Paula Radcliffe to run london marathon in April

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
You are the one bringing nationality into it, and laying bare your bigotry, not me. Farah is British. I don't believe Froome to be clean for one minute .... he's British (sort of). If you're going to have a pop at me, you'd better find some more secure ground than that.
You are kinda right that sceptic was out of line going straight to the nationality card there. Your posting history does not deserve it.

However I do find your "farah is British" quote strange. Did you think your comment was critical of farah?
You said you don't believe he takes epo but instead is merely "bending the rules". In my book that is about as pro farah a comment as you could make. Even the forums biggest brit homer martinvickers, who strongly believed and argued that brits don't dope as much as everyone else threw farah to the wolves.(though admittedly, only as a way of asking for posters to focus on him and not froome and Wiggins)

If farah can dominate like he has last few years by merely bending the rules a little, even coming close to the 1500 wr, then that means he's doing it all on talent.

I don't get it. Brailsford himself said something like if I cheat or Monday I'll cheat on Tuesday, meaning, that jf you cheat you go all in. Why would athletes only bend the rules a little? What's the point of doing it only a little. That way your taking the same risks as an actual cheater but getting almost nothing from it.

And I don't consider it a remotely brave nor critical position. Feels like a weak compromise - oh I don't want to believe the guy is doping but people will mock me if I say he's clean so let's just say he bends the rules.

Its braver to just say he's clean. If any athlete actually only took a few puffs of cough medicine they are clean in my book. If farah never took real drugs and just "bent the rules" as far as I'm concerned he's clean and one of the greatest athletes in history. I have no time to go after people for taking worthless meaningless shortcuts worth a few tenths of a second when world sport is so polluted with people transforming themselves into superhulks.

This is about the real drugs that make a real difference.
On the Farah front, I think the likelihood is that Thyroid meds are being used inappropriately but I don't believe him to be blood doping. You are right though, abuse of TUEs is doping and should be called as such.
Actually I said the exact opposite. In a world where people are getting 20% gains from EPO, Aicar, etc someone who tries to eeek out a couple of seconds by taking an extra inhaler is as far as I'm concerned clean.

And I'm frustrated to see fans of athletes, (boonen fans did this, Sky fans did this, now I see you doing this with Farah), try to defend their guys by saying they only bend the rules a little.

If Farah really is so insanely talented that in the cesspit that is professional sport he only abused a little thyroid medicine, he deserves twice as many medals as he has.

Of course I don't for a second believe that is the case.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
You are the one bringing nationality into it, and laying bare your bigotry, not me. Farah is British. I don't believe Froome to be clean for one minute .... he's British (sort of). If you're going to have a pop at me, you'd better find some more secure ground than that.
You are kinda right that sceptic was out of line going straight to the nationality card there. Your posting history does not deserve it.

However I do find your "farah is British" quote strange. Did you think your comment was critical of farah?
You said you don't believe he takes epo but instead is merely "bending the rules". In my book that is about as pro farah a comment as you could make. Even the forums biggest brit homer martinvickers, who strongly believed and argued that brits don't dope as much as everyone else threw farah to the wolves.(though admittedly, only as a way of asking for posters to focus on him and not froome and Wiggins)

If farah can dominate like he has last few years by merely bending the rules a little, even coming close to the 1500 wr, then that means he's doing it all on talent.

I don't get it. Brailsford himself said something like if I cheat or Monday I'll cheat on Tuesday, meaning, that jf you cheat you go all in. Why would athletes only bend the rules a little? What's the point of doing it only a little. That way your taking the same risks as an actual cheater but getting almost nothing from it.

And I don't consider it a remotely brave nor critical position. Feels like a weak compromise - oh I don't want to believe the guy is doping but people will mock me if I say he's clean so let's just say he bends the rules.

Its braver to just say he's clean. If any athlete actually only took a few puffs of cough medicine they are clean in my book. If farah never took real drugs and just "bent the rules" as far as I'm concerned he's clean and one of the greatest athletes in history. I have no time to go after people for taking worthless meaningless shortcuts worth a few tenths of a second when world sport is so polluted with people transforming themselves into superhulks.

This is about the real drugs that make a real difference.
On the Farah front, I think the likelihood is that Thyroid meds are being used inappropriately but I don't believe him to be blood doping. You are right though, abuse of TUEs is doping and should be called as such.
Actually I said the exact opposite. In a world where people are getting 20% gains from EPO, Aicar, etc someone who tries to eeek out a couple of seconds by taking an extra inhaler is as far as I'm concerned clean.

And I'm frustrated to see fans of athletes, (boonen fans did this, Sky fans did this, now I see you doing this with Farah), try to defend their guys by saying they only bend the rules a little.

If Farah really is so insanely talented that in the cesspit that is professional sport he only abused a little thyroid medicine, he deserves twice as many medals as he has.

Of course I don't for a second believe that is the case.
I don't believe the abuse of Thyroid meds to be as benign as you do. The way I see things going at the moment, the blood passport has forced those looking for advantage in a dubious way to look more into the endocrine system for their "gains" both in my sport and in cycling (which is not to say that blood/oxygen vector doping does not still go on of course).
 
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
Paula Radcliffe did not really have a suspicious trajectory. I remember watching her win the World Junior XC Championship by a distance. I doubt very much that she was juiced then. Under those circumstances, until the list is revealed and subject to scrutiny, I don't think there's much to suggest that she is a doper. She has been a vehement anti-doping spokesperson for years....unlike most cyclists and the "I've never tested positive" types.
I think it's fine to question her but I think too many clinic assumptions are being made. The sneery stuff about her defecating in the gutter doesn't edify the discussion much either.
Actually there is only one assumption being made- that race radio was telling the truth. Which is not exactly a major leap to take.
Agreed re. Race Radio, though I don't think his word should always be taken as gospel. Even if her name is on the list, I think that further scrutiny of the what/why/where is required before the assumption that she is doing is made.
In all seriousness, why? It has already been said that names at the red level of the list had a certainty of blood manipulation. More importantly, how else would her name have gotten on the list? The parameters of off-scores, which these tests were a precursor to, are so wide to avoid false positives, that they have shown so many false negatives. The burden of proof held by these tests is so high that microdosing, altitude tents, and even just drinking a liter of water can bring a doped sample to read a false negative. If a name meets criterea that those doped-but-manipulated samples couldn't, how else in the world did it get there?
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
If it was her on the list, and I see absolutely no reason why RR would make that up, its not like he's had a grudge against her, than as far as Im concerned, she waived any right to "benefit of the doubt" by a) covering it up in the first place, and b) unleashing a team of lawyers to kill the story when the lies were exposed for a second time.
She has called for the list to be handed to the IAAF. That seems fair enough to me. Personally, if I were her, I'd be pretty pissed off if such a list was released to the press before it had been subjected to proper scrutiny...ESPECIALLY if I was clean and was a long standing and vocal opponent of doping. I don't hold the press in high regard though.
 
Re: Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
armchairclimber said:
The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
Paula Radcliffe did not really have a suspicious trajectory. I remember watching her win the World Junior XC Championship by a distance. I doubt very much that she was juiced then. Under those circumstances, until the list is revealed and subject to scrutiny, I don't think there's much to suggest that she is a doper. She has been a vehement anti-doping spokesperson for years....unlike most cyclists and the "I've never tested positive" types.
I think it's fine to question her but I think too many clinic assumptions are being made. The sneery stuff about her defecating in the gutter doesn't edify the discussion much either.
Actually there is only one assumption being made- that race radio was telling the truth. Which is not exactly a major leap to take.


Agreed re. Race Radio, though I don't think his word should always be taken as gospel. Even if her name is on the list, I think that further scrutiny of the what/why/where is required before the assumption that she is doing is made.
In all seriousness, why? It has already been said that names at the red level of the list had a certainty of blood manipulation. More importantly, how else would her name have gotten on the list? The parameters of off-scores, which these tests were a precursor to, are so wide to avoid false positives, that they have shown so many false negatives. The burden of proof held by these tests is so high that microdosing, altitude tents, and even just drinking a liter of water can bring a doped sample to read a false negative. If a name meets criterea that those doped-but-manipulated samples couldn't, how else in the world did it get there?
In all seriousness "It has been said..." by whom? What level of scrutiny has been applied to the results and by whom? Let the list be handed to the IAAF and then let the scrutiny of the IAAF and their response commence. At the moment there is a list which few people have seen and even fewer understand know the data behind.
 
Where exactly is the IAAF response. Its been almost 4 months now.

Its very easy for anyone to say something like "let the authorities deal with it", especially if they know that a few weeks down the line the issue will blow over and never come back to bite them.
 
And why has the list no merit?

You ebandit have repeatedly troped on that there is no evidence against Sky.
But when against Paula Radcliffe, very strong evidence does emerge you suggest it has no merit.

Without even offering an argument as to why the list should have no merit.
 
if

The Hitch said:
And why has the list no merit?

You ebandit have repeatedly troped on that there is no evidence against Sky.
But when against Paula Radcliffe, very strong evidence does emerge you suggest it has no merit.

Without even offering an argument as to why the list should have no merit.
'if'.....................hitch you know well enough this is not about team sky or my thoughts about them

Mark L
 
Re: if

ebandit said:
The Hitch said:
And why has the list no merit?

You ebandit have repeatedly troped on that there is no evidence against Sky.
But when against Paula Radcliffe, very strong evidence does emerge you suggest it has no merit.

Without even offering an argument as to why the list should have no merit.
'if'.....................hitch you know well enough this is not about team sky or my thoughts about them

Mark L
You really going to try to argue that by making a post that begins with the words "if the list has no merit" you were not suggesting the list has no merit?

So what, your post was in a vacuum? You don't believe the list has no merit but just randomly decided to create that hypothetical with no actual purpose?
Come on :eek:
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
In all seriousness "It has been said..." by whom? What level of scrutiny has been applied to the results and by whom? Let the list be handed to the IAAF and then let the scrutiny of the IAAF and their response commence. At the moment there is a list which few people have seen and even fewer understand know the data behind.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
The Hitch said:
If it was her on the list, and I see absolutely no reason why RR would make that up, its not like he's had a grudge against her, than as far as Im concerned, she waived any right to "benefit of the doubt" by a) covering it up in the first place, and b) unleashing a team of lawyers to kill the story when the lies were exposed for a second time.
She has called for the list to be handed to the IAAF. That seems fair enough to me. Personally, if I were her, I'd be pretty pissed off if such a list was released to the press before it had been subjected to proper scrutiny...ESPECIALLY if I was clean and was a long standing and vocal opponent of doping. I don't hold the press in high regard though.
its the bloody IAAF's list. and someone naughty within the IAAF leaked it. Why does a journo need to go back to the IAAF and show them their own list?

oh, I know why!

the journo needs to go back to the IAAF with the IAAF's own list because Paula wants to say the journo needs to go and take their intelligence and list leak to the IAAF to ratify it. Its a meta motive, a Paula meta motive, Paula's motive, that is freekin daft when you assess it for logic.

This, in PR terms and Burson Marsteller corporate communications crooks, is called the limited hangout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details.[citation needed]

It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out.[citation needed] In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.[citation needed]

A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
Where exactly is the IAAF response. Its been almost 4 months now.

Its very easy for anyone to say something like "let the authorities deal with it", especially if they know that a few weeks down the line the issue will blow over and never come back to bite them.
Has "the list" been passed to the IAAF? As far as I know, not. So they are not in a position to respond. If there is material there to make them uncomfortable I would like top see them publicly put in the position to have to refute it or accept it.

At the moment they are lucky because they haven't been presented with a case to answer. A list leaked to a journalist is just a list. There's no background to any of the cases. No data to scrutinise. They are on easy street.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
@armchairclimber its the freeeeeking IAAF's list.

This is the IAAF;s own butter on head list. IAAF dairy. full cream.
 
Some questions someone else might know the answer to, as I haven't seen the German TV programme. The athletes named that have a red mark beside them, denoting a clear indication of blood doping....is the test data that this conclusion is based upon present with the list? Is it clear how many tests are referred to? If there is a clear indication of blood doping, is that in the opinion of the original testing lab? Or is it in the opinion of an expert who has looked at the numbers subsequently?
 
Re:

blackcat said:
@armchairclimber its the freeeeeking IAAF's list.

This is the IAAF;s own butter on head list. IAAF dairy. full cream.
No, as I understand it it's a list compiled be someone within the IAAF who wanted to leak it. It is not, as far as I am aware (happy to stand corrected) an official IAAF list. Why would they compile such a list?
 
Re:

What experts? The experts that created the biopassport:

armchairclimber said:
Some questions someone else might know the answer to, as I haven't seen the German TV programme. The athletes named that have a red mark beside them, denoting a clear indication of blood doping....is the test data that this conclusion is based upon present with the list? Is it clear how many tests are referred to? If there is a clear indication of blood doping, is that in the opinion of the original testing lab? Or is it in the opinion of an expert who has looked at the numbers subsequently?

Many of the names listed in the documents are accompanied by detailed readings of their blood values, with figures appearing under various headings. For instance, one is ‘hgb’ – haemoglobin, which transports oxygen in the blood.

The documents also record the altitude level – which can affect red blood cell count – at which the tests took place. Together, the results produce an overall figure known as the ‘off score’ level and anything over 125 is considered to be a marker of potential doping.

The documents show that the highest ‘off score’ level for a male athlete was 167.63 – considered to be extraordinarily high – yet there is no record that he was charged with a doping offence.

The highest ‘off score’ level for a female athlete is 170.03 and again there is no public record of the athlete being charged.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... z3WH2JZKcZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
That whistle-blower claimed that the abnormal blood values, not thought to be enough themselves to prove doping, should have been followed up with target-testing of the athletes in question. He said: “Unfortunately, I have never heard of target-testing in almost all cases which were very suspicious.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... andal.html
Why should the IAAF need the list before action is taken. They were made the list, and no action was taken. The IAAF response totally undermines the intent of longitudinal testing:

Nick Davies said:
Athletes with a “red flag” reading may well be guilty of doping, but equally (and we can prove it in the majority of names on this list) they may be innocent – which is why this information should always have remained locked up in the safe of the anti-doping department in Monaco.
That's like saying every biopassport case needs to be confirmed by a positive epo test. Never tested positive? Well great!

Just to sum up, because the string of replies and responses is drawn out: IAAF used the methods of the biopassport, prior to its official implementation in 2009, as a way to identify suspicious athletes for target testing. (The reason these suspicious athletes could not be sanctioned is only because the bio passport was not yet implemented as WADA code). Still, the IAAF did not follow up adequately, according to the leaker. If those same samples were collected a few years later, we would(should...) have 225 bio passport cases initiated.
 
Re: Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
What experts? The experts that created the biopassport:

armchairclimber said:
Some questions someone else might know the answer to, as I haven't seen the German TV programme. The athletes named that have a red mark beside them, denoting a clear indication of blood doping....is the test data that this conclusion is based upon present with the list? Is it clear how many tests are referred to? If there is a clear indication of blood doping, is that in the opinion of the original testing lab? Or is it in the opinion of an expert who has looked at the numbers subsequently?

Many of the names listed in the documents are accompanied by detailed readings of their blood values, with figures appearing under various headings. For instance, one is ‘hgb’ – haemoglobin, which transports oxygen in the blood.

The documents also record the altitude level – which can affect red blood cell count – at which the tests took place. Together, the results produce an overall figure known as the ‘off score’ level and anything over 125 is considered to be a marker of potential doping.

The documents show that the highest ‘off score’ level for a male athlete was 167.63 – considered to be extraordinarily high – yet there is no record that he was charged with a doping offence.

The highest ‘off score’ level for a female athlete is 170.03 and again there is no public record of the athlete being charged.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... z3WH2JZKcZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
That whistle-blower claimed that the abnormal blood values, not thought to be enough themselves to prove doping, should have been followed up with target-testing of the athletes in question. He said: “Unfortunately, I have never heard of target-testing in almost all cases which were very suspicious.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... andal.html
Why should the IAAF need the list before action is taken. They were made the list, and no action was taken. The IAAF response totally undermines the intent of longitudinal testing:

Nick Davies said:
Athletes with a “red flag” reading may well be guilty of doping, but equally (and we can prove it in the majority of names on this list) they may be innocent – which is why this information should always have remained locked up in the safe of the anti-doping department in Monaco.
That's like saying every biopassport case needs to be confirmed by a positive epo test. Never tested positive? Well great!

Just to sum up, because the string of replies and responses is drawn out: IAAF used the methods of the biopassport, prior to its official implementation in 2009, as a way to identify suspicious athletes for target testing. (The reason these suspicious athletes could not be sanctioned is only because the bio passport was not yet implemented as WADA code). Still, the IAAF did not follow up adequately, according to the leaker. If those same samples were collected a few years later, we would(should...) have 225 bio passport cases initiated.
I know all this, and thanks for the information that data accompanied the list. I repeat though, the list was compiled by the IAAF whistleblower, not the IAAF. Yes, I understand that the athletes who returned "suspicious" values ought to have been urine tested and targeted.

What I am trying to get at is that you are making an assumption too far if you conclude that Paula Radcliffe (if her name is the famous British athlete on the list) was blood doping. For sure, use the lack of targeted testing as a stick to beat the IAAF with but to denounce an athlete who has always been vocally anti-doping as a doper because of their presence on the list is, in my opinion, crappy. Whilst I understand where Hitch is coming from when he says she shouldn't have set her legal team on the case in aggressive fashion, this thread would illustrate to me exactly why it's understandable that she should have done so.
 
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
The Hitch said:
Where exactly is the IAAF response. Its been almost 4 months now.

Its very easy for anyone to say something like "let the authorities deal with it", especially if they know that a few weeks down the line the issue will blow over and never come back to bite them.
Has "the list" been passed to the IAAF? As far as I know, not. So they are not in a position to respond. If there is material there to make them uncomfortable I would like top see them publicly put in the position to have to refute it or accept it.

At the moment they are lucky because they haven't been presented with a case to answer. A list leaked to a journalist is just a list. There's no background to any of the cases. No data to scrutinise. They are on easy street.
To the bolded, the IAAF has perfect knowledge of all athlete test scores. They are the final authority on anti-doping matters for Track and Field. They know EXACTLY who is on that list. That is not hyperbole.

The list is likely one generated to meet the WADA standard of WADA providing a list of athletes they recommend testing. Recommendation only, no requirements of any kind.

Who presents what now? It's up to the anti-doping authority to take action on positive scores. WADA only recommends taking a course of action on scores. It's up to the anti-doping authority to open the case. It's a nice way to never test positive.

There's no rule that says they have to open a case on a positive. None!
 
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
armchairclimber said:
The Hitch said:
Where exactly is the IAAF response. Its been almost 4 months now.

Its very easy for anyone to say something like "let the authorities deal with it", especially if they know that a few weeks down the line the issue will blow over and never come back to bite them.
Has "the list" been passed to the IAAF? As far as I know, not. So they are not in a position to respond. If there is material there to make them uncomfortable I would like top see them publicly put in the position to have to refute it or accept it.

At the moment they are lucky because they haven't been presented with a case to answer. A list leaked to a journalist is just a list. There's no background to any of the cases. No data to scrutinise. They are on easy street.
To the bolded, the IAAF has perfect knowledge of all athlete test scores. They are the final authority on anti-doping matters for Track and Field. They know EXACTLY who is on that list. That is not hyperbole.

The list is likely one generated to meet the WADA standard of WADA providing a list of athletes they recommend testing. Recommendation only, no requirements of any kind.

Who presents what now? It's up to the anti-doping authority to take action on positive scores. WADA only recommends taking a course of action on scores. It's up to the anti-doping authority to open the case. It's a nice way to never test positive.

There's no rule that says they have to open a case on a positive. None!
Thanks, a sane post. To the bolded, as far as I know, the "list" is one produced by the leak source. When you say "likely" you are guessing as much as the rest of us. The IAAF were obviously aware of the BP tests on the athletes named on the list, which is not the same thing as creating the list. I understand that it's a way for blood doping to go unsanctioned but it is still not enough to say an individual athlete on that list IS/WAS doping.

I know what a TV producer would like to extrapolate though.
 
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
Thanks, a sane post. To the bolded, as far as I know, the "list" is one produced by the leak source. When you say "likely" you are guessing as much as the rest of us. The IAAF were obviously aware of the BP tests on the athletes named on the list, which is not the same thing as creating the list. I understand that it's a way for blood doping to go unsanctioned but it is still not enough to say an individual athlete on that list IS/WAS doping.

I know what a TV producer would like to extrapolate though.
You are not understanding and you aren't the first.

WADA generates lists of athletes they recommend testing for all kinds of sports. There are countless lists of the kind I am describing. There's one for de Ronde. There was one for Three Days of DePanne. One being leaked is kind of like finding some money on the street. Lots of it around and people usually mind them carefully. One list isn't much and, frankly, isn't indicative of too much on its own anyway. It's a clue, but not conclusive.

Maybe Seppelt has a different kind of list? Maybe!!! I don't know for sure, but my belief is an IAAF list of positives would be much, much longer than 100 individuals. We don't quite know for sure what Seppelt has. My guess it is just a copy of a recommendation list for something like an event or OOC testing.

Also, you are trying to somehow define/doubt the leaker and that's just not possible. If it is an ordinary recommendation list, they are sent far and wide within the sport's administrators/promoters/NADOs. It is amazing they aren't regularly leaked. It's very unlikely it is one person dumping just someo positive results from the passport system.

Finally, you started down a path of doubting much of the conjecture without any knowledge of the process and it's not helping.

All of this is separate from my belief that Ms. Radcliffe is "never tested positive." We already see the IAAF running HEAVY protection for her, so Armstrong-style favouritism all over again. And we know they hide positives too. Releasing blood values would end the conjecture if she was actually clean.
 
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
armchairclimber said:
Thanks, a sane post. To the bolded, as far as I know, the "list" is one produced by the leak source. When you say "likely" you are guessing as much as the rest of us. The IAAF were obviously aware of the BP tests on the athletes named on the list, which is not the same thing as creating the list. I understand that it's a way for blood doping to go unsanctioned but it is still not enough to say an individual athlete on that list IS/WAS doping.

I know what a TV producer would like to extrapolate though.
You are not understanding and you aren't the first.

WADA generates lists of athletes they recommend testing for all kinds of sports. There are countless lists of the kind I am describing. There's one for de Ronde. There was one for Three Days of DePanne. One being leaked is kind of like finding some money on the street. Lots of it around and people usually mind them carefully. One list isn't much and, frankly, isn't indicative of too much on its own anyway. It's a clue, but not conclusive.

Maybe Seppelt has a different kind of list? Maybe!!! I don't know for sure, but my belief is an IAAF list of positives would be much, much longer than 100 individuals. We don't quite know for sure what Seppelt has. My guess it is just a copy of a recommendation list for something like an event or OOC testing.

Also, you are trying to somehow define/doubt the leaker and that's just not possible. If it is an ordinary recommendation list, they are sent far and wide within the sport's administrators/promoters/NADOs. It is amazing they aren't regularly leaked. It's very unlikely it is one person dumping just someo positive results from the passport system.

Finally, you started down a path of doubting much of the conjecture without any knowledge of the process and it's not helping.

All of this is separate from my belief that Ms. Radcliffe is "never tested positive." We already see the IAAF running HEAVY protection for her, so Armstrong-style favouritism all over again. And we know they hide positives too. Releasing blood values would end the conjecture if she was actually clean.
Thanks.

Why would the IAAF need to protect Radcliffe? She is, to all intents and purposes, retired. There can be no sound commercial reason for protecting her.

I don't doubt the leak source at all. You have an investigative journalist, a source within the IAAF who leaks a list (generated by WADA or whatever) with a list of names who have returned suspicious blood values and who, according to the source, have never been more rigorously tested as a result. There still needs to be a leap of faith/or a presumption to decide that Paula Radcliffe is doping. Fine, you make that leap/presumption. I don't.

Just to be clear, this is not because she is a Brit, a favourite athlete of mine (she isn't) or a belief on my part that athletics is predominantly clean (it clearly isn't). I base my judgment upon my own knowledge of distance running, the training, the biometrics (nodding head aside, she's pretty much perfect) and many years of observation...going right back to her junior days.

There's not much point in me repeating myself though so until new info comes to light, I'll keep my thoughts to myself lest someone start accusing me of being a troll or a fanboy or whatever.
 
c'mon

The Hitch said:
ebandit said:
The Hitch said:
And why has the list no merit?

You ebandit have repeatedly troped on that there is no evidence against Sky.
But when against Paula Radcliffe, very strong evidence does emerge you suggest it has no merit.

Without even offering an argument as to why the list should have no merit.
'if'.....................hitch you know well enough this is not about team sky or my thoughts about them

Mark L
You really going to try to argue that by making a post that begins with the words "if the list has no merit" you were not suggesting the list has no merit?

So what, your post was in a vacuum? You don't believe the list has no merit but just randomly decided to create that hypothetical with no actual purpose?
Come on :eek:
c'mon hitch..........is reading that hard..........or are you baiting/picking a fight?

Mark L
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS