Paula Radcliffe Speaks out

[armchairclimber]

I accidentally clinked on the first post in this thread. The article from 2012 is scary.

We are 1,800m (6,000ft) above sea level in the Pyrenees, and marathon world record holder Paula Radcliffe is preparing for the London Olympic Games.

She is doing naturally what others turn to drugs for. Train this high, and the human body produces more of the hormone, EPO, erythropoietin.

My mentor, a coach of forty years standing, has always taken the view that altitude training is blood doping.

 

[frenchfry]

I accidentally clinked on the first post in this thread. The article from 2012 is scary.

We are 1,800m (6,000ft) above sea level in the Pyrenees, and marathon world record holder Paula Radcliffe is preparing for the London Olympic Games.

She is doing naturally what others turn to drugs for. Train this high, and the human body produces more of the hormone, EPO, erythropoietin.

I am guessing that the location in the Pyrenees is Font Romeu.

The quote makes it appear that Radcliffe is the only athlete who had the great idea to train at altitude (except for HWMNBN that is), when fact there is an entire training facility there where thousands of athletes train. There is even a picture of Mo Farah on the website home page - wasn't he involved in doping talk recently?

http://www.cnea-fontromeu.com/

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Leave the article that generated this post 'till last. Just remind yourself where we came from first.

First a real peach http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/4714513.stm

Where were you on the day Lance said he felt sorry for those of us who couldn't believe in miracles ?

Next - you just have to feel for these people http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733756_1735280,00.html

Oh and when the dam broke his pals are running for cover in a display of comedy that Buster Keaton would be proud
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13133/Merckx-amazed-at-Armstrong-says-they-never-spoke-about-doctors.aspx

[OK so why was Cookson doing selfies with this guy and introducing him to the Juniors in the new "cleans" era as someone to look up to ?. When does the penny get to drop ?]

Anyway, I was looking for an article that came out around 2004 or 2005 in which Lance was whining on about the accusers upsetting his children, but it is drowned out by all the later stuff.. I know we had it from Sir Brad as well, but Brad is still on his throne. Then as Lance went full bore for the sympathy vote in Jan 2013 the tide was going the other way and he assured us he had to come clean because he saw one of his children defending him and he just couldn't bear to think of the poor kid lying for his dad. I don't think so. What I do think is he saw his kid lying for him and knew that one day soon his son would mature enough and join the rest of the planet in working out Lance just did not care who he lied to,in order to further his own ego and so rather than leave it until later, it would be a great card to play in his forthcoming Oprah attempt at rehabilitation. For Lance, as for the rest of the dopers, It is all about maximising the opportunity at the time of the opportunity and whoever is around to be used, gets used.

But anyway back to Paula. Have a read. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/12023383/Paula-Radcliffe-speaks-for-first-time-about-how-doping-allegations-turned-her-life-upside-down.html

The comments section is interesting.

I never realized she said this

"This is after we’d already had to explain in the summer why we were so upset because there were bad people trying to write things that were not true about Mummy. Now there were bad people attacking the city"

Accusing an athlete of doping is the same as massacring 130 people in cold blood. And being a sceptic is the same as being a mass murderer.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Leave the article that generated this post 'till last. Just remind yourself where we came from first.

First a real peach http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/4714513.stm

Where were you on the day Lance said he felt sorry for those of us who couldn't believe in miracles ?

Next - you just have to feel for these people http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733756_1735280,00.html

Oh and when the dam broke his pals are running for cover in a display of comedy that Buster Keaton would be proud
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13133/Merckx-amazed-at-Armstrong-says-they-never-spoke-about-doctors.aspx

[OK so why was Cookson doing selfies with this guy and introducing him to the Juniors in the new "cleans" era as someone to look up to ?. When does the penny get to drop ?]

Anyway, I was looking for an article that came out around 2004 or 2005 in which Lance was whining on about the accusers upsetting his children, but it is drowned out by all the later stuff.. I know we had it from Sir Brad as well, but Brad is still on his throne. Then as Lance went full bore for the sympathy vote in Jan 2013 the tide was going the other way and he assured us he had to come clean because he saw one of his children defending him and he just couldn't bear to think of the poor kid lying for his dad. I don't think so. What I do think is he saw his kid lying for him and knew that one day soon his son would mature enough and join the rest of the planet in working out Lance just did not care who he lied to,in order to further his own ego and so rather than leave it until later, it would be a great card to play in his forthcoming Oprah attempt at rehabilitation. For Lance, as for the rest of the dopers, It is all about maximising the opportunity at the time of the opportunity and whoever is around to be used, gets used.

But anyway back to Paula. Have a read. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/12023383/Paula-Radcliffe-speaks-for-first-time-about-how-doping-allegations-turned-her-life-upside-down.html

The comments section is interesting.

I never realized she said this

"This is after we’d already had to explain in the summer why we were so upset because there were bad people trying to write things that were not true about Mummy. Now there were bad people attacking the city"

Accusing an athlete of doping is the same as massacring 130 people in cold blood. And being a sceptic is the same as being a mass murderer.

No wonder Walsh has gone underground on Radcliffe! If he asks her a doping question she'd liken it to mass murder.

In all seriousness I'm surprised the media hasn't picked up on her comments, they are deplorable.

 

[The Hitch]

She's a celebrity. They are gods and untouchable. If some no name back bench mp said this it would be front page for 3 weeks.

 

[The Hitch]

Post from letsrun that sums up the situation.

Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto only agreed to analyse the leaked blood data if all the athletes’ names were kept anonymous. It was an accident that Paula Radcliffe name was revealed.

Only when an athlete is officially charged with a doping offence will their name be publicly revealed. Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto are behaving like professionals, so they will never publicly speak about the investigation into Paula Radcliffe’s blood data.

“… Her test results were so ‘abnormal’ that it is claimed there was only a 1 in 1,000 chance that they were natural.” This is the reported statement by Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto about Paula Radcliffe.

Therefore,

“23. In terms of the level of deviation that warrants opening a disciplinary proceeding, values beyond the 99.9th percentile threshold (‘1 in 1,000’) have conventionally been largely accepted by WADA and international sport federations as being fair to athletes while still effective in detecting dopers.11 However, this threshold was excluded from the 2013 (4th) edition of the ABP Operating Guidelines, leaving open the possibility to pursue disciplinary proceedings at lower thresholds.

24. Nonetheless, in the specific context of imposing an anti-doping rule violation, an inference that the abnormal blood values were caused by doping is solely the responsibility of an adjudicator. Only that decision maker can reach a verdict after the totality of the evidence is weighed. So for instance, the athlete must be invited to offer a competing explanation for the abnormal values, and three experts must unanimously reject the athlete’s explanations. This evidence in its entirety will be the basis for the adjudicator to determine guilt or innocence.” - http://data.parliament.uk/writ...21284.html

Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto believe a disciplinary proceeding is required for Paula Radcliffe. They have never said that she is guilty. That can only be determined after the disciplinary proceeding.

The reason why the IAAF and UKAD have cleared Paula Radcliffe is that they argue that blood data before 2009 is not acceptable in a doping sanction.

“Let me be clear and reiterate what has already been stated by the Independent Commission as it relates to the ARD and Sunday Times reports regarding athletes’ blood values: no information in the leaked database from before 2009 – which was before the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was introduced – could ever be considered as doping, legally or otherwise.” - https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-09/statement-from-wada-director-general

Therefore, the IAAF and UKAD argue that there is no evidence against Paula Radcliffe. There is no case to answer.

The extenuating circumstances that Paula Radcliffe has given are not the reason why the IAAF and UKAD have cleared her.

Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6881090&page=2##ixzz3t5ysK3wq

So basically it seems so similar to 2012 when Armstrong had the fed case which was thrown out because it was too big. It being thrown out had nothing to do with armstronh being cleared of doping but ligget and co went on tv nonetheless to declare that Armstrong had been cleared of doping by a court.

BBC playing a similar role for Paula these days.

Nevertheless, whether a court lets her off on a a technicality, or not, the evidence suggests very heavily thay she doped

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Post from letsrun that sums up the situation.

Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto only agreed to analyse the leaked blood data if all the athletes’ names were kept anonymous. It was an accident that Paula Radcliffe name was revealed.

Only when an athlete is officially charged with a doping offence will their name be publicly revealed. Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto are behaving like professionals, so they will never publicly speak about the investigation into Paula Radcliffe’s blood data.

“… Her test results were so ‘abnormal’ that it is claimed there was only a 1 in 1,000 chance that they were natural.” This is the reported statement by Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto about Paula Radcliffe.

Therefore,

“23. In terms of the level of deviation that warrants opening a disciplinary proceeding, values beyond the 99.9th percentile threshold (‘1 in 1,000’) have conventionally been largely accepted by WADA and international sport federations as being fair to athletes while still effective in detecting dopers.11 However, this threshold was excluded from the 2013 (4th) edition of the ABP Operating Guidelines, leaving open the possibility to pursue disciplinary proceedings at lower thresholds.

24. Nonetheless, in the specific context of imposing an anti-doping rule violation, an inference that the abnormal blood values were caused by doping is solely the responsibility of an adjudicator. Only that decision maker can reach a verdict after the totality of the evidence is weighed. So for instance, the athlete must be invited to offer a competing explanation for the abnormal values, and three experts must unanimously reject the athlete’s explanations. This evidence in its entirety will be the basis for the adjudicator to determine guilt or innocence.” - http://data.parliament.uk/writ...21284.html

Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto believe a disciplinary proceeding is required for Paula Radcliffe. They have never said that she is guilty. That can only be determined after the disciplinary proceeding.

The reason why the IAAF and UKAD have cleared Paula Radcliffe is that they argue that blood data before 2009 is not acceptable in a doping sanction.

“Let me be clear and reiterate what has already been stated by the Independent Commission as it relates to the ARD and Sunday Times reports regarding athletes’ blood values: no information in the leaked database from before 2009 – which was before the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was introduced – could ever be considered as doping, legally or otherwise.” - https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-09/statement-from-wada-director-general

Therefore, the IAAF and UKAD argue that there is no evidence against Paula Radcliffe. There is no case to answer.

The extenuating circumstances that Paula Radcliffe has given are not the reason why the IAAF and UKAD have cleared her.

Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6881090&page=2##ixzz3t5ysK3wq

So basically it seems so similar to 2012 when Armstrong had the fed case which was thrown out because it was too big. It being thrown out had nothing to do with armstronh being cleared of doping but ligget and co went on tv nonetheless to declare that Armstrong had been cleared of doping by a court.

BBC playing a similar role for Paula these days.

Nevertheless, whether a court lets her off on a a technicality, or not, the evidence suggests very heavily thay she doped

What you quoted missed out is although the IAAF in Radcliffe's case dismissed pre 2009 samples, in the case of a Russian athlete (whose name escapes me) they used pre 2009 samples as part of an ABP case to ban said athlete.

 

[thehog]

Thought this was a very good and well written explanation from LetsRun forum in two parts:

Part 1:

Off-scores are not a unit of anything. There is no legal threshold between doping and not doping that can be seen in off-scores.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COkLrVEUsAAQfxF.png

That chart shows how off scores are determined. The egregious off-scores are the possible combinations of ret% and Hgb which could only be obtained through doping.

Combinations with very low ret%, for example, could only be obtained when the body has stopped making new red blood cells, indicating a transfusion. Or, a combinations with a very high ret% could only have been obtained through exogenous EPO causing the body to create huge numbers of new blood cells beyond normal. Same thing with high Hgb; it could only be obtained through doping.

There is a different chart for altitude, because some of the middle values of ret% and Hgb% have been agreed to be obtained naturally, at altitude.

And finally, the 1-1000/1-10,000 thing can be a distraction if you don't know what you're looking at. Those odds represent the certainty that a certain off-score is due to doping. These are most useful in the legal context of results management and sanctions, where there is a concern over false positives. It is not a tool with which to view off scores. It is not a filter through which to decide doping or not, it is a legal heuristic. Deciding that 1-1000 means the athlete is okay but 1-10000 the athlete doped is purely arbitrary, but done in order to translate the science into practicable legal terms.

So I will take a deeper look at what the Daily Mail says, but lets review where we stand so far, knowing only the three data points, and some background info from Paula.

To summarize my post from the third page of this thrad: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/f...31#6740196

-Pre-race, her off score was 82

-We know from her statements that before that race, she had an Hgb of 12 (from her autobiography: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COmn9jqUkAAROV5.jpg:large)

- Inferring from the chart, her ret% was about 0.4%

-Paula's Vilamoura Half Marathon post-race blood test is one of the high off scores (114.9). Looking at the chart, that off-score was produced by a ret%0.4 and Hgb of 15.3 g/dL, (Off-score = 115.0).

So we're left wondering whether the conditions that changed her hgb concentration from 12 to 15.3 are possible clean? (Her ret% wouldn't have changed, even with a transfusion, as the body reacts slowly in making that adjustment)

She says that she became dehydrated. That is a normal reaction to hot weather racing, and a normal cause for hgb concentration to increase.

Here's what should be expected though. In a study of hot-weather running, on average, a 4% loss in body mass (water) is 1.6 g/dl of increased hgb concentration. The extreme in the study was 2.2 g/dl. According to the off-score and an assumed unchanged ret%, Paula's changed by 3.3 g/dl. (An elite can expect to lose 2-3 L of water typically, even 5L)

-She said in a statement that her Hgb increased by 2.8 g/dl.

-Even that represents a huge loss in plasma volume (The volume change to get from a concentration of 12 to 14.8 means that her post race volume is 81% of what she started with).

So we're left with Paula being in dire medical straits. But she still won the race, and by the largest winning margin, ever. Her assertion that her off-score was produced by the level of dehydration shown by the numbers is not comparable with the performance she put up that day. She could not have performed as well as she did, while dehydration causes her hgb to change so drastically.

So where did the extra hgb come from, if not by changed concentrations? I wager a transfusion.

Part 2:

Here's the new data:

- An an off-score of 92 on August 5, 2005 before her previously known 109 off-score, taken after the 10,000 in Helsinki.
-102 off score from that marathon 8 days later (presumable after the race).

And the new information:
- Paula is backtracking from her previous altitude excuse for the Helsinki off-scores.

Here what she said before:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, they were all conducted following prolonged periods of altitude training, which is today recognised as significantly impacting blood figures, and is therefore taken into account when interpreting blood data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not true. We already knew Radcliffe was not at altitude, as she ran the Great North Run on Sep 21 before the October 4th Half Marathon Championships.

And we see her backtrack after the DM points out that she wasn't at altitude before Helsinki



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Yes, we had been at altitude and altitude does affect stuff but she never said I had this score, this score and this score and it has been directly affected by altitude,’ said Gary.

Radcliffe said: ‘For me, altitude was only the primary factor in the 2012 off score.’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She was training in Kenya in 2012, before her OOC test in Monte-Carlo, and there are a few interviews with her there all the way through the end of January.

And still most, frustrating, is that she blames the media for incomplete information, when she is the one providing incomplete information. She will spend 1 million on a lie detector but won't release her other scores.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She says she'll do anything to clear her name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No. She said she would do anything. She said previously said she would release all her data, but hasn't. She said she would release her data, but only release some off-scores (not data). She says she'll pay 1 million for a lie detector but won't provide the data she criticizes the media for not having.

Her and her team takes their own blood data, but she hasn't released that, either. Even when she hid behind "I want them released but its up to the IAAF to release my scores" (not a direct quote, just the pre 2014 story), she could have released that data, but didn't.

She puts faith in the IAAF for clearing her when they are under investigation for corruption, and attributes a machine calibration error for an unfavorable result but not the favorable one.

She deserves the criticism she is getting, because she is purposefully obfuscating and misdirecting

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6881090&page=1#ixzz3t6NvvwfE

 

[gillan1969]

good work the hog

 

[blackcat]

HOG that sounds like the MGTHAB more glorious than hookers and blow dude, who now contributes to the Cyslismas tumblr

@ Dear Wiggo? you reckon? thats MGTHAB?

I think Paula owes Clinic reparations and copyright commissions for the term Machine Calibration Error (MCE).

we are responsible for that. huzzah!

 

[heart_attack_man]

http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/LE8OVWGvW0sUwVQfMkgcwK/Dutee-and-a-level-playing-field.html

Radcliffe never minds going back on her arguments or opinions... See the above article for yet another example.

It doesn’t add up: Radcliffe was in danger of having her best performances turned into ciphers on the grounds of the amorphous, unscientifically proven “unfair advantage” of running alongside men. Four years later, she was arguing in favour of an amorphous, unscientifically proven “unfair advantage” against another female athlete.

 

[gillan1969]

Coe in front of Commons committee I think today (although obviously big war debate raging in Commons today) where he I think will be questioned on his Nike links and conflict of interest

IAAF, headed by Nike ambassador, clears Nike athlete from drugs charges

Probably more brazen than Armstrong/UCI

 

[thehog]

HOG that sounds like the MGTHAB more glorious than hookers and blow dude, who now contributes to the Cyslismas tumblr

@ Dear Wiggo? you reckon? thats MGTHAB?

I think Paula owes Clinic reparations and copyright commissions for the term Machine Calibration Error (MCE).

we are responsible for that. huzzah!

The issue is already complex. Most wouldn’t have the attention span to go through the detail like that post referenced. The headline “Radcliffe cleared of doping” is enough. Similar to the Armstrong/Vjerujem/UCI report the headline “Cleared” is enough, the devil was in the detail.

The similarities are striking though. A compliant governing body with no real interest in investigating means the athlete never has to worry that it will go any further. As Radcliffe ran alone and without teammates like Armstrong, she is in the clear for the rest of her natural life. No one is going to spill the beans on her. I can't see where the 'leak' will come from.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

HOG that sounds like the MGTHAB more glorious than hookers and blow dude, who now contributes to the Cyslismas tumblr

@ Dear Wiggo? you reckon? thats MGTHAB?

I think Paula owes Clinic reparations and copyright commissions for the term Machine Calibration Error (MCE).

we are responsible for that. huzzah!

The issue is already complex. Most wouldn’t have the attention span to go through the detail like that post referenced. The headline “Radcliffe cleared of doping” is enough. Similar to the Armstrong/Vjerujem/UCI report the headline “Cleared” is enough, the devil was in the detail.

The similarities are striking though. A compliant governing body with no real interest in investigating means the athlete never has to worry that it will go any further. As Radcliffe ran alone and without teammates like Armstrong, she is in the clear for the rest of her natural life. No one is going to spill the beans on her. I can't see where the 'leak' will come from.

I hear what your saying. Some have alluded that the second WADA report, which includes the IAAF complacency of suspicious samples, could implicate Paula formally.

I don't think that will happen, as WADA has no authority to act/sanction (just like USADA didn't in LA), and I doubt they will step anywhere farther than "The IAAF should have followed up." I don't think they will discuss Paula as a separate issue. Alternatively, the corruption case could spill some beans, but unlikely enough to satisfy the legal burden to land in a sanction or loss of results.

That being said. I don't think Paula is stable enough personally/emotionally. Not like Lance who was dependent on his own knowing he didn't do anything wrong/level playing field/would have won anyway, Paula appears dependent on what the public thinks of her. Maybe I'm reading too much into her latest comments about being scared of dying while people thought she was a cheat, maybe there is a chance she will crack. She is already changing her story and slipping on inconsistencies. Long shot though... probably not...

 

[thehog]

If Radcliffe was sponsored by Royal Mail there might be a Qui Tam case to come!

The database leak in the first instance was a toe in the water. If the remaining data finds its way into the public domain then maybe there might be a push to know more. But to be honest most Brits are not going to understand "Hgb%" from "abv" - alcohol volume in beer! Nor do they care. A scoreline in football is a lot easier to understand than what might constitute blood doping.

What got Lance in the end was Tygart's somewhat made up but consistent affidavits from several former riders released into the public domain at the same time. That's not going to happen here.

I agree she is a loose cannon but a lot of people simply don't care if she doped or not. Or they won't understand what exactly is blood doping therefore she is cleans.

 

[mewmewmew13]

If Radcliffe was sponsored by Royal Mail there might be a Qui Tam case to come!

The database leak in the first instance was a toe in the water. If the remaining data finds its way into the public domain then maybe there might be a push to know more. But to be honest most Brits are not going to understand "Hgb%" from "abv" - alcohol volume in beer! Nor do they care. A scoreline in football is a lot easier to understand than what might constitute blood doping.

What got Lance in the end was Tygart's somewhat made up but consistent affidavits from several former riders released into the public domain at the same time. That's not going to happen here.

I agree she is a loose cannon but a lot of people simply don't care if she doped or not. Or they won't understand what exactly is blood doping therefore she is cleans.

hoggie no no no this is not true but belongs in another thread. You're confusing newer members of the clinic as usual

 

[sniper]

some very interesting reading wrt Paula's "running economy"

third post from the top:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6881090&page=51

not sure how new these arguments are, but they're new to me and it paints a pretty compelling picture, also wrt IAAF's complicity.

 

[thehog]

Paula Radcliffe going full *** on Twitter railing against Ross Tucker for not releasing her data. Apparently if she did it would compromise the ABP??

Paula Radcliffe: My off scores are in the public domain! Releasing the rest of the data might have protected my reputation but at the cost of undermining and weakening the ABP. I am not prepared to facilitate cheats evading punishment.

Ross Tucker: If only all athletes embraced half-transparency while aggressively threatening lawsuits about their own results, while calling for full transparency and punishment in others. What courageous altruism, taking the hit to her reputation like this. All for the good of the system.

https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/960430328430161920

Paula Radcliffe: It is academic myopia for any scientist to focus on questions at the expense of balanced analysis and conclusions. It sounds more like cyber noise and self-promotion than science.

Ross Tucker: Paula, the questions are the fundamental foundation of science. It’s literally what we do - question, obtain facts, build models. I’ve asked, I’m ready for the model, all i need are those facts you have.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Luckily Paula "EPO Cheats Out" hasn't changed her mind about athletes being transparent with their ABP data

Even more luckily Seb Coe didn't parachute Paula into a key position on the IAAF's athlete's commission

And even even more more luckily Paula's 15yr old marathon WR hasn't been beaten by hundreds of Russians, Kenyans and Ethiopians who've had a free pass to dope to the max

Phew!

 

[durianrider]

The reason nobody has broken the 15 year marathon WR is that Paula just had these NASA designed shoe laces that were banned by the IAAF after that race.

 

[Benotti69]

Radcliffe is another sporting sociopath with narcissitic overtones.

 

[Parker]

The reason nobody has broken the 15 year marathon WR is that Paula just had these NASA designed shoe laces that were banned by the IAAF after that race.

Joking aside, the main reason is women can't get pacemaking from men any more as they're not allowed to race together at elite level. It's the athletics equivalent of Boardman's superman hour record.

Her women only record has been beaten. Many, including me, consider that the true world record.

 

[Blanco]

The reason nobody has broken the 15 year marathon WR is that Paula just had these NASA designed shoe laces that were banned by the IAAF after that race.

Joking aside, the main reason is women can't get pacemaking from men any more as they're not allowed to race together at elite level. It's the athletics equivalent of Boardman's superman hour record.

Her women only record has been beaten. Many, including me, consider that the true world record.

Wtf

 

[Parker]

The reason nobody has broken the 15 year marathon WR is that Paula just had these NASA designed shoe laces that were banned by the IAAF after that race.

Joking aside, the main reason is women can't get pacemaking from men any more as they're not allowed to race together at elite level. It's the athletics equivalent of Boardman's superman hour record.

Her women only record has been beaten. Many, including me, consider that the true world record.

Wtf

It used to be that in some (most even) major marathons, the elite men and elite women would start together. This gave the opportunity to have men pacemaking the women - all perfectly legal. Radcliffe did this in London in 2003. She wasn't the only one to do it. Runners trying to get qualifying times did it too. Then a couple of years later major races had to send the women off earlier. But for some reason the IAAF (pre-Coe BTW) thought Radcliffe's time should stand despite challenges against it.

So unlike Boardman she gets to keep her record gained with advantages no longer available to others.

 

[gillan1969]

The reason nobody has broken the 15 year marathon WR is that Paula just had these NASA designed shoe laces that were banned by the IAAF after that race.

Joking aside, the main reason is women can't get pacemaking from men any more as they're not allowed to race together at elite level. It's the athletics equivalent of Boardman's superman hour record.

Her women only record has been beaten. Many, including me, consider that the true world record.

Wtf

It used to be that in some (most even) major marathons, the elite men and elite women would start together. This gave the opportunity to have men pacemaking the women - all perfectly legal. Radcliffe did this in London in 2003. She wasn't the only one to do it. Runners trying to get qualifying times did it too. Then a couple of years later major races had to send the women off earlier. But for some reason the IAAF (pre-Coe BTW) thought Radcliffe's time should stand despite challenges against it.

So unlike Boardman she gets to keep her record gained with advantages no longer available to others.

.....is there a consensus on what the difference equates to i.e. 3 mins?