Leaked IAAf report on doping

walshb

I don't think the LJ record is the best example to use. Maybe there have been many long long jumps around the 60s and 70s, or even before that were never measured due to the athlete fouling by a cm or less here or there.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I don't think the LJ record is the best example to use. Maybe there have been many long long jumps around the 60s and 70s, or even before that were never measured due to the athlete fouling by a cm or less here or there.

Ah will ya get out of it. Some 8:10 jumper, went 8:70 back in the 70s, but stepped over by 1cm, yet would never be able to replicate it when 5cm behind the board. Sure.

I'm generally on your side in this current discussion regarding Radcliffe. Stop making it hard for me with such ridiculous comments like the above.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Ah will ya get out of it. Some 8:10 jumper, went 8:70 back in the 70s, but stepped over by 1cm, yet would never be able to replicate it when 5cm behind the board. Sure.

I'm generally on your side in this current discussion regarding Radcliffe. Stop making it hard for me with such ridiculous comments like the above.

I was simply meaning that with the skill element of timing and hitting the board I don't think Bob's example is the best to use when comparing to Paula's marathon record. That's all. Sorry to highlight this....Otherwise you are fighting the cause, friend!:)

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I was simply meaning that with the skill element of timing and hitting the board I don't think Bob's example is thre best to use when comparing to Paula's marathon record. That's all. Sorry to highlight this....Otherwise you are fighting the cause, friend!:)

Beamon in Mexico City is an enormous outlier, not only in his event, but also within himself. His second longest jump was 55cm shorter. Imagine Greg Rutherford's second longest jump being 7.96m. That's the type of outlier we are talking about here.

Clearlier

Chivito550 wrote: »

How far was Bob Beamon ahead of the rest for so long? Even now he is second of all time, 47 years on, and ahead of Carl Lewis, who is considered dodgy at the least. That's the biggest outlier we've probably ever seen. It's easy to write off an outlier as doping. Looking closer can make things more plausible. In Beamons case the altitude was an enormous factor.

I'm not saying Radcliffe was clean or dirty, merely that being an outlier is not evidence of doping.

Obviously you're correct that there aren't any circumstances where the fact of being an outlier is direct evidence of doping. It is a reason to have suspicions though.

I've always bought Radcliffe's story, good to very good at a young age followed by a lifetime of fairly slow and steady progress to reach the elite levels allied to her outspoken opposition to Yegerova and her support for freezing samples to be tested at a later date all lead me to a place where I don't think that she doped.

This is a big mess though and I'd be stupid not to have additional doubts. When you don't understand everything there's a tendency to focus on what you do understand and make a judgement call based on that which I'm trying to resist at the moment. I'd be a lot more comfortable if she did make all of her blood values available and did practice the openness and transparency advocated by Magness.

shels4ever

robinph wrote: »

You'd probably find that he'd been paced by cyclists on a down hill tail wind course like Boston in a very good year.

Is Ryan Halls time from Boston 2011 evidence of doping, or is it evidence of perfect conditions enabling him to run 2 minutes quicker than he had previously?
Paula Radcliffes 2:15 is evidence of perfect conditions and pacing. Her 2:17 times are only 40 seconds ahead of the next fastest time, or a minute ahead of the next fastest non-doped* time.

*allegedly

For Hall its clear evidences for the reason that Boston is not a legal course for records. Totally agree with her next best time are not as far a head, I always wonders that when Mary kitney went out at WR pace is she had men around her at the time would she have paced it better.

demfad

Chivito550 wrote: »

If you consider Radcliffe a 1:59 runner then you must also consider Deena Kastor a 2:03 runner. If you think Radcliffe's time is worth 2:01, then you need to accept Kastor was a 2:05 standard athlete. Do you believe Kastor was this calibre of athlete?

The next best "clean" time is Mary Keitany's, followed by N'dereba, Jeptoo etc. They are of that calibre. Many men have ran sub 2:05, then yes, at least Keitany is of that standard and the other two at least. Thats assuming that chasing group are equivalent of 2 mins on the equivalent mens group puts Radcliffe's time as equiv 2:01.xx at the very slowest.

(if Hall is sub 2:04.xx then Kastor is sub 2:05.xx, sure)

Chivito550

demfad wrote: »

The next best "clean" time is Mary Keitany's, followed by N'dereba, Jeptoo etc. They are of that calibre. Many men have ran sub 2:05, then yes, at least Keitany is of that standard and the other two at least.

(if Hall is sub 2:04.xx then Kastor is sub 2:05.xx, sure)

I personally don't consider Kastor at that level, and for me, the fact she is so high up the all time list, says that the standard of women's marathon running is not as high as it could be. I guess in 10 years time once the Dibabas, Ayana and Defar among others have fully tackled the marathon, we will get a better feel for it.

Halloween Jack

http://m.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34204775

Hmmmm..... For me, you can't talk about transparency on one hand and obfuscate on the other hand...

average_runner

Halloween Jack wrote: »

http://m.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34204775

Hmmmm..... For me, you can't talk about transparency on one hand and obfuscate on the other hand...

Well if we are going down the route of asking her to show her blood results, why don't we go down the route and ensure all blood results from all athletes be made public from here in. I am not saying this is something I like to see, just saying

Halloween Jack

average_runner wrote: »

Well if we are going down the route of asking her to show her blood results, why don't we go down the route and ensure all blood results from all athletes be made public from here in. I am not saying this is something I like to see, just saying

I agree, I'm not saying they should necessarily be public and she is under no obligation to make them so BUT if somebody continually talks about issues like transparency and makes a point of talking about freezing samples etc then decides act in a contrary way to her previous protestations I'd be inclined to reason that the person only wants to be seen to be transparent etc...

robinph

Video of the MP asking the question that kicked of the current round:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/09/paula-radcliffe-doping-allegations-jesse-norman-media-blame

He's clearly an idiot if he thought that question was not directly referencing Radcliffe.

pconn062

NIMAN wrote: »

Doping is now so common place in athletics, maybe we should just stop testing and let them all dope as much as they want?

The reputation of the sport is now in tatters, with every single athlete now being a suspect, no matter how strongly they proclaim their innocence.

Take the biggest event in athletics, the men's 100m. Of the ten fastest athletes ever, 9 have failed drugs tests. And many have doubts about the guy who has never failed one.

It's getting hard now for anyone to take any time or distance achieved with no questioning. It's gone too far and all these efforts to try to curb doping aren't working. Lifetime bans are the only way I can see an improvement, caught doping? You're out!

You can replace the word athletics in your first line there with any sport or maybe just "sport". Sport has a doping issue and not even just sports that are full of money, look at that GAA lad that was banned for doping earlier this year, he's hardly a once off is he??

menoscemo

robinph wrote: »

Video of the MP asking the question that kicked of the current round:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/09/paula-radcliffe-doping-allegations-jesse-norman-media-blame

He's clearly an idiot if he thought that question was not directly referencing Radcliffe.

I don't get it. It was going to come out anyway. Every person who had any interest in who the mystery Athlete was knew it was her.

PR's Statement had clearly been prepared in advance. It's not like she rushed into putting it together after his question; yer man is just a scapegoat.

Halloween Jack

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't get it. It was going to come out anyway. Every person who had any interest in who the mystery Athlete was knew it was her.

PR's Statement had clearly been prepared in advance. It's not like she rushed into putting it together after his question; yer man is just a scapegoat.

But you can try and wrestle back control of the story by claiming victim status and trying to discredit the messengers

robinph

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't get it. It was going to come out anyway. Every person who had any interest in who the mystery Athlete was knew it was her.

PR's Statement had clearly been prepared in advance. It's not like she rushed into putting it together after his question; yer man is just a scapegoat.

Yep, it was going to come out eventually. The politician is hiding behind the parliamentary privilege thing, nobody has come out publicly to suggest that Radcliffe may have been doping (except for anonymous people on the interweb). The politician cannot be sued for liable though due to where he said what he said, he is an idiot that he claims to have been speaking in vague terms and should not be on the sport committee if he doesn't know that what he said can only be taken to mean Radcliffe.

The strange bit for me is that the Sunday Times are not even confident over their analysis, if they were sure that the 1 in 1000 numbers were accurate then they would have published her name. They were not confident on that so made the original story about that the IAAF may not have followed up on odd results sufficiently.

The story then got picked up about the "prominent British athlete" and the rumour mill started churning. There was a Times journalist doing a segment on NewsNight last night about the reports. He said he believed Radcliffe. The papers lawyers obviously are not convinced there is anything to answer by her or they would have printed. No athlete or anyone else involved in the sport has come out suggesting any queries over Radcliffe.

Yes there are results that are out of expected current ranges, nobody is denying that. That data was looked at and dealt with back in the day. Nothing was found to be out of order. The current testing systems have been changed and would not be done in the same manner as in 2003.

Halloween Jack

robinph wrote: »

Yep, it was going to come out eventually. The politician is hiding behind the parliamentary privilege thing, nobody has come out publicly to suggest that Radcliffe may have been doping (except for anonymous people on the interweb). The politician cannot be sued for liable though due to where he said what he said, he is an idiot that he claims to have been speaking in vague terms and should not be on the sport committee if he doesn't know that what he said can only be taken to mean Radcliffe.

The strange bit for me is that the Sunday Times are not even confident over their analysis, if they were sure that the 1 in 1000 numbers were accurate then they would have published her name. They were not confident on that so made the original story about that the IAAF may not have followed up on odd results sufficiently.

The story then got picked up about the "prominent British athlete" and the rumour mill started churning. There was a Times journalist doing a segment on NewsNight last night about the reports. He said he believed Radcliffe. The papers lawyers obviously are not convinced there is anything to answer by her or they would have printed. No athlete or anyone else involved in the sport has come out suggesting any queries over Radcliffe.

Yes there are results that are out of expected current ranges, nobody is denying that. That data was looked at and dealt with back in the day. Nothing was found to be out of order. The current testing systems have been changed and would not be done in the same manner as in 2003.

But didn't UKAD look for the data and say they'd investigate after the hearing the other day? If so they should get to the bottom of it. Governing bodies are a joke when it comes to anti doping.

menoscemo

robinph wrote: »

Yep, it was going to come out eventually. The politician is hiding behind the parliamentary privilege thing, nobody has come out publicly to suggest that Radcliffe may have been doping (except for anonymous people on the interweb). The politician cannot be sued for liable though due to where he said what he said, he is an idiot that he claims to have been speaking in vague terms and should not be on the sport committee if he doesn't know that what he said can only be taken to mean Radcliffe.

The strange bit for me is that the Sunday Times are not even confident over their analysis, if they were sure that the 1 in 1000 numbers were accurate then they would have published her name. They were not confident on that so made the original story about that the IAAF may not have followed up on odd results sufficiently.

The story then got picked up about the "prominent British athlete" and the rumour mill started churning. There was a Times journalist doing a segment on NewsNight last night about the reports. He said he believed Radcliffe. The papers lawyers obviously are not convinced there is anything to answer by her or they would have printed. No athlete or anyone else involved in the sport has come out suggesting any queries over Radcliffe.

Yes there are results that are out of expected current ranges, nobody is denying that. That data was looked at and dealt with back in the day. Nothing was found to be out of order. The current testing systems have been changed and would not be done in the same manner as in 2003.

I don't buy that at all. The IAAF guy who leaked the info specifically asked that nobody be named. PR threatened to sue if her name was linked to the story. They couldn't just come out and say she was doping as that would likely not stand up due to technicalities. However now that she has named herself and took a swipe at the ST I fully expect them to come back with a lot more info this weekend.

Myles Splitz

The aforementioned committee discussion with Ashenden

robinph

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't buy that at all. The IAAF guy who leaked the info specifically asked that nobody be named. PR threatened to sue if her name was linked to the story. They couldn't just come out and say she was doping as that would likely not stand up due to technicalities. However now that she has named herself and took a swipe at the ST I fully expect them to come back with a lot more info this weekend.

They are going to need to have more than just quoting "leading anti-doping scientists" credentials/ opinions back and forth which is really all there has been so far between the Sunday Times and the IAAF.

If they have more data then we obviously want to see that now. I don't get the impression that there is anything more out there other than arguing over "my scientist is better than your scientist" type carry on.

NIMAN

I have no doubt there is doping in all sport at the top-level. My own favoured sport, soccer, is probably rife with it, the testing is awful.

There are plenty of stories aroind European soccer over the years that certainly point to doping at the top of the game.

Chivito550

pconn062 wrote: »

You can replace the word athletics in your first line there with any sport or maybe just "sport". Sport has a doping issue and not even just sports that are full of money, look at that GAA lad that was banned for doping earlier this year, he's hardly a once off is he??

+1. While I don't believe doping is widespread in GAA, there's a certain big sporting event taking place in England starting soon which will have no journalists asking difficult questions, and all spectators assuming what they see is 100% pure, despite the fact that 75% of all current banned sportspeople in the UK being from rugby (union and league).

ThisRegard

You mean the rugby world cup. And no, not all spectators assume it's 100% pure. Even the guys on the rugby forum here don't believe that, and there's a recent thread on it.

Chivito550

ThisRegard wrote: »

You mean the rugby world cup. And no, not all spectators assume it's 100% pure. Even the guys on the rugby forum here don't believe that, and there's a recent thread on it.

The general public I mean. The guys involved in the sport would be more clued in to what goes on alright.

But you won't see threads descending into doping speculation on their forum during the RWC, despite it being clear that doping is just as rife, if not more so.

Sure remember the response Kimmage got when he dared to question the sport.

At least rugby is not too big to not be able to go after. Football on the other hand will always be protected. Operation Puerto showed us that. The biggest frauds in the history of sport arguably are being hailed as the greatest of all teams.

ThisRegard

I'm not so sure. One of the French clubs, Toulon, was implicated in a pharmaceutical scandal only this week, although it's argued that it's not doping but rather a financial scam, with the paper sticking to their story that is it's not just a financial issue.

There's also an active and big thread over there along the lines of Doping in rugby is as bad a cycling, this seems to be where all doping posts end up.

But I agree on the soccer thing, it's pretty much hush hush when it comes to that sport when it comes to the authorities, but again a lot of fans aren't blind to the fact these days.

mikedoherty99

David Walsh is apparently doing a piece on Sunday so maybe that will clarify matters
My own view on recent events is that she is a phoney and she won't publicize the data because it is highly irregular
I had always assumed she was a clean athlete

youngrun

mikedoherty99 wrote: »

David Walsh is apparently doing a piece on Sunday so maybe that will clarify matters
My own view on recent events is that she is a phoney and she won't publicize the data because it is highly irregular
I had always assumed she was a clean athlete

So much speculation and no evidence ?

Halloween Jack

youngrun wrote: »

So much speculation and no evidence ?

Well in the absence of the data being released people will have to weigh up what is in the public domain and form their own opinion.

Personally I feel radcliffes behaviour is not consistent with a genuinely innocent party. Super injunction or not we know she threatened to sue if her name was mentioned, why would somebody do that if they had nothing to hide? All it did was allow a swirl of conjecture and maybe buy some time....

average_runner

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Well in the absence of the data being released people will have to weigh up what is in the public domain and form their own opinion.

Personally I feel radcliffes behaviour is not consistent with a genuinely innocent party. Super injunction or not we know she threatened to sue if her name was mentioned, why would somebody do that if they had nothing to hide? All it did was allow a swirl of conjecture and maybe buy some time....

But based on the evidence, there is nothing there to prove she is guilty.
Now she is innocent till someone shows evidence stating otherwise, and this evidence does not exist.

Chivito550

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Well in the absence of the data being released people will have to weigh up what is in the public domain and form their own opinion.

Personally I feel radcliffes behaviour is not consistent with a genuinely innocent party. Super injunction or not we know she threatened to sue if her name was mentioned, why would somebody do that if they had nothing to hide? All it did was allow a swirl of conjecture and maybe buy some time....

If somebody was innocent, and knew he/she had done nothing wrong, why wouldn't you threaten to sue somebody who could potentially defame your character?

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

If somebody was innocent, and knew he/she had done nothing wrong, why wouldn't you threaten to sue somebody who could potentially defame your character?

While i agree with you, Lance did sue everyone but knew himself he was guilty. Actually he probably believed himself he was clean at some stage!!

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

While i agree with you, Lance did sue everyone but knew himself he was guilty. Actually he probably believed himself he was clean at some stage!!

Oh absolutely. Just saying that threatening to sue is not evidence of guilt.

Halloween Jack

average_runner wrote: »

But based on the evidence, there is nothing there to prove she is guilty.
Now she is innocent till someone shows evidence stating otherwise, and this evidence does not exist.

Ashenden clearly thinks there is something untoward, if he didn't, this story wouldn't exist. The whole reason radcliffes name has cropped up is because of all British athletes covered her values were the most abnormal. At least that was my interpretation of what went on. Now she has stated that here values were within certain ranges and made excuses etc, let's see the data so we can compare her interpretation and anshendens.

The whole notion that releasing the data because it can be misinterpreted is a joke. It's unreleased right now and it leaves the likes of me speculating what if, surely that's the biggest chance of things being misinterpreted

Show us the data, let's compare the values with the accepted norms and see exactly who's telling the truth.

One thing I will say is that anshendens has absolutely no reason to lie or fabricate anything and having been involved with blood doping since the 90's, probably knows what he's talking about.

Halloween Jack

Chivito550 wrote: »

Oh absolutely. Just saying that threatening to sue is not evidence of guilt.

Absolutely not, but what it did do was create a void where people could speculate to their hearts content. Were it me I'd have issued a statement the morning I heard saying I'm dismayed by the findings and intend to clear my name etc. not gag everybody, wait till I'm outed then continue to withhold the only thing which can effectively prove the doubters wrong.

It doesn't add up

Myles Splitz

Halloween Jack wrote: »

One thing I will say is that anshendens has absolutely no reason to lie or fabricate anything and having been involved with blood doping since the 90's, probably knows what he's talking about.

And yet he take values in isolation and made assumptions based on these off scores. The values taken were done before ADAMS or indeed the blood passport were in effect so has no idea of testing taking place. Remember Radcliffe would have been subject to testing after her WR so suggesting that IAAF didn't act is a leap.

He also talks of IAAF's failure to act on evidence prior to blood passports coming in to affect yet never once acknowledges CAS involvement in doping cases.

His interpretations might be spot on but from all the interviews and articles he has made I have found that he does skate around area's of significance in his interpretations of the whole situation.

Stheno

Sky news is reporting they have obtained the data

Halloween Jack

Myles Splitz wrote: »

And yet he take values in isolation and made assumptions based on these off scores. The values taken were done before ADAMS or indeed the blood passport were in effect so has no idea of testing taking place. Remember Radcliffe would have been subject to testing after her WR so suggesting that IAAF didn't act is a leap.

He also talks of IAAF's failure to act on evidence prior to blood passports coming in to affect yet never once acknowledges CAS involvement in doping cases.

His interpretations might be spot on but from all the interviews and articles he has made I have found that he does skate around area's of significance in his interpretations of the whole situation.

He is a doctor though, not an administrator etc, (though obviously a passionate anti doping advocate). It's his medical opinion we're interested in here and actually, if he were wrong in his analysis in a high profile case like this he has something to lose, it could ruin him professionally. So release the data and remove all doubt on all sides.

Like I say, if Radcliffe is innocent she's sitting on the only thing that can effectively clear her name.

Halloween Jack

Stheno wrote: »

Sky news is reporting they have obtained the data

Some man Rupert.... Hold onto your hats guys...

rom

Halloween Jack wrote: »

He is a doctor though, not an administrator etc, (though obviously a passionate anti doping advocate). It's his medical opinion we're interested in here and actually, if he were wrong in his analysis in a high profile case like this he has something to lose, it could ruin him professionally. So release the data and remove all doubt on all sides.

Like I say, if Radcliffe is innocent she's sitting on the only thing that can effectively clear her name.

Looks like Sky News have have it now according to TV
http://news.sky.com/watch-live

robinph

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Some man Rupert.... Hold onto your hats guys...

I wonder how information held by The Sunday Times made it's way to Sky News? Remarkable that two News International companies happen to have the same information.

average_runner

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Ashenden clearly thinks there is something untoward, if he didn't, this story wouldn't exist. The whole reason radcliffes name has cropped up is because of all British athletes covered her values were the most abnormal. At least that was my interpretation of what went on. Now she has stated that here values were within certain ranges and made excuses etc, let's see the data so we can compare her interpretation and anshendens.

The whole notion that releasing the data because it can be misinterpreted is a joke. It's unreleased right now and it leaves the likes of me speculating what if, surely that's the biggest chance of things being misinterpreted

Show us the data, let's compare the values with the accepted norms and see exactly who's telling the truth.

One thing I will say is that anshendens has absolutely no reason to lie or fabricate anything and having been involved with blood doping since the 90's, probably knows what he's talking about.

Ashenden hasn' t produced anything and that's why media has obeyed the super injunction

Myles Splitz

Halloween Jack wrote: »

He is a doctor though, not an administrator etc, (though obviously a passionate anti doping advocate). It's his medical opinion we're interested in here and actually, if he were wrong in his analysis in a high profile case like this he has something to lose, it could ruin him professionally. So release the data and remove all doubt on all sides.

Like I say, if Radcliffe is innocent she's sitting on the only thing that can effectively clear her name.

But many of the claims he made (in particular during the parliament commitee hearing) were his opinions and not his analysis and not once does he acknowledge the fact that the merit of Blood Passport is in its longitudinal analysis.

Releasing the data to public domain has its drawbacks to.

Giving dopers this data provides a reference point on how to develop ways to cheat the system which I imagine is why WADA and IAAF have advised here. Transparency is important without a doubt but not too public but rather the experts in this field as can't imagine anyone here has the academic background to decipher the data.

If you aren't going to have any sort of faith in WADA (who are conducting indepedent commission) or IAAF (or FIFA,ATP,IRU or any other governing body) then might as well have no faith in anti doping or professional sport in general.

Halloween Jack

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe

Here's the link guys, in summary: 3 abnormal values which Radcliffe claims are mitigated by circumstance.

Interesting thing for me is she has said UKAD and WADA can look at the data again...

Halloween Jack

Myles Splitz wrote: »

But many of the claims he made (in particular during the parliament commitee hearing) were his opinions and not his analysis and not once does he acknowledge the fact that the merit of Blood Passport is in its longitudinal analysis.

Releasing the data to public domain has its drawbacks to.

Giving dopers this data provides a reference point on how to develop ways to cheat the system which I imagine is why WADA and IAAF have advised here. Transparency is important without a doubt but not too public but rather the experts in this field as can't imagine anyone here has the academic background to decipher the data.

If you aren't going to have any sort of faith in WADA (who are conducting indepedent commission) or IAAF (or FIFA,ATP,IRU or any other governing body) then might as well have no faith in anti doping or professional sport in general.

Sorry when I said release the data I meant to be retested independently etc not so you and I can pore over it;)

As regards highlighting to dopers certain thresholds you can bet every penny you have that dopers know the thresholds already, otherwise how can know when they are clear?

I have absolutely no faith in any governing body to administer anti-doping whatsoever, ironically I'd have the UCI as currently the most trustworthy, and as for other agencies, some are better than others. Have a look at Thomas hauser's article on USADA and boxing today for an example.

average_runner

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Sorry when I said release the data I meant to be retested independently etc not so you and I can pore over it;)

As regards highlighting to dopers certain thresholds you can bet every penny you have that dopers know the thresholds already, otherwise how can know when they are clear?

I have absolutely no faith in any governing body to administer anti-doping whatsoever, ironically I'd have the UCI as currently the most trustworthy, and as for other agencies, some are better than others. Have a look at Thomas hauser's article on USADA and boxing today for an example.

Sky has just said it seen the data and it proves she is clean!!!!

rom

average_runner wrote: »

Sky has just said it seen the data and it proves she is clean!!!!

I have more faith in Paula than sky news to report facts.

Halloween Jack

average_runner wrote: »

Sky has just said it seen the data and it proves she is clean!!!!

It really doesn't though. I've read the article a couple of times now and it reads to me that it's basically just reiterating what her previous statement said with the three values attached.

Also the suspicious values are revealed in isolation which as a previous poster alluded to, don't really mean anything.

The only actual fact now revealed is the actual numbers involved.

I'm sure as we speak the Sunday times, anshenden et al are preparing their responses.

This story definitely has a lot more to run...

mikedoherty99

Looks like sky news are playing games
Setting up the counter story for the Sunday times

robinph

Paul Kimmage is on the Sunday Times payroll isn't he?

He just seems to be employed to stir:
https://twitter.com/paulkimmage/status/630851368241229824

However there was no super injunction. He should have known exactly who it was, if there was even an injunction. But is clearly just stirring the pot in order to drum up more sales for the paper.

This latest one just seems like more stirring again:
https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage/status/641967781810974723

Either that, or he's just an idiot troll on the internet.


Would make for a great story if there is something else out there to be released, but I really don't get the impression that there is anything. It's just a couple of people making up rumours and selling papers so far.


Edit: I seem to have linked the wrong tweet there as the first one, and now I cannot find the one I was looking for where he'd gone on about the super injunction. Google is not being helpful today.

average_runner

Halloween Jack wrote: »

It really doesn't though. I've read the article a couple of times now and it reads to me that it's basically just reiterating what her previous statement said with the three values attached.

Also the suspicious values are revealed in isolation which as a previous poster alluded to, don't really mean anything.

The only actual fact now revealed is the actual numbers involved.

I'm sure as we speak the Sunday times, anshenden et al are preparing their responses.

This story definitely has a lot more to run...

So you believe the Sunday Times but not sky?

As i said, no one has produced any evidence on her yet