner has asked for the results of her blood tests to be made public in the past saying she had absolutely no objection to her test being released."

http://www.evolutionary.org/paula-radcliffe-defiant-on-doping-doubts/

.....no mention anywhere of this apparent injunction other than from Twitter and forum gossips by the way.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Hence the comments about a Super injunction.

Its contempt of court for anyone in the media to admit that there is such an injunction.
The law is an ass in this type of case.

According to Private Eye there have been 5 super injunctions granted in 2015, though they obviously don't say what they are.
I thought the mess in 2011 had got us past this.

 

[wendybnt]

Re:

Hence the comments about a Super injunction.

Its contempt of court for anyone in the media to admit that there is such an injunction.
The law is an ass in this type of case.

So how far did Ryan Giggs get when he tried to sue the internet?
Super-injunctions may keep the Brits quiet, but I don't think they can be easily enforced abroad..

 

[Catwhoorg]

Exactly why is this sort of case its a super dumb move.

They would work when most people's news gets filtered through traditional media, not in the age of social media.


I did learn today about the next level 'Hyper injunction' which means you cannot discuss with reporters (fair enough), lawyers (if its your lawyer this is blatantly illegal and breach of due process) and MPs (which is a breach of the basic principles of democracy).

As far as I can tell only the one was ever issued in 2006, but if more are out there, how would we know ?

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Paula Radcliffe it appears has taken a super injunction out in the UK to prevent the publication of her blood values!!!!!!!!!

If that is not the actions of a doper...........

EPO cheats out!

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Hence the comments about a Super injunction.

Its contempt of court for anyone in the media to admit that there is such an injunction.
The law is an ass in this type of case.

According to Private Eye there have been 5 super injunctions granted in 2015, though they obviously don't say what they are.
I thought the mess in 2011 had got us past this.

4 prolly for pedophilia in parliament rings, and one for prince andrew

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Paula Radcliffe it appears has taken a super injunction out in the UK to prevent the publication of her blood values!!!!!!!!!

If that is not the actions of a doper...........

Very strange, because just a few months ago she was campaigning to get blood values released

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11361591/Paula-Radcliffe-urges-doping-documentary-maker-to-reveal-all-about-suspicious-blood-values.html


And asking for her own blood test results to be released:

"The elite marathon runner has asked for the results of her blood tests to be made public in the past saying she had absolutely no objection to her test being released."

http://www.evolutionary.org/paula-radcliffe-defiant-on-doping-doubts/

.....no mention anywhere of this apparent injunction other than from Twitter and forum gossips by the way.

thats been Paula's MO tho. Remember the EPO Cheats Out poster at the World Champs about 2003?

 

[thrawn]

Re: Re:

Hence the comments about a Super injunction.

Its contempt of court for anyone in the media to admit that there is such an injunction.
The law is an ass in this type of case.

According to Private Eye there have been 5 super injunctions granted in 2015, though they obviously don't say what they are.
I thought the mess in 2011 had got us past this.

4 prolly for pedophilia in parliament rings, and one for prince andrew

Nah. Why bother with a super injunction for the pedo's. The media & establishment are already doing a sensational job of covering it up.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Hence the comments about a Super injunction.

Its contempt of court for anyone in the media to admit that there is such an injunction.
The law is an ass in this type of case.

According to Private Eye there have been 5 super injunctions granted in 2015, though they obviously don't say what they are.
I thought the mess in 2011 had got us past this.

4 prolly for pedophilia in parliament rings, and one for prince andrew

Nah. Why bother with a super injunction for the pedo's. The media & establishment are already doing a sensational job of covering it up.

Murdoch and the tabloids would have a field day. Better to be safe than sorry.

 

[wendybnt]

Re:

Exactly why is this sort of case its a super dumb move.

They would work when most people's news gets filtered through traditional media, not in the age of social media.


I did learn today about the next level 'Hyper injunction' which means you cannot discuss with reporters (fair enough), lawyers (if its your lawyer this is blatantly illegal and breach of due process) and MPs (which is a breach of the basic principles of democracy).

As far as I can tell only the one was ever issued in 2006, but if more are out there, how would we know ?

So do we actually know if Radcliffe has had an injunction issued?

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Exactly why is this sort of case its a super dumb move.

They would work when most people's news gets filtered through traditional media, not in the age of social media.


I did learn today about the next level 'Hyper injunction' which means you cannot discuss with reporters (fair enough), lawyers (if its your lawyer this is blatantly illegal and breach of due process) and MPs (which is a breach of the basic principles of democracy).

As far as I can tell only the one was ever issued in 2006, but if more are out there, how would we know ?

So do we actually know if Radcliffe has had an injunction issued?

According to LRC it's because of the deafening silence emanating from PR's twitter's account. Not checked the timing of Linford's tweet but there are rumors of bad blood (sic) between them over a role he acquired in British Athletics and her inevitable comments thereupon. The timing of the tweet might be significant (Linford is not the sharpest tool in the bike shed) but he may have his own sources and tweeted accordingly.


The Race Radio is needed to comment on this and is being cited on LPC.

 

[wendybnt]

Linfords tweet was 5 days ago. PR tweeted a couple of days ago, but looks to have been comparatively quiet.

Wait and see on this one....

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Paula Radcliffe it appears has taken a super injunction out in the UK to prevent the publication of her blood values!!!!!!!!!

If that is not the actions of a doper...........

Very strange, because just a few months ago she was campaigning to get blood values released

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11361591/Paula-Radcliffe-urges-doping-documentary-maker-to-reveal-all-about-suspicious-blood-values.html


And asking for her own blood test results to be released:

"The elite marathon runner has asked for the results of her blood tests to be made public in the past saying she had absolutely no objection to her test being released."

http://www.evolutionary.org/paula-radcliffe-defiant-on-doping-doubts/

.....no mention anywhere of this apparent injunction other than from Twitter and forum gossips by the way.

of course she wants the blood values she wants to be released...to be released

these would not include any dodgy ones obviously...she thought these were safely locked up

 

[bewildered]

Re: Re:

Hence the comments about a Super injunction.

Its contempt of court for anyone in the media to admit that there is such an injunction.
The law is an ass in this type of case.

According to Private Eye there have been 5 super injunctions granted in 2015, though they obviously don't say what they are.
I thought the mess in 2011 had got us past this.

4 prolly for pedophilia in parliament rings, and one for prince andrew

Nah. Why bother with a super injunction for the pedo's. The media & establishment are already doing a sensational job of covering it up.

Murdoch and the tabloids would have a field day. Better to be safe than sorry.

You don't think Murdoch has been well aware of all of these people in parliament for years? Robert Maxwell before him did too. They are part of the problem, prefer to use that knowledge for leverage rather than inform the public of these monsters. In fact Murdoch and Maxwell apparently came to an agreement years ago around election time not to write about it.

Edit: i know it's off topic but here's a link http://www.scribd.com/doc/271877364/paedophiles-in-the-cabinet

 

[fmk_RoI]

I really don't believe the sinnuendo about PR. I mean, her autobiogrpahy doesn't mention her doping and you'd fully expect it to be talked about there if it happened. You're all barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re:

I really don't believe the sinnuendo about PR. I mean, her autobiogrpahy doesn't mention her doping and you'd fully expect it to be talked about there if it happened. You're all barking up the wrong tree here.

I actually thought you were serious, until I saw who the ghostwriter is.
Well played.

Guess we'll have to wait to see if we get her blood values. I have no doubt they are Sky-high

 

[domination]

If there is a super injunction out then why does "Paula Radcliffe injunction" search on Google UK yield a top match? Under the rules of the injunction Google would have had to block this.

Still, why let facts get in the way.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I really don't believe the sinnuendo about PR. I mean, her autobiogrpahy doesn't mention her doping and you'd fully expect it to be talked about there if it happened. You're all barking up the wrong tree here.

I actually thought you were serious, until I saw who the ghostwriter is.
Well played.

Guess we'll have to wait to see if we get her blood values. I have no doubt they are Sky-high

publication date :1905

que.

I think they confused publication date with date marginal gains were first used as an excuse.

 

[meat puppet]

That would be 1905 BC

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

That would be 1905 BC

When all those Brit dopers one day will get popped it would be nice to do a calculation on how much money David Walsh has made on writing fairytailes about dopers.

One, two, three million?

And the likes of Moore and so too of course, not just our Clinic hero Walsh.

Dope sells.

 

[SeriousSam]

The leaked data has been said to indicate the likes of Mo Farah and Jessica Ennis-Hill had competed against athletes who had taken drugs, but it also shows other unnamed Britons had themselves provided “suspicious” samples.

Foreigners being flagged: indicates they have taken drugs
Brits being flagged: "suspicious" samples

 

[Benotti69]

8 British athletes are going to release blood values. Apparently PR is not one of them.

 

[Lyon]

Re:

8 British athletes are going to release blood values. Apparently PR is not one of them.

On the contrary, it is all about PR...

 

[roundabout]

Don't dope

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33867962

 

[Benotti69]

Brit's don't dope, so don't need testing, right?

Blood tests for the bio passport, 2012:
RUSADA: 2946
UKAD: 161


https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-2012-Anti-Doping-Testing-Figures-Report-EN.pdf