Doping In Athletics

[Benotti69]

Justin Gatlin's agent hits out at British media for hypocrisy over doping

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/justin-gatlins-agent-hits-out-at-british-media-for-hypocrisy-over-doping-10495908.html

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

Justin Gatlin's agent hits out at British media for hypocrisy over doping

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/justin-gatlins-agent-hits-out-at-british-media-for-hypocrisy-over-doping-10495908.html

that man speaks a lot of truth. This is spot on:

“He’s reckless,” said Nehemiah of Cram. “Privately you can have that opinion, but when you’re on the national airwaves, you have to be balanced. You can’t manipulate your audience and there were a lot of manipulating comments.”

 

[armchairclimber]

I'd take Cram over Nehemiah any day of the week.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Tucker's last word seemingly, for now. http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

Interestingly Renato Canova is absolutely adamant that the temp was nearer 30 C on the day of the test in question and that standing out in the sun for more than a few minutes was unbearable.

I don't think the Walsh penned autobiography does any harm to her arguments at all. The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer. The passage from her autobiography also confirms that she didn't rate it as one of her best performances...and why. What does seem utterly remarkable to me is that she still won by a distance having slowed down.

Tucker is absolutely right that she would have been better putting all this stuff out there last December.

Radcliffe's actions have been seen numerous times before by athletes with something to hide. Doping.

The only course a clean athlete would take is to be completely open and transparent. Radcliffe did not do this. Threatening her lawyers on the media is now a sign that points to doping.

Well it would be if it wasn't for the obvious fact that it's what you'd do if you were clean too. Fact is she hasn't taken legal action.
But then, even if she released all her blood data and had Ashenden and Parisotto give them their seal of approval would you then consider her to be clean?

A super injunction against the Sunday Times is not legal action?

There was no injunction, super or otherwise. Not from her...that's according bot to her and to folks I know who would have been on the sharp end of it.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Based on the available info, I think we can now estimate Hb and retic % for PR's two tests surrounding the Vilamoura event, as well as PR's "typical" off-score. Obviously take these calculations with some skepticism, I'm no expert, but they do seem to work out perfectly.

The Times says the off-score was 40% higher on the day of the race than in the test two days before.
PR released her off-score the day of Vilamoura as 109.86
PR says in her book that Hb from the blood test 2 days before was 12.0.
PR's quote of the WADA chief says Hb increased 2.8 with little change in retic%

PRE-EVENT. Off-score should be 109.86/1.4 = 78.5. The Hb = 12.0. Off-score = Hb x 10 – 60 (square root of the reticulocyte %)). So retic = .83%.

POST-EVENT. Off-score was 109.86. If Hb is 12.0 + 2.8 = 14.8, then retic = .80%. This gives some confidence because it works out perfectly consistent with WADA chief's claim, and Sunday Times figures.

The off-score before the event is unexceptional, but based on what PR says was an exceptionally low Hb score for her.

In her book, PR says her usual Hb is 14-14.5. The retic % in both tests is close, so if we estimate her usual retic % to be .83, then her usual off-score based on Hb=14-14.5, should be between 98.7 to 103.7

Compare this to the other athletes in Dear Wiggo's graph. Her usual off score would be very high compared to the other athletes who have released their data.

If I read Paula's explanation right, she's comparing other athlete's scores with her own and that would be wrong. Another misdirection on her part.

If I'm reading your post right then her "normal" range is 98.7->103.7 and she's returned a much higher score than that. Again, there's no way she's clean if my interpretation is correct.

Anyone else care to comment on these estimates? This is waaaayyyyyy out of my league as an anonymous bone idle w@nker.

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

I'd take Cram over Nehemiah any day of the week.

They are both PR bots for the respective parties. But in this case Nehemiah happens to be right.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer. The passage from her autobiography also confirms that she didn't rate it as one of her best performances...and why. What does seem utterly remarkable to me is that she still won by a distance having slowed down.

The others didn't work hard... They didn't want it as much as Paula.

The problem with the IAAF's free pass is the same set of data show 1 of 3 podiums conclusively show doping. Not suspicious, but an overwhelming likelihood of doping and the IAAF did nothing.

With the IAAF's inaction as the basis for her suspicious scores and the extreme bias in the WADA standards for false positives, she's not clean. She's "never tested positive."

I'm not criticizing the WADA standards bias. It's not great, but there is so much corruption it hardly matters.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I'd take Cram over Nehemiah any day of the week.

They are both PR bots for the respective parties. But in this case Nehemiah happens to be right.

It reminds me a lot of people saying they take Liggets opinion over "proven doper" Landis back in 2010.

Cram is like a more hypocritical version of Ligget. I say more hypocritical because I don't remember Ligget bullying people before they tested positive.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer. The passage from her autobiography also confirms that she didn't rate it as one of her best performances...and why. What does seem utterly remarkable to me is that she still won by a distance having slowed down.

You're right, of course. That is by design, and that isn't a bad thing. Protection for clean athletes matters.

The trouble many of us have is that those circumstances are not congruent with her performance: her domination of the event.

We've seen Paula worse for wear in Athens 2004 (she was also a little injured), where she DNFed the marathon and 10,000m. That is the performance you could expect from an athlete on antibiotics, ill, and dehydrated.

That is why so many of us are skeptical that she actually was sick, dehydrated, and on antibiotics. Especially after it was not as hot as she said, and the lack of specifics provided so far.

(Has she said what her illness was? Or when? Or what antibiotics?)

Regardless, the pressure on Paula to release more information is a good thing; we've been getting more information.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Justin Gatlin's agent hits out at British media for hypocrisy over doping

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/justin-gatlins-agent-hits-out-at-british-media-for-hypocrisy-over-doping-10495908.html

that man speaks a lot of truth. This is spot on:

“He’s reckless,” said Nehemiah of Cram. “Privately you can have that opinion, but when you’re on the national airwaves, you have to be balanced. You can’t manipulate your audience and there were a lot of manipulating comments.”

And the IAAF/Radcliffe messages aren't manipulative? Worst case, Cram stated his opinion. Agree. Disagree. I don't care. Everyone has an opinion.

Cram's response is to criticize Niemiah for stating an opinion about an opinion and attack him as unbalanced.

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

I'd take Cram over Nehemiah any day of the week.

They are both PR bots for the respective parties. But in this case Nehemiah happens to be right.

It reminds me a lot of people saying they take Liggets opinion over "proven doper" Landis back in 2010.

Cram is like a more hypocritical version of Ligget. I say more hypocritical because I don't remember Ligget bullying people before they tested positive.

I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean

“If we spend too much of our time focussing on a sensational story like this, it only benefits one group of people and that’s the people who are still cheating.”

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer.

Potentially explains the blood values, sure.

But how do you have illness, antibiotics (inducing anemia) and dehydration and still smash all the competitors, with the greatest winning margin at a half marathon world championships ever?

Bamboozling.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer.

Potentially explains the blood values, sure.

But how do you have illness, antibiotics (inducing anemia) and dehydration and still smash all the competitors, with the greatest winning margin at a half marathon world championships ever?

Bamboozling.

Which is precisely what I said earlier.

To More Strides Than Rides, if you read the clip from her autobiography, the illness was food poisoning, which was treated with antibiotics.

As Dear Wiggo says, it's extraordinary that she could have been ill, B12 depleted, anaemic and dehydrated then to go and beat a world champs field easily whilst slowing up for the last 4 miles.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer.

Potentially explains the blood values, sure.

But how do you have illness, antibiotics (inducing anemia) and dehydration and still smash all the competitors, with the greatest winning margin at a half marathon world championships ever?

Bamboozling.

Chris Froome disagrees.

Okay, okay, leave the Sky stuff somewhere else.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

I'd take Cram over Nehemiah any day of the week.

They are both PR bots for the respective parties. But in this case Nehemiah happens to be right.

It reminds me a lot of people saying they take Liggets opinion over "proven doper" Landis back in 2010.

Cram is like a more hypocritical version of Ligget. I say more hypocritical because I don't remember Ligget bullying people before they tested positive.

I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean

“If we spend too much of our time focussing on a sensational story like this, it only benefits one group of people and that’s the people who are still cheating.”

It means the terrorists win if you believe Seppelt's stories. Or something...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I'd take Cram over Nehemiah any day of the week.

They are both PR bots for the respective parties. But in this case Nehemiah happens to be right.

It reminds me a lot of people saying they take Liggets opinion over "proven doper" Landis back in 2010.

Cram is like a more hypocritical version of Ligget. I say more hypocritical because I don't remember Ligget bullying people before they tested positive.

I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean

“If we spend too much of our time focussing on a sensational story like this, it only benefits one group of people and that’s the people who are still cheating.”

It is a George W Bush'ism..............

 

[Benotti69]

Radcliffe in 2002

"I know myself and the people around me know that it is all because of the hard work that has been put in. And if I could go somewhere now and say test me for everything you can, then I would be quite happy to publish the results. But we don't have any place that can do that."

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/sonia-set-for-radcliffe-rematch-1.1091291

Now that 'we' can do that, she is threatening people with lawyers, calling parts of the media bullies for doing their job and playing the victim.

The actions of a doper. The hypocrisy is massive.

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer.

Potentially explains the blood values, sure.

But how do you have illness, antibiotics (inducing anemia) and dehydration and still smash all the competitors, with the greatest winning margin at a half marathon world championships ever?

Bamboozling.

There where still a lot of sicknesess/diseases she didn't have, like smallpox, aids and cancer, so I think, on the balance of things, she was still rather fit. She probably just grit her teeth and worked harder than possible on the day, knowing that that is what it took to win.

Do we really need all this speculation about drugs every time an athlete wakes up, hears the birds chirping in the trees outside and decides to be super? I think not.

 

[Cramps]

In her book, PR says her usual Hb is 14-14.5. The retic % in both tests is close, so if we estimate her usual retic % to be .83, then her usual off-score based on Hb=14-14.5, should be between 98.7 to 103.7

Compare this to the other athletes in Dear Wiggo's graph. Her usual off score would be very high compared to the other athletes who have released their data.

If I'm reading your post right then her "normal" range is 98.7->103.7 and she's returned a much higher score than that. Again, there's no way she's clean if my interpretation is correct.

To clarify, I estimated the retic% to be right around .8 on the pre and post Vilamoura tests. That %, combined with her stated usual Hb of 14-14.5, would mean her usual off-score would be much higher than other athletes (eg around 100). But as pointed out subsequently in this sprawling thread, PR said she had an infection during this time, and so the .8 retic% is reasonably an underestimate. If we give her a higher retic score, her expected off-score moves more in line with the other athletes.

 

[Cramps]

Re: Re:

The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer.

Potentially explains the blood values, sure.

But how do you have illness, antibiotics (inducing anemia) and dehydration and still smash all the competitors, with the greatest winning margin at a half marathon world championships ever?

Bamboozling.

And beyond the specific blood values is their timing. It's not simply a case of an aberrant off-score, it's an increase of 40% neatly time-locked to the beginning and end of the half-marathon.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer.

Potentially explains the blood values, sure.

But how do you have illness, antibiotics (inducing anemia) and dehydration and still smash all the competitors, with the greatest winning margin at a half marathon world championships ever?

Bamboozling.

There where still a lot of sicknesess/diseases she didn't have, like smallpox, aids and cancer, so I think, on the balance of things, she was still rather fit. She probably just grit her teeth and worked harder than possible on the day, knowing that that is what it took to win.

Do we really need all this speculation about drugs every time an athlete wakes up, hears the birds chirping in the trees outside and decides to be super? I think not.

Good point about no cancer, Bilharzia or syphilis.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

There where still a lot of sicknesess/diseases she didn't have, like smallpox, aids and cancer, so I think, on the balance of things, she was still rather fit. She probably just grit her teeth and worked harder than possible on the day, knowing that that is what it took to win.

Do we really need all this speculation about drugs every time an athlete wakes up, hears the birds chirping in the trees outside and decides to be super? I think not.

do you wish to be her crisis comms spinner at burson marsteller? wbat you giving her new illnesses to fein? i reckon she should go ebola. afterall, she did train in africa, and she beat dem africanz, and dem germanz at their own game. why cant she overcome ebola with her british pluck and pluckiness?

#pluckinessftw
#muscularchristianity
#gordonstoun
#chariotsoffire

 

[Irondan]

Re:

bc........us brits wouldna poop in the gutter.......it's the taking part that is important...not the winning

Mark L

Dem teef, wow!

I feel bad for all of the dopers caught with their hands in the cookie jar because they're just doing what they were taught. IMO

But the ones that turn the narrative around on others or have the audacity to sue have a special place in <insert> reserved for them.

 

[the sceptic]

Speaking on BBC1 at the Great CityGames in Newcastle, Radcliffe said: “Let’s not forget that right now the people who are cheating out there are laughing at the whole situation. Why we argue and talk, we’re not doing what we should be doing in terms of moving the sport forward. We shouldn’t be talking about this. There are serious things going on in this world.”

Some have suggested that Radcliffe should spike the guns of her detractors by releasing all her blood data but she reiterated her view that it could confuse people. “The biggest issue there is that the questions will never end,” she said. “And all I will end with is more questions because people don’t understand the data.

“But ultimately, in all of this, surely the truth has to come out – that I haven’t done anything, and that can be proven I have never done anything.”

Surely her blood values can't be any more confusing than all this Lance-speak she has been spewing lately?

 

[SeriousSam]

Quick, let's not forget about clean Paula and instead focus on the real cheaters!

Desperate stuff. All but the most fervent believers will surely be able to see this for the smokescreen it is.