Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
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
My guess is the IAAF didn't do a damn thing because they were scared of being sued by any athlete they nailed as a result of the possibility of dodgy readings.
How much proof did they need? a signed declaration with pictures of the cheat 'shooting up'.
Better to be totally draconian and ban every athlete regardless of excuses and maybe's. If the athlete is truly a freak of nature then let them prove it.
Cycling has become ruthless at professional level for doing this. It's clear that athletics is still at the stage cycling was when the 'festina' affair was in progress.
Basically, still at the 'shoot the messenger' stage.
Coe didn't help with his 'revealing the news' was a war on athletics. Sorry old son, the cat's already out of the bag. The sports a den of inequity, sort it out and stop pretending there's no problem.
🙂
Only someone who is clean will do that.
🙂
WADA welcomes his appointment but they may regret it as Ciw wants to set up his own testing agency, presumably so dodgy test results won't be leaked.
He may as well just buy a load of white emulsion and a huge brush.
Clearly not. If her statement today is anything to go by.
I'm going off her.
🙂
Her records still stand like I said, if she was Russian, we would all be muttering...
Surely she knows that there'll be an assumption that anyone refusing to release their data has something to hide?
More important than blood values, for me, is that all professional athletes should be made to declare any TUE ("Therapeutic Usage Exemptions") they have been given.
For example, just looking at the "Athletics Weekly" forums (which are generally quite balanced and factual, unlike some other athletics forums - not "Runner's World" I might add !) there seems to be an unexpectedly high number of athletes, swimmers and cyclists who are - legally - taking asthma medications. There also seem to be many being treated for thyroid deficiencies.
While this is all perfectly legal (those athletes named have been prescribed their usage as "TUE's") a quick Google search of for example "Predisnone endurance" (one of the named asthma meds prescribed to a very famous cyclist, allegedly) shows why this should be a cause for concern. The effect on amateur runners and cyclists of even short-term usage seems to be quite extraordinary, so one can only imagine what effect controlled, long-term usage must have on a professional endurance athlete.
All perfectly legal.
http://www.athleteslivehere.com/blog/2013/01/paula-radcliffe-how-she-overcame-exercise-induced-asthma/
Re Radcliffe, I have seen her shit herself during races but I saw her shit herself during an interview today when she was asks by the bbc if she was going to release her test history.
Apparently the data may be misconstrued or misunderstood etc. Sounds like a guilty plea to me/
Whatever the truth of the matter, I'm sure you were desperate to interpret her interview to perfectly fit your agenda.
It could be that she has naturally has high this or that blood values and is worried that some will use that to, as you say, fit an agenda. But why not say that? What's 'abnormal' is open to interpretation and it's important that people don't get crucified on the basis of that alone. But she didn't say that.
Maybe she is some kind of freak that does have odd blood levels. But science should be able to explain that ?
I really don't know what to think after watching that interview, never seen anyone look so hunted and defensive. If she'd had any sense she'd have clarified her position in detail the day after Mo and Jo's data was published. This just gives the impression we had to drag it out of her.
If she has this stash of bloods going back forever then they could actually create a retro bio passport for her and look for abnormalities in the ebbs and flows of her training cycles. If she is clean then that would be about all she could do and would put an end speculation. Her claiming that releasing her data could mean that things could be misinterpreted leaves it looking a lot like she is guilty.
NorthEnder, what is your agenda?
PR, and that could mean Public Relations.
With good ol Lance Armstrong as an example, legions of people and Americans absolutely nailed their colours to the mast in his defense. Hence the betrayal. They ended up looking like dicks.
🙂
The interview was hard to watch for me. Just the body language and facial expressions said something is up.
Who's name is on that list?
Whoever it is, they are on borrowed time. Sooner or later the weight of the masse's curiosity will force a result.
🙂
You would do better to look up the side effects of long term Prednisolone use. It is dangerous stuff in the wrong hands. I think its performance enhancing effects are questionable, it may be a 'Steroid' but it is very different from an Anabolic Steroid and should not have much effect on a healthy person.
There are hundreds of products out there, including drugs to mask other drugs along with experts who know how to cheat the tests. TUE's should be granted where necessary, but it does provide an opportunity to cheat. Salbutamol in particular is an interesting drug, used as a TUE....
Radcliffe makes a statement...in other words...it's her with the dodgy blood levels but she's innocent.
http://www.eurosport.co.uk/athletics/paula-radcliffe-strongly-denies-cheating-after-parliamentary-inquiry-into-doping_sto4901769/story.shtml
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/34190297
I'll post this then read yours!
Full statement here...
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sndpj9
Well its hard to read that statement and not think she is innocent!
In which case it is a dreadful shame that all this has happened.
The more cynical would say that the statement would have said the same if she was guilty.
It would be nice if now it is out in the open that a group of experts review the data and publicly conclude that Paula does not have a case to answer or in a worst case scenario that she does but she has put forward a lot of facts in her statement which should be capable of being checked and supported, or not, by experts.
Fingers crossed.
Didn't she have her samples frozen or something for testing later? All sounds a bit suspect to me, but then I'm a bit of a suspicious old cynic.
I really believe that she is innocent. But innocent or guilty, her name had been dragged through the mud now. Agree with Skinny that these facts need to be verified and a statement released to confirm her innocence (or not).
You are easily persuaded.
I think having a belief position and being persuaded are two different things. I believe her, but I'm willing to take on board better evidence if it comes to light. The statement is consistent with my (best guess) thought that she is innocent, but wanted to have her name as anonymous as possible because of the "no smoke without fire" nonsense that will always be associated with being named, no matter how compelling the evidence of your innocence once it all comes out.
In other words, she didn't want to publish her blood data because it contains what on the face of it might appear to be suspicious values, but which can be explained by particular factors (being taken just after a race run in extreme conditions, etc.) Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't, as it were.
'She said she had wanted to "fully explain any fluctuations" in her blood data, but was advised she would risk her name being connected with "false allegations".'
I hope, and continue to believe for now, that she's innocent, but now's her opportunity to "fully explain any fluctuations".
I really want to believe her, and that is a great statement... There is only one 'but' Lance said the same thing for a heck of a long time.
Maybe she was just that much better than other other woman before or since in her sport. The next fastest has of course been banned since.
Heck there are records that stand the test of time. Maybe whoever measured the 2003 marathon got the course slightly wrong, How fast were the men that year i wonder
that's the only one that's way out ....
1 2:15:25 Radcliffe, Paula GBR London 1 4/13/03
2 2:17:18 Radcliffe, Paula GBR Chicago 1 10/13/02
3 2:17:42 Radcliffe, Paula GBR London 1 4/17/05
4 2:18:20 Shobukhova, Liliya RUS Chicago 1 10/9/11
5 2:18:37 Keitany, Mary KEN London 1 4/22/12
6 2:18:47 N'dereba, Catherine KEN Chicago 1 10/7/01
7 2:18:56 Radcliffe, Paula GBR London 1 4/14/02
8 2:18:57 Jeptoo, Rita Sitienei KEN Boston 1 4/21/14
9 2:18:58 Gelana, Tiki ETH Rotterdam 1 4/15/12
10 2:19:12 Noguchi, Mizuki JPN Berlin 1 9/25/05
And the 2:17:42 time was for a marathon and a shit.