Paula Radcliffe to run london marathon in April

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
IAAF's agenda is to protect themselves. Someone in their anti doping department has been leaking to a journalist. IAAF needs to make sure that each and everyone at their underfunded and understaffed anti doping department understands what will happen if they get caught. 100 athletes lining up to sue that one member of staff is a whole lot better than 100 athletes suing IAAF.
 
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.
As I understand it, yes there is a WADA "watch-list". Kristoff is hot right now, and would be on that list. LArs Boom rides for Astana, he would be on that list.

But the Seppelt list seems different. It has been tied to the biopassport. It hasn't been tied in a way that this list was a product of fine tuning the procedure and analysis process explicitly. What sticks to me is the use of the word precursor: like IAAF had the protocol in place but was waiting for WADA to go through its channels as it begins implementation in all sports in 2009.

The list's use of off scores, with as much detail as to include what elevation each sample was collected at, makes me believe this is not the WADA watch list you are discussing.

It sounds like we will have to agree to disagree. My final point will be that if an athlete trips the off score on a test so purposefully desentized to avoid false-positives, than any athlete indicated as beyond the off score can be taken as an adverse biopassport result.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
IAAF's blood testing prior to 2009 wasn't up to bio passport standard, the samples weren't analysed at WADA labs accredited for the bio passport, etc. For that reason none of the more than 40 bio passport cases in athletics have disqualifications of results going further back than 2009.

But just like AFDL knew who to collect urine samples from for EPO testing after their pre tour blood testing in 2008, IAAF knew who they should have tested based on the blood testing.

In my view armchairclimber is right about the lists. they were generated by someone working at the IAAF anti doping department, to document the lack of targeted testing. IAAF does have any and all data on the lists in their own files. They don't need the data to see if Radcliffe and all the others had suspisious blood values without follow up targeted testing. They want the list to see if they can deduct from it who made the list and who gave it to Seppelt. And for that reason Seppelt is never going to give it to them.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
http://www.ardmediathek.de/radio/Sport- ... d=21554652
Seppelt interviewed by ARD.
- wrt IAAF legal threats against him, says that in his 30-year spanning carreer he's never experienced anything like it.
- compares IAAF's politics to 3rd world country methods of intimidation.
- Russian federation told him he should take everything back (and sign a document to that extent), otherwise they won't talk to him ever again. Also says he got followed/tracked while he was in Russia.
- says IAAF recently held a press conference about Seppelt's docu. Not just Seppelt, but entire ARD were locked out from the conference.
- criticizes IAAF's one-country-one-vote system. Says Coe fairs well in that system, as he is on very good terms with Kiplagat, the controversial president of the similarly controversial Kenian federation.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

Joelsim said:
Isn't she the one who has instructed her lawyers to come down hard on anyone who makes even the slightest suggestion that she is a doper?

Make from that what you will.
Make another Armstrong sociopath narcissist.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Joelsim said:
Isn't she the one who has instructed her lawyers to come down hard on anyone who makes even the slightest suggestion that she is a doper?

Make from that what you will.
Make another Armstrong sociopath narcissist.
someone needs to go to the London marathon with two placards/posters.

the first one needs to say #Paula, and the second one, with someone standing right next to it needs to say #EPO_cheats_out!

I say Paula,
you say EPO
I say Paula
you say cheats out
I say Paula
you say R
I say Paula
you say Radcliffe
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
#bloodbag_cheats_out!

posters placards hashtags london marathon. paula, bloodbag cheats out hashtag exclamation mark!
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
It really is disgusting how the Radcliffe lovefest is all over the media. How do these journalists sleep at night?
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Was curious who won so checked the BBC live feed but couldn't find the info in in between all the "Teary Paula blabla" "Radcliffe one of a kind"
 
BBC Marathon coverage = nauseating sycophancy.

Once the elite race is over, people want general views so they can try to spot their family and friends in the field, they want to laugh at the costumes, they want to hear the stories behind the charities that people are running for, they want to see minor celebrities looking uncomfottable: they do not want a promotion for the next stage of a BBC commentators after dinner speaking career
 
It reminded me of Armstrong at the New York marathon in (2006?) when the coverage in the US similarly focused on him (or so I hear).

Anyway for those wanting a further laugh, Paula has her own episode on ITV's fairy tale "documentary" series today.
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
It reminded me of Armstrong at the New York marathon in (2006?) when the coverage in the US similarly focused on him (or so I hear).

Anyway for those wanting a further laugh, Paula has her own episode on ITV's fairy tale "documentary" series today.
Is that the same series that did the one on froome?
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
It reminded me of Armstrong at the New York marathon in (2006?) when the coverage in the US similarly focused on him (or so I hear).

Anyway for those wanting a further laugh, Paula has her own episode on ITV's fairy tale "documentary" series today.
Actually, that programme was VERY interesting and I nearly didnt bother watching it after everyone saying she 'had tickets on herself'. Definitely worth watching. It gave a good timeline of her career and theres some interesting remarks in there about 'the epo era' and how the brits could see their competitors becoming unbeatable.

I noticed how husband Gary mentioned 'her ASTHMA' within the first 5mins of the programme and also, which is the first mention I know of, a HAEMATOMA in her leg in Athens. Now that is well suss !

A blood clot ! she collapses during the race - epo ?? managed incorrectly. Did he *** up her preparation ?
He also stopped the interview when he talked about that - which is believable if she nearly died from a blood clot brought on by epo.

Also mentions her training in Alberquerque - again, clearing up and mentioning all these dodgey events in her career because they know they must give an explanation. Also mention why they live in Monaco - because they are being berated for avoiding UK tax...saying its because of the Athens backlash.

https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/sports-life-stories/series-3/episode-3-paula-radcliffe
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS