Leaked IAAf report on doping

menoscemo

wrstan wrote: »

This is all so contrived and managed!

The only reason for this interview clearly is to assist the Beeb get through the damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemma of including her on the coverage team in Beijing amidst all the current suspicions and speculations. I see they confirm that she will be "part of the BBC team" in the report.

I can't help feeling that the rabbit in the headlamps look is a bit overdone. Despite my best efforts, it's so hard not to feel cynical. :-(

She definitely looks very uncomfortable to me in the interview.
I would love to hear a body language expert's take on it....

menoscemo

walshb wrote: »

Did she call for the data to be released to the public?

She has done in the past:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics-hard-work-not-drugs-the-secret-of-radcliffes-success-172526.html

paulaRadcliffe wrote:

she can point to the fact that she has already had eight doping tests this year, including two blood tests. The nine-day wonder has scientific fact on her side.

One of the blood tests was conducted at the Flora London Marathon, and Radcliffe, who is involved in setting up a new website for the International Association of Athletics Federations educating young competitors about the dangers of drug abuse, has put in a request to UK Sport to publicise the details. "I have absolutely no objection to my test being released," she said. "I would like to know it myself."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-132091/Im-drugs-cheat--Paula.html

paulaRadcliffe wrote:

"If I could go somewhere and say test me for everything you can, then I would be quite happy to publish (the results). But we don't have any place that can do that

williestroker1

Watching that interview images of Lance Armstrong when he was denying everything kept coming to mind.

overpronator

She's like a rabbit in the headlights in that interview, this whole thing is just so galling.

walshb

Looks like it's just me who was impressed by her interview. No stuttering. Confident, fluid and to the point.

Rabbit in the headlights my a&se

rom

Giruilla

That interview was hilarious.

CramCycle

Head of the ISCs anti doping part has an interview in the indo this morning although I haven't read it yet

adrian522

Usain Bolt says he is happy to make his blood data public (though he hasn't done so)

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/doping-crisis-usain-bolt-says-he-is-happy-to-reveal-his-blood-data-to-the-public-10464736.html

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

That interview was hilarious.

Why?

pgmcpq

Oj, firstly I am a Radcliffe fan, second my understanding of a lot of this stuff - specifically the blood profile data is sketchy at best. Is there a simple site that explains this ?

It is slippery slope when we start to point finger at any outlying performance. But it becomes a hugh problem when we start try to analyze facial expression or body language in a tv interview in an attempt to determine if an athlete has doped or not. What's next ouija boards ?

With people are trying to determine guilt like this, I can perfectly understand why an athlete would decide not to make their data public. Also in fairness she may simply be following/supporting the advice of WADA and IAAF. We are already seeing disagreement about the results, and I am not qualified to make a judgement about who to believe - in this context I can understand why an athlete would decide not to release their data.

That elite athletes have 1 in a million physical characteristics does not suprise me (even from a sample of all athletes tested). That so many are "suspicious" makes me wonder suspicious relative to what exacly. With so many suspicious tests it seems like the suspicious characteristics might be closer to the norm for professional atheletes.

I have no idea either way. I know someone who swam with Michelle Smith who told me that there was no way she could prossibly be using.. I have been amazed at some of the stuff I have been told goes on in amateur cycling locally ( to be clear I'm not in Ireland ).

Pherekydes

pgmcpq wrote: »

What's next ouija boards?

Age, apparently. Athletes in their 30s should be getting their pipe and slippers and bringing the cocker spaniel for a walk in the park rather than competing against the world's best.

adrian522

pgmcpq wrote: »

Oj, firstly I am a Radcliffe fan, second my understanding of a lot of this stuff - specifically the blood profile data is sketchy at best. Is there a simple site that explains this ?

Marathon talk podcast had a good discussion on last weeks programme that gave a good overview of it.

pgmcpq wrote: »

That elite athletes have 1 in a million physical characteristics does not suprise me (even from a sample of all athletes tested). That so many are "suspicious" makes me wonder suspicious relative to what exacly.

I think their blood value is suspicious given it was in a normal range a few days previously but was suddenly through the roof after the race.

A suspicious value may be above 120 and there could be good reasons why it gets that high but it is suspicious nonetheless (though not conclusive proof of doping).

Listening to Marathon talk this morning, the journalist who micro dosed on EPO (Mark Daly) said his off score was 93 or something after using EPO, the suspicious value the Sunday Times experts were using was 119 I think so there is enough reason to be skeptical of athletes excuses about pregnancy or training at altitude producing a huge offscore on the day of the race.

mikedoherty99

paula has released a statement

menoscemo

Paula admits being the British Runner with the dodgy values, but she has her reasons:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sndpj9

PaulaRadcliffe wrote:

Statement of Paula Radcliffe following the Culture Media and Sport Committee Hearing of 8 September 2015 regarding the Sunday Times’ allegations concerning blood data.

I categorically deny that I have resorted to cheating in any form whatsoever at any time in my career, and am devastated that my name has even been linked to these wide-ranging accusations. I have campaigned long and hard throughout my career for a clean sport. I have publicly condemned cheats and those who aid them. These accusations threaten to undermine all I have stood and competed for, as well as my hard earned reputation. By linking me to allegations of cheating, damage done to my name and reputation can never be fully repaired, no matter how untrue I know them to be.

Whilst I have the greatest of respect for anyone responsibly trying to uncover cheating in sport, and of course for Parliament itself, it is profoundly disappointing that the cloak of Parliamentary privilege has been used to effectively implicate me, tarnishing my reputation, with full knowledge that I have no recourse against anyone for repeating what has been said at the Committee Hearing.

At the time of the recent Sunday Times coverage, I wrestled long and hard with a desire to speak out with the true facts concerning my position, and, to fully explain any fluctuations in my blood

data. However by ‘coming out’ in that fashion I was made aware that I would be facilitating mass coverage of my name in connection with false allegations of possible doping, which would enable

further irreparable damage to be done to my reputation. As a result of today’s Parliamentary Hearing I can no longer maintain my silence.

The investigation by ARD and the Sunday Times may have been a perfectly valid enterprise if the goal was to expose cheats, their supporters, and, their infrastructures. If, however, innocent athletes, as in my case, are caught up in the desire to sensationalise and expand the story, then that goal loses a lot of credibility, and indeed, opportunities to catch the true offenders.

As the journalists themselves state, abnormal readings are not proof of guilt, yet many innocent athletes are being implicated and tainted due to the distorted interpretation of a limited historic dataset. The Anti-Doping system cannot be manipulated in such a way that innocent athletes are no longer protected from the misuse of stolen and leaked incomplete data, the misinterpretation of

that data, and, sensationalist newspaper exposés.



I am 100% confident that the full explanations and circumstances around any fluctuations in my personal data on a very small number of occasions will stand up to any proper scrutiny and investigation. Indeed they have already done so. In my case, numerous experts have concluded that there is simply no case to answer. I have at all times been open and transparent, encouraging and supporting the use of blood profiling for many years. At no time have any of the various anti- doping authorities found any reason to level any charge of abnormal practice or cheating against me whatsoever. My results were reviewed contemporaneously, and, more recently at my request

following the Sunday Times’ articles, which insofar as they erroneously alluded to me were

irresponsibly published. Nothing improper has ever been found, since it never occurred. WADA themselves have again investigated following the recent articles. I understand the team from WADA found nothing and I fully expect that once the Independent Committee publish their report I will again be found to have no case to answer.

In all of these three cases referred to by the Sunday Times (as well as on many more occasions) I was EPO urine tested at the time, and also in follow up. All of these three cases followed periods

of altitude training. Only one of my blood test scores is marginally above the 1 in 100 accepted

threshold, and this is invalid given that it was collected immediately following a half marathon race run around midday in temperatures of approximately 30C. None of my blood test scores are

anywhere near the 1 in 1000 threshold as was claimed by the Sunday Times and that which is seen as suspicion of doping. No abnormalities were ultimately found and any allegation that the IAAF did not follow up on blood data results in my case is false.

Further, not one of the values questioned by the Sunday Times occurred around any of my best performances or races, including all my appearances at the London Marathon. This makes it all the more disappointing that my identity was effectively leaked at the Parliamentary Hearing, under the guise of there being a British athlete and London Marathon winner who is erroneously under suspicion.

There is undoubtedly a major issue with doping in sport, and blood doping in its various guises has become a tough opponent for the authorities to combat effectively. The processes to capture those involved are complicated and have taken many years to evolve. The process continues with the help of athletes, scientists, and in some cases, the media. It was in the spirit of this that I agreed to meet with the Sunday Times reporters before publication of their story. I was incredibly disappointed however that they appeared to purely want to link me to their story. Their experts

(one of whom spoke at the Committee Hearing today) gave their assessment of what they say

"may" have led to abnormalities in my data. However, they did so without any knowledge of context, of personal circumstances, and, of any other facts; all of which would be, and in fact were, available to the multiple experts who examined my data at the time and more recently. The consideration and indeed necessity of that type of extrinsic information is paramount for all proper

evaluation and interpretation of test data. Sadly, in my case the Sunday Times’ experts failed appallingly.

In my case, the necessary extrinsic information relates to how and when the tests were conducted. I had been ill prior to the race and was taking strong antibiotics, which may have affected the data. Two (of the three flagged tests) were done immediately following races, which today would invalidate any tests. Indeed there is now a two hour rule before blood can be collected following any training or competition. This is because the evidence showed how this affects the figures. Furthermore, they were all conducted following prolonged periods of altitude training, which is today recognised as significantly impacting blood figures, and is therefore taken into account when interpreting blood data. There are also other reasons why the pre-2009 data may be considered unreliable, as various experts have explained in their evaluations; these include unreliability and inconsistency of analysis machines and transportation and storage variances. Obviously dehydration is a huge factor in post-race tests, particularly in very hot conditions. For example, one of the tests was done immediately after finishing a half marathon in Portugal in midday temperatures of approximately 30 degree Celsius heat.

The Sunday Times recently attempted to obtain the consent of athletes to publish their stolen medical data, asserting behind the scenes to the effect that if consent isn’t given it will look like an

athlete has something to hide and may therefore be guilty of doping. This was effectively tantamount to blackmail, and plainly unacceptable. I was extremely disturbed to see how young athletes preparing for the World Championships were upset and confused by the intrusion and demands of these journalists. A further important point is that cheats wishing to know the normal ranges were being given very valuable information and assistance by the Sunday Times. For these

reasons and primarily the need for qualified interpretation with all relevant context, the sport’s governing bodies requested that athletes should not release their blood data. I was happy to stand

with them.

Although I have nothing to fear in terms of what the data shows, because I have nothing to hide and have done nothing wrong, it should be remembered that what is being discussed is confidential medical data which has been stolen or leaked. Such partial and historic data is of little

value on its own, and, can only result in further misinterpretation and speculation. One expert said

to me that trying to evaluate the data in question, shorn of context, is like trying to put speed values on a car without knowing whether the readings show miles per hour or kilometers per hour. Another senior independent expert who WADA recommended and who is head of the WADA accredited laboratory in Lausanne was asked at my request to review the data following the Sunday Times articles (without being told my identity). He concluded that:

“Evaluation of Profile [redacted] - Review of Blood Data from 2001 -2008 I looked carefully the data which are part of the profile [redacted].
To my knowledge, they were obtained through several technologies.

Moreover, data obtained for example in Vilamoura in 2003, with bloods collected before and right after the half marathon, ran in hot conditions, are typically showing effects of confounding factors. The increase of 2.8 in Hb (and no significant effect on ret%) is due to a drastic hemo-concentration caused by the specific race conditions. This post-race value, as most of the others, today would not be validated, and then not be implemented in a real biological passport.

Therefore, I consider that any interpretation of this profile, which would be done by ignoring the confounding factors cited above, is abusive.

Furthermore, any interpretation of these data implemented in an individual and longitudinal blood profile between 2001 and 2008 can be considered to my eyes as intellectually dishonest and scientifically biased.”

And here lies the problem, incomplete data can be incorrectly interpreted, and indeed, has been in my case by the Sunday Times.

I would like to reiterate my abhorrence at having fingers falsely pointed at me and being accused of having suspicious blood results and therefore of possibly cheating in the sport I love. I have never resorted to cheating in any form whatsoever at any time in my career. I welcome further investigation if it is necessary, however, multiple experts having already concluded

contemporaneously and following the Sunday Times’ articles that there is simply no case to answer. I will continue to fully support and help the quest to find and remove those who cast a huge shadow over athletics which sadly threatens to envelop the innocent along with the guilty.

Paula Radcliffe

--- END ---

walshb

Well said, Paula. It's a shame that the desire to sensationalize can implicate innocent people. At least real fans and anyone who cares or bothers to research, just a little bit, can see that she and many others are true greats!

shels4ever

walshb wrote: »

Well said, Paula. It's a shame that the desire to sensationalize can implicate innocent people. At least real fans and anyone who cares or bothers to research, juts a little bit, can see that she and many others are true greats!

Yep up there with Haile and Bekele as a true great with zero suspicion.

mikedoherty99

it's a very passionate statement

certainly convincing in that department anyhow

Sandwell

shels4ever wrote: »

Yep up there with Haile and Bekele as a true great with zero suspicion.

And Bolt, don't forget Bolt.

walshb

Sandwell wrote: »

And Bolt, don't forget Bolt.

Why stop at Bolt? Throw in any WR holder at any stage in their careers.

That statement from Paula was educating. People need to read it and digest it before their lazy accusations.

Sandwell

mikedoherty99 wrote: »

it's a very passionate statement

certainly convincing in that department anyhow

It doesn't come across as passionate to me at all. It reads like a statement that has been drafted and redrafted umpteen times by a very expensive PR team.

menoscemo

walshb wrote: »

Well said, Paula. It's a shame that the desire to sensationalize can implicate innocent people. At least real fans and anyone who cares or bothers to research, just a little bit, can see that she and many others are true greats!

You're right, The Times have a long history of wrongly exposing innocent people...

robinph

Sandwell wrote: »

It doesn't come across as passionate to me at all. It reads like a statement that has been drafted and redrafted umpteen times by a very expensive PR team.

Well she has known that it was coming for a while now. The Sunday Times can be threatened by lawyers and risk law suits if they get things wrong so have to be careful about what they print.

Politicians are exempt from such things when speaking in parliament and can say whatever they like, think various super injunctions have been talked about there without risk which makes taking the super injunctions out pointless. Radcliffe has denied having a super injunction anyway now though, now she's broken silence it would soon come out if she was lieing about that bit. That probably means that the Sunday Times knew their analysis of her data was on shaky ground so decided to go with the rumour angle instead to sell more papers and drag things out for a while.

shels4ever

walshb wrote: »

Why stop at Bolt? Throw in any WR holder at any stage in their careers.

That statement from Paula was educating. People need to read it and digest it before their lazy accusations.

Yep you can use facts to prove anything, and to be honest it could all be true or untrue I don't know. She was in a strange please come out with a statement quickly without details facts to back it up and she would look bad. Wait and put together something details and still looks bad to some. Its a lose lose , its the worst part of the doping problem in sport these days true greats will now always have some shadow over them.
In regards to the marathon the nature of the event is such that African women still haven't targeted the event in the same way as the men, so to have a world record some much faster is not impossible.

mikedoherty99

"Further, not one of the values questioned by the Sunday Times occurred around any of my best performances or races, including all my appearances at the London Marathon"



not too sure how that sentence stands up to scrutiny

the race in question seems to be where she won the world half marathon by nearly 1m 30 seconds?

time will tell on this i suppose when the ST comes back on it now that her name is out

walshb

mikedoherty99 wrote: »

"Further, not one of the values questioned by the Sunday Times occurred around any of my best performances or races, including all my appearances at the London Marathon"



not too sure how that sentence stands up to scrutiny

the race in question seems to be where she won the world half marathon by nearly 1m 30 seconds?

time will tell on this i suppose when the ST comes back on it now that her name is out

It's one sentence. She made many more sentences that don't necessarily prove anything, but the actual article and its investigation proves nothing either. The woman cannot win here, and that is waht is sad, and morally bent!

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

It's one sentence. She made many more sentences that don't necessarily prove anything, but the actual article and its investigation proves nothing either. The woman cannot win here, and that is waht is sad, and morally bent!

She could release the data, although one wonders what the point would be seeing as one of the foremost blood doping experts on the planet, who gave evidence to the parliamentary committee today deemed the values so extreme there was no doubt they were due to doping. At the same hearing the UKAD boss said he was highly credible.

CramCycle

menoscemo wrote: »

You're right, The Times have a long history of wrongly exposing innocent people...

She is entitled to the presumption of innocence, until something in those values is shown to be strongly suspicious or an investigation leads to a guilty verdict due to the weight of evidence.

I have heard well drafted speeches like that before that have taken a few years to come out in the wash when the person is guilty, it certainly doesn't push my opinion one way or another, neither does her work in the area.

The times have gotten it right when no one else has in the past for other sports and when everyone disagreed with them, does it mean they are right now, of course not, does it mean that there is warrant of further investigation, of course.

Am I right in that this is only a few of her values and not all? Would she be better getting all of her values out in the open, if they are as she said well below the level of suspicion in all cases, should certainly would have a hell of a libel case on her hand.

Halloween Jack

CramCycle wrote: »

She is entitled to the presumption of innocence, until something in those values is shown to be strongly suspicious or an investigation leads to a guilty verdict due to the weight of evidence.

I have heard well drafted speeches like that before that have taken a few years to come out in the wash when the person is guilty, it certainly doesn't push my opinion one way or another, neither does her work in the area.

The times have gotten it right when no one else has in the past for other sports and when everyone disagreed with them, does it mean they are right now, of course not, does it mean that there is warrant of further investigation, of course.

Am I right in that this is only a few of her values and not all? Would she be better getting all of her values out in the open, if they are as she said well below the level of suspicion in all cases, should certainly would have a hell of a libel case on her hand.

I'm not well up on law but who libelled her? She's named herself, but only because it was strongly hinted under parliamentary privellige that it could be her.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

She could release the data, although one wonders what the point would be seeing as one of the foremost blood doping experts on the planet, who gave evidence to the parliamentary committee today deemed the values so extreme there was no doubt they were due to doping. At the same hearing the UKAD boss said he was highly credible.

If there is no doubt then why is there doubt?