Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Panarama - Allan Wells - Drugs
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
er... perhaps you mean that if she wants to be remembered without suspicion by people like you...."
cougie's link makes interesting reading. Although I've not read enough to be sure about all aspects of it, it looks credible to me. Have a look.
https://teamworldblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/lies-damned-lies-etc/
Assuming that WADA isn't bent, they will obviously have asked her to back up whatever arguments she advanced as to certain data points of hers being either inadmissible / bad testing protocol or explained by other factors.
For example its a matter of record that some of the samples were taken too soon after a race to now be considered reliable and its easy enough to document how she was ill/under meds for the other one. Insofar as there was any burden of proof on her at all I think its fair so say she has dealt with that in the manner expected (by WADA).
Beyond thast WADA themselves told her not to publish her results, and unless you really think we should be pandering to the court of public opinion (aka the gutter press / twitter) its on others to prove guilt, not her to prove her innocence.
Daily Heil readers can wring their hands saying 'it just doesn't look good' but lets face it they are all fuckwits who will only care until she flaunts those blonde, non muslim tresses on Strictly Come dancing or the Downton Abbey finale kicks off
If they're quibbling at things like that - then I'd worry about their more technical arguments that I'm not qualified to understand.
That sounds like a bloody hot half marathon to me.
Either way that's enough to lead sensible people to form a judgement on whether there are grounds to castigate her as a cheat.
Which of course there are not. Unless you are a Daily Heil reader.
Im sure they'll find a spot for her on ITV breakfast tv or BT
You mean entirely consistent and overwhelming testimony from multiple witnesses swearing under oath in a criminal investigation. I'd love to know where the equivalent evidence will come from in Paula's "case".
Big difference concerning a shit in a race. Armstrong was one, Radcliffe had one.
🙂
Other than all the evidence that there was, you mean?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/!invesitgations%20and%20enterprise%20docs/armstrong-reasoned-decision.pdf
..leaving aside the fact that Michele Ferrari's services to sport were one thing only- it was a very open secret in professional cycling. Matriphiles didn't need to be a latter-day Willy Voet to know that any form of digging at all would produce crushing amounts of evidence. That people looked the other way singing "la la la, I can't hear you" while ignoring what was going on was the the amazing thing- the sheer self-delusion - not that there was eventually a mountain of evidence made public.
In fact I think it's more like a few hacks trying to sell newspapers plus some people who are determined to pursue their own agenda.
There was more potential for mudslinging to stick with mo Farah and even that seemed to fall away to nothing.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34948287
"When all of the necessary information is considered, however (as the World Anti-Doping Agency athlete biological passport protocols require), there are clearly plausible explanations for the values in her profile that are entirely innocent"
So WADA has not cleared her yet. The iaaf are just saying that her explanations could be true and therefore she is not under suspicion.
A nice distracting story to take the heat off Coe if nowt else.
Or have WADA tested her old samples and actually cleared her completely? I hope that is the case because that'll put it to bed for good.
I have less than no idea of what really goes on in Athletics and sincerely hope that the great Paula is innocent as found.
The cynics are out in force I see.
🙂
Correct Ric. Better than them having to eat humble pie.
More interesting to look at whether Coe is in Nikes pocket to be honest.
Coe was able to ditch Nike. So I'd say that is a no.
🙂
Opinion is another matter
As 'Dirty Harry' said,
"Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one".
and,
"Innocent people! innocent of what?"
🙂
Not sure if they did random tests too.
Now interesting to see how someone who like Paula who was winning events like this from u13 all the way through to senior to escape coming out as positive if she indeed did dope..
I for one assume she dopes based on the physiological stats of the run.. Allegedly it's the male equivalent of a sub 2 hour marathon. Something impossible right now based on the current times being ran over 10km / HM
Also read a statement out today from an "expert" saying the terms suspicious values should really be replaced with, likely to have doped
Anyone see the Kenyan woman who got pinged today too?
Scott... Do you still stand by those views this morning?
It's clear that she has not been "proven innocent" as the newpaper headlines say, because it's near impossible for anyone to prove themselves innocent. But to talk of drug cheating from u13 onwards doesn't sit well. And if you're going to quote the views of "an expert" as a basis for your argument, I hope he/she was not incompetent and was not grossly misinterpreting the data like the ones who helped spark these allegations against Radcliffe (according to the IAAF)
...an IAAF statement said: "She (Radcliffe) has been publicly accused of blood doping based on the gross misinterpretation of raw and incomplete data. When all of the necessary information is considered, however...there are clearly plausible explanations for the values in her profile that are entirely innocent.
"For example, in two of the cases highlighted by The Sunday Times, the samples were collected immediately after competition (when dehydration causes a decrease in plasma concentration, and so an increase in reported haemoglobin concentration, even though there has been no increase in red blood cells).
"Any competent scientist would therefore immediately conclude that they should be disregarded."
The IAAF said that Radcliffe was "hounded remorselessly" by the media and that there was "no basis whatsoever for the insinuations made against her."
I am not sure whether this has been said before on this thread but I have read that Paula's time can be explained by the drafting effect of being able to run behind male athletes.
The rules have changed now which means that females running surrounded by male athletes is more difficult but the last Marathon I watched the leading female was running surrounded by male runners.
This makes sense to me and would explain why Paula's time has stood for a while. It would mean that male and female times are not comparable (as male record holders cannot run surrounded by quicker runners).
Just dug a little deeper. Probably this Runnersworld article about how a 2hr marathon might be achieved has been posted somewhere already. Generally a very interesting read. http://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/
Part of it studies Paula Radcliffe in some detail. Her physiology has been tracked since she was a young teenager. According to this article...