Leaked IAAf report on doping

Stheno

noway12345 wrote: »

Maybe my information is wrong. Will you point out where's she's won more medals than Sonia? I'll just remind you two that we're talking about track events!

Honestly just Google it

Stheno

walshb wrote: »

Sonia has one WR

I genuinely didn't know that

I'll amend it to only one has a WR that is still standing?

walshb

Stheno wrote: »

I genuinely didn't know that

I'll amend it to only one has a WR that is still standing?

Both still standing.

menoscemo

Stheno wrote: »

She's actually won more than Sonia

And only one of them ever set a world record

Sonia set 2 WRs and would have had more (I think) but for doping Chinese/east Germans

Stheno

walshb wrote: »

Both still standing.

Ah the 2000m?

youngrun

Halloween Jack wrote: »

By the way, in what way have the times reported sensationally or made doping allegations? Please supply quotes of allegations.

They were supplied with data, they had it analysed by two of the preeminent experts in the field and published the experts opinions. That's actually good and prudent journalism.

Front page articles in major newspaper creating huge speculation on blood values doping etc without providing half the story I e the I a a f response how is that not sensationalist ??
It is a very dangerous report that implicates people without any proof

downthemiddle

Stheno wrote: »

I genuinely didn't know that

I'll amend it to only one has a WR that is still standing?

I thought you were refusing to recognise Radcliffe's record for some reason.

menoscemo

Stheno wrote: »

Ah the 2000m?

Sonia set the 2k and the 2 mile WRs the 2k still stands.

Otherwise both have 1 World championship gold, 2 World XC golds and 3 Euro XC golds. Sonia has 3 Euro Champs golds compared to Paula's 1 and an olympic Silver compared to Paula's none. Both have a host of golds silvers and bronzes from other competitions....

Basically to say that Paula has a way better pedigree than Sonia is miles off

Stheno

menoscemo wrote: »

Sonia set the 2k and the 2 mile WRs the 2k still stands.

Otherwise both have 1 World championship gold, 2 World XC golds and 3 Euro XC golds. Sonia has 3 Euro Champs golds compared to Paula's 1 and an olympic Silver compared to Paula's none. Both have a host of golds silvers and bronzes from other competitions....

Basically to say that Paula has a way better pedigree than Sonia is miles off

but equally noway was insinuating Paula was not on a par with Sonia?

Is the 2k still a race that's run?

walshb

menoscemo wrote: »

Sonia set the 2k and the 2 mile WRs the 2k still stands.

Otherwise both have 1 World championship gold, 2 World XC golds and 3 Euro XC golds. Sonia has 3 Euro Champs golds compared to Paula's 1 and an olympic Silver compared to Paula's none. Both have a host of golds silvers and bronzes from other competitions....

Basically to say that Paula has a way better pedigree than Sonia is miles off

It's the poster claiming the opposite, that Paula is nowhere near Sonia's pedigree. I don't see anyone claiming what you seem to think is being claimed. To me both are tremendous, and it's a debate as to who's better.

menoscemo

walshb wrote: »

It's the poster claiming the opposite, that Paula is nowhere near Sonia's pedigree. I don't see anyone claiming what you seem to think is being claimed. To me both are tremendous, and it's a debate as to who's better.

Fair enough.
Bar the Marathon I would definitely say Sonia was a higher pedigree than Paula, although Sonia was clearly more of a 1500-5k runner while Paula specialised in 5k+

menoscemo

Stheno wrote: »

but equally noway was insinuating Paula was not on a par with Sonia?

Is the 2k still a race that's run?

No the 2k is not that common (although several have had a go at that record and failed), but as I said Sonia probably would have had several other track WRs but for obvious dopers at or before her time.

Stheno

menoscemo wrote: »

No the 2k is not that common (although several have had a go at that record and failed), but as I said Sonia probably would have had several other track WRs but for obvious dopers at or before her time.

Fair point

Krusty_Clown

menoscemo wrote: »

but as I said Sonia probably would have had several other track WRs but for obvious dopers at or before her time.

The same is likely true of Radcliffe.

Wild Garlic

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/09/paula-radcliffe-physical-therapist-gerard-hartman-clean-doping?CMP=twt_gu

The Rape of Lucretia

menoscemo wrote: »

Sonia set 2 WRs and would have had more (I think) but for doping Chinese/east Germans

Doesnt that itself though raise the question mark even larger over O'Sullivan?

The closer your times/medals/WorldRecords (even niche/meaningless ones) are to, or even beating, known dopers, then the the higher the suspicion has to be about her.

The Rape of Lucretia

Wild Garlic wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/09/paula-radcliffe-physical-therapist-gerard-hartman-clean-doping?CMP=twt_gu

The line is 'never took banned performance-enhancing drugs'. What was she taking that was legal. Is it still ?

I dont follow the 'logical' reason for her asking for her blood to be frozen back in 2002 at all. If she was clean, she was clean. Why would she be motivated to back up evidence of being clean ? It makes her look all the more suspicious.

No stories were coming out from the camp of our butter-woudn't-melt Irish colleen Michelle Smith either. Yet we know she was doped to the gills.

walshb

Plus, Sonia is out backing Radcliffe. Now, how can we implicate Sonia in all of this?

Just in case, mods, I'm being facetious.

Chivito550

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Doesnt that itself though raise the question mark even larger over O'Sullivan?

The closer your times/medals/WorldRecords (even niche/meaningless ones) are to, or even beating, known dopers, then the the higher the suspicion has to be about her.

Let's put it this way. If I dope and start running 51 seconds 400m does that mean that all runners quicker than me are drug cheats because they are "faster than a doper"?. You can be slow and dirty, you can be fast and clean. Beating drug cheats is the weakest evidence of guilt.

walshb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The line is 'never took banned performance-enhancing drugs'. What was she taking that was legal. Is it still ?

I dont follow the 'logical' reason for her asking for her blood to be frozen back in 2002 at all. If she was clean, she was clean. Why would she be motivated to back up evidence of being clean ? It makes her look all the more suspicious.

No stories were coming out from the camp of our butter-woudn't-melt Irish colleen Michelle Smith either. Yet we know she was doped to the gills.

Jesus, she's fooked no matter what she does for you. I bet had she not asked for samples to be stored for later testing you'd be questioning that as her being suspicious

The Rape of Lucretia

Chivito550 wrote: »

Let's put it this way. If I dope and start running 51 seconds 400m does that mean that all runners quicker than me are drug cheats because they are "faster than a doper"?. You can be slow and dirty, you can be fast and clean. Beating drug cheats is the weakest evidence of guilt.

Its not evidence at all. But it is a very strong suspicion.

The Rape of Lucretia

walshb wrote: »

Jesus, she's fooked no matter what she does for you. I bet had she not asked for samples to be stored for later testing you'd be questioning that as her being suspicious

Why would she asked for samples to be tested. If she is sure she is clean, then no subsequent evidence can ever prove that she is not. So why save 'evidence' of something she would never have to defend if indeed she was clean ?

walshb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Its not evidence at all. But it is a very strong suspicion.

And? You can say that about anyone in any sport. It actually means nothing. It adds nothing, shows nothing, and of course, proves nothing.

walshb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Why would she asked for samples to be tested. If she is sure she is clean, then no subsequent evidence can ever prove that she is not. So why save 'evidence' of something she would never have to defend if indeed she was clean ?

What anawer to that could satisfy you? No idea where you're coming from really. Like I said, with you she's damned either way. Some of these 'arguments' against her and others are plain bonkers.

Chivito550

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Its not evidence at all. But it is a very strong suspicion.

No it is not. Dopers from the 80s can easily be slower than a clean athlete from the 90s, when you take all factors into consideration (talent, advancements in training, better paced racing opportunities etc).

You are throwing out wild accusations.

Chivito550

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Why would she asked for samples to be tested. If she is sure she is clean, then no subsequent evidence can ever prove that she is not. So why save 'evidence' of something she would never have to defend if indeed she was clean ?

A contender for Dumbest Post of the Year in the AR Awards.

The Rape of Lucretia

walshb wrote: »

And? You can say that about anyone in any sport. It actually means nothing. Ot adds nothing, shows nothing, and of course, proves nothing.

It does mean something. When the likes Dr Mike Ashenden, can tell"the committee he believed the IAAF was “simply overwhelmed” by the scale of the problem.", many dopers are being caught banned, and others are admitting that the policing of doping is out of the control of those trying to catch them, the suspicion on winners is very high. Those with borderline tests results which are arguable/debatable/need-expert-interpretation/specialist-analysis are even more so.

The Rape of Lucretia

Chivito550 wrote: »

You are throwing out wild accusations.

I am not.

Just suspicions. Which are not arguable whether they are clean or not. They may indeed be clean. But the suspicion is very valid either way.

walshb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I am not.

Just suspicions. Which are not arguable whether they are clean or not. They may indeed be clean. But the suspicion is very valid either way.

I have a feeling that the only way you may be happy is when athletes go back to the 60s snd 70s and start running much slower. Other than suspicion, what else are you arguing for? You seem to really want to believe, and have others believe that all these great athletes are cheats. Are you also sure that none of them have an ounce of honesty and integrity? That seems to get overlooked here. They're hunan beings, and believe it or not, but done of them are decent and honest, and have character and morals and integrity.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I have a feeling that the only way you may be happy is when athletes go back to the 60s snd 70s and start running much slower. Other than suspicion, what else are you arguing for? You seem to really want to belueve,and have others believe that all these great athletes are cheats. Are you also sure that none of them have an pince of honesty and integrity? That seems to get overlooked here. They're hunan beings, and believe it or not, but done of them are decent and honest, and have character and morals and integrity.

+1

Not everyone will cheat. It's the same in all walks of life. Some people choose to cheat on their partners, cheat in exams, engage in tax evasion. Many do not.

May aswell accuse everyone on the planet of all of the above while you are at it.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

Remind us? Your claim never specified only track.

Actually my claim did very much only specify track. You even posted about it! I said she was only a decent track runner.

noway12345

Stheno wrote: »

Honestly just Google it

Maybe you should and then admit you were wrong.

noway12345

Stheno wrote: »

but equally noway was insinuating Paula was not on a par with Sonia?

Is the 2k still a race that's run?

Maybe you should have read my post properly. I said she was only a decent track runner, when the other fella asked would I call Sonia the same I said no and asked him to tell me how many medals she's won.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

It's the poster claiming the opposite, that Paula is nowhere near Sonia's pedigree. I don't see anyone claiming what you seem to think is being claimed. To me both are tremendous, and it's a debate as to who's better.

On track, it's clearly stated in my post.

The Rape of Lucretia

walshb wrote: »

I have a feeling that the only way you may be happy is when athletes go back to the 60s snd 70s and start running much slower. Other than suspicion, what else are you arguing for? You seem to really want to believe, and have others believe that all these great athletes are cheats. Are you also sure that none of them have an ounce of honesty and integrity? That seems to get overlooked here. They're hunan beings, and believe it or not, but done of them are decent and honest, and have character and morals and integrity.

I have great sympathy for any clean athletes and what they have to go through because of the dopers. All the dopers lie beautifully. Any known doper always denied it flatly before they were proven, spoke out against it, etc. This is par for the course for the cheats.

The Gatlin business has just thrown it into the realm of complete farce. Quite apart from letting a cheat race again, the times he is posting in his latest return are just taking the mick. Proof that he is either still gaining the benefit of past doping, or he is doping now, and the testers cant get him. Either way, making a nonsense of the integrity of the sport. And contributing to bring the suspicion on anyone able to hit world class times or records.

walshb

noway12345 wrote: »

Maybe you should and then admit you were wrong.

Wrong about your ridiculous claim that Paula's not near Sonia's level? No, I'll pass on that.

As to the track. You never said that Paula was not near Sonia's 'track' level. You said she was nowhere near her level. The reference to track was your point that Paula was just a decent track runner. You wrote this. Go look back. It's very clear.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

Wrong about your ridiculous claim that Paula's not near Sonia's level? No, I'll pass on that.

As to the track. You never said that Paula was not near Sonia's 'track' level. You said she was nowhere near her level. The reference to track was your point that Paula was just a decent track runner. You wrote this. Go look back. It's very clear.

I'm sorry to embarrass you like this but here we go. I said Radcliffe was only a decent track runner, you said this:

walshb wrote: »

I can't take you serious when you describe her as a decent track runner. Would you describe Sonia as so?

Then I replied with this:

noway12345 wrote: »

How many Olympic medals did she win? Didn't she just win 1 World championship medal? And 1 European championship medal? Nowhere near the level of Sonia.

I'm sure you'll be man enough to admit your mistake.

walshb

noway12345 wrote: »

How many Olympic medals did she win? Didn't she just win 1 World championship medal? And 1 European championship medal? Nowhere near the level of Sonia.

This is what you wrote.

Where did you specify that Paula was not near Sonia's track level?

Either way, whatever you meant is still nonsense, made more so by you not even remembering or realising what you actually claimed.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

This is what you wrote.

Yes, that's her track record of medals, you've been left red faced.

walshb

noway12345 wrote: »

Yes, that's her track record of medals, you've been left red faced.

Whatever. Like I said, your claim is nonsense. Your refusal to comprehend what you wrote vs. what you meant, well, puzzling. So, track or any other area, the claim that Paula is not near to Sonia's level is ridiculous.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

Whatever. Like I said, your claim is nonsense. Your refusal to comprehend what you wrote vs. what you meant, well, puzzling. So, track or any other area, the claim that Paula is not near to Sonia's level is ridiculous.

Ok so you're not man enough to admit your mistake. Ah well. We'll start again then. You want to know why I think Radcliffe was only a decent track runner and you want to know if I think Sonia should be only referred to as decent aswell.
I'm going to ask how many medals Radcliffe has won. Now clearly I'm talking about track events but I'll have to specify that to save you from making a show of yourself again.

walshb

noway12345 wrote: »

Ok so you're not man enough to admit your mistake. Ah well. We'll start again then. You want to know why I think Radcliffe was only a decent track runner and you want to know if I think Sonia should be only referred to as decent aswell.
I'm going to ask how many medals Radcliffe has won. Now clearly I'm talking about track events but I'll have to specify that to save you from making a show of yourself again.

What part of 'your claim is ridiculous' don't you understand?

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

What part of 'your claim is ridiculous' don't you understand?

Show me the medals?!

walshb

noway12345 wrote: »

Show me the medals?!

So it's down to medals? Ok, maybe you better raid their medal cabinet. Seeing as yet again you have failed to specify what medals, I'll take it you mean medals of any sort? Clarity on your part may help your case.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

So it's down to medals? Ok, maybe you better raid their medal cabinet. Seeing as yet again you have failed to specify what medals, I'll take it you mean medals of any sort? Clarity on your part may help your case.

You really are making a show of yourself. Here's a few hints. I've been calling Radcliffe a decent track runner, you object to this claim, you're wondering why Sonia isn't called a decent track runner also, I ask about their medal count. Now do you think we're talking about cross country events? :P

walshb

noway12345 wrote: »

You really are making a show of yourself. Here's a few hints. I've been calling Radcliffe a decent track runner, you object to this claim, you're wondering why Sonia isn't called a decent track runner also, I ask about their medal count. Now do you think we're talking about cross country events? :P

I object to your claim that Paula's not near Sonia's level, track or otherwise. Globally they both have one WC gold. Sonia has a silver at the Olympics. Wow, there you have it. Your claim is proved.

Btw, other criteria can be used. Overall at Worlds and Olympics which athlete placed best overall? Throw in Europeans as well. Not just medals.

Still makes your claim ridiculous.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

I object to your claim that Paula's not near Sonia's level, track or otherwise. Globally they borh have one WC gold. Sonia has a silver at the
Olympics. Wow, there you have it. Your claim is proved.

Btw, other criteria can be used. Overall at Worlds and Olympics which athlete placed best overall? Throw in Euroeans as well.

Still makes your claim ridiculous.

I hate to have to embarrass you again, well I don't hate it actually so here you go, first of all Radcliffe didn't win a World Championship gold ON THE TRACK Here's the comparison:

Sonia: Olympics - 1 silver. World Championships - 1 gold, 2 silver (1 indoor). European Championships - 3 gold, 2 silver.

Radcliffe: Olympics - 0 World Championships - 1 silver European Championships - 1 gold.

9 medals against 2, you've had a nightmare on this thread, is that enough embarrassment for you?

Chivito550

noway12345 wrote: »

Actually my claim did very much only specify track. You even posted about it! I said she was only a decent track runner.

8:22, 14:29 and 30:01 are only decent then are they?

World Championship 10k silver is only decent?

You've some level of standards.

Chivito550

Paula actually beat Sonia easily in the Sydney 2000 10000m final.

There's no doubt Sonia was a far more accomplished track runner than Paula. This is down to her speed, and finishing kick. She was a 3:58 1500m runner. She could close a last 200m of a 5000m or 10000m in 28. Paula didn't have this, hence fewer medals. Finishing speed is much less crucial on the roads and XC where it is all about strength. Radcliffe has a crazy amount of World XC medals from 1997 onwards.

walshb

Doesn't Paula have a better track PB over 5k?