Leaked IAAf report on doping

walshb

noway12345 wrote: »

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?

The only embarrassment is your claim that Paula was a decent track runner. Said in the negative.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

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

Yeh she does, 14:29 to 14:41. To be fair though that PB doesn't reflect the shape Sonia was in in 1994/1995. In her book she said she was in 14:30 shape for the World Championships, and it was there if she needed it. She didn't, and won comfortably in 14:46.

As for this nonsense debate about Radcliffe. It's fair to say she was a decent CHAMPIONSHIP track runner. As for track running in general (PBs etc) she was far above the level of "decent".

noway12345

Chivito550 wrote: »

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.

Well first of all, when did she run those times? It wouldn't have been during the suspicious period that is the main topic of this thread would it? Secondly, who was missing from the World Championships in 1999?

Over her career I consider her to be a decent track runner. 2 medals at the top level proves this, not everybody can be considered great. It's a description that's handed out too easily.

She started running quicker than ever on the track just when she was making the move up to the marathon Which seems very strange and this also coincided with these suspicious test results.

noway12345

Chivito550 wrote: »

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.

Sonia was a far better track runner. Just like I've already said.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

The only embarrassment is your claim that Paula was a decent track runner. Said in the negative.

You completely ignored the post you just quoted. Red face for walshb!

noway12345

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh she does, 14:29 to 14:41. To be fair though that PB doesn't reflect the shape Sonia was in in 1994/1995. In her book she said she was in 14:30 shape for the World Championships, and it was there if she needed it. She didn't, and won comfortably in 14:46.

As for this nonsense debate about Radcliffe. It's fair to say she was a decent CHAMPIONSHIP track runner. As for track running in general (PBs etc) she was far above the level of "decent".

Championships are where it counts.

Chivito550

noway12345 wrote: »

Championships are where it counts.

True, but you can be an average track runner who becomes world class at the marathon. Catherina McKiernan is a prime example. Never did anything on the track, but got close to the WR at the time in the marathon. The event requires different attributes to the track.

Paula ran 14:31 in 2001, just weeks after she came 4th in Edmonton. A lot of people choose to forget this. People seem to think she made a drastic improvement in 2002, but this end of season run over 5000m in 2001 proves otherwise. She always had the strength for track, but lacked a kick.

noway12345

Chivito550 wrote: »

True, but you can be an average track runner who becomes world class at the marathon. Catherina McKiernan is a prime example. Never did anything on the track, but got close to the WR at the time in the marathon. The event requires different attributes to the track.

Paula ran 14:31 in 2001, just weeks after she came 4th in Edmonton. A lot of people choose to forget this. People seem to think she made a drastic improvement in 2002, but this end of season run over 5000m in 2001 proves otherwise. She always had the strength for track, but lacked a kick.

Ofcourse it happens. Maybe Radcliffe was made for the marathon, she could be clean and just a freak. Those who have suspicion over her would look at that race in Edmonton as the final push that forced her to the dark side. They could be wrong but the times she ran afterwards were a step up for sure!

Chivito550

noway12345 wrote: »

Ofcourse it happens. Maybe Radcliffe was made for the marathon, she could be clean and just a freak. Those who have suspicion over her would look at that race in Edmonton as the final push that forced her to the dark side. They could be wrong but the times she ran afterwards were a step up for sure!

Yeh, but 1-2 weeks after Edmonton, dropping to 14:31? Doping hardly works that quickly, and I can't imagine somebody starting to dope at the end of a season.

Also, it's funny how facts get lost over time. A lot of people think she lost to Yegerova in Edmonton. But she didn't race her there. She came 4th in the 10k, behind Tulu, Wami and Worku to the best of my knowledge, athletes who have never had any drug allegations, links or suspicions as far as I'm aware. She was simply beaten by faster finishers. There was of course the bust up with her husband after and maybe the whole experience pushed her over the line, but that doesn't explain the 14:31 so soon after.

noway12345

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh, but 1-2 weeks after Edmonton, dropping to 14:31? Doping hardly works that quickly, and I can't imagine somebody starting to dope at the end of a season.

Also, it's funny how facts get lost over time. A lot of people think she lost to Yegerova in Edmonton. But she didn't race her there. She came 4th in the 10k, behind Tulu, Wami and Worku to the best of my knowledge, athletes who have never had any drug allegations, links or suspicions as far as I'm aware. She was simply beaten by faster finishers. There was of course the bust up with her husband after and maybe the whole experience pushed her over the line, but that doesn't explain the 14:31 so soon after.

Was the 14:31 not in 2002? She ran a second slower about 3 weeks after Edmonton? Would 3 weeks not be enough time? Especially after what happened in Edmonton.

Maybe watching Yegerova win gold and her coming agonisingly close to a medal, even so close to a gold pushed her over the line. I don't know.

Chivito550

noway12345 wrote: »

Was the 14:31 not in 2002? She ran a second slower about 3 weeks after Edmonton? Would 3 weeks not be enough time? Especially after what happened in Edmonton.

Maybe watching Yegerova win gold and her coming agonisingly close to a medal, even so close to a gold pushed her over the line. I don't know.

Sorry, 14:32 she ran 3 weeks after Edmonton. 14:31 in 2002. Point still stands. That 14:32 was a huge PB for her. I'd be astonished that she would have started juicing up straight after Edmonton like that. Why bother at the end of the season like that. You'd imagine if she started doping then it would be something started in the winter, at the start of a new cycle.

If we accept that she was clean in 2001 then I think it is fair to say that 14:32 was clean. All of a sudden her improvements in 2002 don't look as drastic.

noway12345

By the way, it's not unheard of but running your best times in your late 20's is something to adds fuel to the doubters fire.

walshb

noway12345 wrote: »

By the way, it's not unheard of but running your best times in your late 20's is something to adds fuel to the doubters fire.

Late 20s? No, that is not at all unusual, and less unusual over the longer distances. Mid to late 30s would be more accurate.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

Late 20s? No, that is not at all unusual, and less unusual over the longer distances. Mid to late 30s would be more accurate.

I know. Yegorova had great improvments in her late 20's also!

Itziger

noway12345 wrote: »

By the way, it's not unheard of but running your best times in your late 20's is something to adds fuel to the doubters fire.

I very much doubt that. We'd need a comprehensive bit of research, but I'd be surprised if most distance records weren't from those very years - late 20's.

We're talking pb's here, right?

walshb

Sonia was in her late 20s getting her 5 K PB

Actually, in her 30s

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Sonia was in her late 20s getting her 5 K PB

Actually, in her 30s

Yeh, but it was a marginal PB. As I said above in 1995 she was in 14:30 shape, she just never needed to bring it out. Her 1500m and 3000m PBs are from age 24 and 25, and are more reflective of what 5k shape she was in. Her 14:41 PB does her a great disservice IMO. Her 8:21 equates to 14:24ish. 3k was her best distance, but in that kind of shape she'd definitely have had a 14:30 in her. But in 1994 3000m was still the championship distance, and in 1995 she was so much better than everyone over 5000 that she never was pushed to that time. It would be interesting to know what she'd run if around now against the likes of Dibaba, Defar, Ayana. She'd be under 14:30, that I have no doubt.

walshb

Marginal or not my point is that it is not that unusual for PBs over longer distances, such as 5 k and above, and even shorter distances, to be achieved in the late 20s. The poster said it added fuel to the fire. It does not. Plus, speaking strictly about Paula, she was more a 5 k and above specialist.

Separate point, but pertinent. Didn't Coe break 3.30 late in his career @ 1500? Maybe 29 or 30?

noway12345

Itziger wrote: »

I very much doubt that. We'd need a comprehensive bit of research, but I'd be surprised if most distance records weren't from those very years - late 20's.

We're talking pb's here, right?

Yes, I know Sonia was running faster in her early to mid twenties. You're right, we probably need some proper research into it.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Marginal or not my point is that it is not that unusual for PBs over longer distances, such as 5 k and above, and even shorter distances, to be achieved in the late 20s. The poster said it added fuel to the fire. It does not. Plus, speaking strictly about Paula, she was more a 5 k and above specialist.

Yeh I fully agree with you there. I just don't think Sonia is a great example to use to prove the point, that's all. You are right, there's nothing unusual about somebody in their late 20s and early 30s running PBs in distance events. To be honest, there's a lot of rot being spoken on this thread.

noway12345

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh, but it was a marginal PB. As I said above in 1995 she was in 14:30 shape, she just never needed to bring it out. Her 1500m and 3000m PBs are from age 24 and 25, and are more reflective of what 5k shape she was in. Her 14:41 PB does her a great disservice IMO. Her 8:21 equates to 14:24ish. 3k was her best distance, but in that kind of shape she'd definitely have had a 14:30 in her. But in 1994 3000m was still the championship distance, and in 1995 she was so much better than everyone over 5000 that she never was pushed to that time. It would be interesting to know what she'd run if around now against the likes of Dibaba, Defar, Ayana. She'd be under 14:30, that I have no doubt.

Read your post after I posted mine. We need to look into other athletes but Sonia was definitely at her best in her mid twenties.

noway12345

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh I fully agree with you there. I just don't think Sonia is a great example to use to prove the point, that's all. You are right, there's nothing unusual about somebody in their late 20s and early 30s running PBs in distance events. To be honest, there's a lot of rot being spoken on this thread.

Mostly coming from walshb.

I said it's not unheard of but when you put everything into consideration it doesn't look good for Radcliffe. Taking each element on their own and it can be explained but when you put it all together it's harder to explain.

walshb

noway12345 wrote: »

Read your post after I posted mine. We need to look into other athletes but Sonia was definitely at her best in her mid twenties.

Success wise she was, but she still ran faster over her main distance, 5k at 30.

This belief that late 20s and running your best times adds fuel to the fire concerning Paula is pointless. It means nothing. You're on fire on this thread.

Chivito550

noway12345 wrote: »

Read your post after I posted mine. We need to look into other athletes but Sonia was definitely at her best in her mid twenties.

Very much so. She was at her peak in 1994 and 1995. But she was a shorter distance distance runner, with a lot of speed. Once she got to 30 she wasn't racing 1500m anymore, and was doing 10000m, and ended up doing well over half marathon.

Probably for a different thread, but her range is quite sensational. 3:58 for 1500m, and 67:19 for half marathon (granted it was GNR and slightly downhill).

walshb

Paula was 29 running her 5 K PB. Sonia was 30. Fuel to Sonia's fire or Paula's? For me it's not fuel for either.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Paula was 29 running her 5 K PB. Sonia was 30. Fuel to Sonia's fire or Paula's? For me it's not fuel for either.

Stop quoting Sonia's 5k PB. I've already explained the context of the PB to you. Had that exact race had taken place when she was in her 1995 shape, she would have beaten Szabo. The PB is meaningless IMO. She was in her best 5k shape in 1995, not 2000. She was just winning races so easily in 1995, she never got pushed to that 14:30 she had in her.

Pick a different example. You're not only frustrating to argue with, but also frustrating to be on the same side as also. Like the lad on your own team who keeps giving away needless free kicks.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Stop quoting Sonia's 5k PB. I've already explained the context of the PB to you. Had that exact race had taken place when she was in her 1995 shape, she would have beaten Szabo. The PB is meaningless IMO. She was in her best 5k shape in 1995, not 2000. She was just winning races so easily in 1995, she never got pushed to that 14:30 she had in her.

Pick a different example. You're not only frustrating to argue with, but also frustrating to be on the same side as also. Like the lad on your own team who keeps giving away needless free kicks.

That post was short and simple. Directed at a poster, who for me made a pointless remark about best times in late 20s being unusual. Sonia may well have been in top form in her mid 20s, but I am just dealing in facts. Aged 30 she ran her fastest ever track 5 k. Could she have bettered that in her mid 20s? I'd say yes, but she didn't.

Anyway, I would be quite sure that there are countless examples of PBs in late 20s over middle and longer distances to shoot down this fuel to the fire point.

Btw, I'm a lone wolf, not a team wolf!

gordongekko

Where does Sonia o Sullivans pb get mentioned in the iaaf report on doping9

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

Success wise she was, but she still ran faster over her main distance, 5k at 30.

This belief that late 20s and running your best times adds fuel to the fire concerning Paula is pointless. It means nothing. You're on fire on this thread.

That has been explained to you.

When added to everything else it makes it more suspicious.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

Paula was 29 running her 5 K PB. Sonia was 30. Fuel to Sonia's fire or Paula's? For me it's not fuel for either.

Explained to you already. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough on this thread at this stage?

walshb

Late 20s PBs for longer distance atheletes is not unusual. When added to everything else it still means nothing, as it is a non point. Nothing embarrassing with that view. Fairly straightforward. You're probably best to think before jumping in with both your feet. Pace yourself.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

Late 20s PBs for longer distance atheletes is not unusual. When added to everything else it still means nothing, as it is a non point. Nothing embarrassing with that view. Fairly straightforward. You're probably best to think before jumping in with both your feet. Pace yourself.

It adds fuel to the fire as athletes who are suspected of doping that have a big improvement in times in their late 20's obviously would add fuel to the fire. Still want to ask about Sonia? Or backed off on that one?

RacoonQueen

Guys, speculation posts are going to be deleted and warned. You all those the rules....

walshb

We've ridden this to to death. I don't think it adds fuel to the fire, you do. Let's call it a friendly disagreement.

noway12345

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Guys, speculation posts are going to be deleted and warned. You all those the rules....

You meant to say you all know the rules. We do.

noway12345

walshb wrote: »

We've ridden this to to death. I don't think it adds fuel to the fire, you do. Let's call it a friendly disagreement.

You're wrong. Bye.

RacoonQueen

noway12345 wrote: »

You meant to say you all know the rules. We do.

Indeed. Autocorrect is a bitch.

hinault

Radcliffe has been a world class long distance athlete from her late teens.
We're not talking Uniballer "world class" athlete here.

Her pedigree as a world class athlete has never been in doubt throughout. Until this IAAF report obtained by ARD and the Sunday Times newspaper.

Gerry Hartmann, a man who has treated world class athletes in many disciplines from cycling to athletics to rowing, said several years ago that by far the toughest athlete he had to treat was Radcliffe (and his client list includes the likes of cyclist Sean Kelly, British rowers Steve Redgrave).

Given her expressed opposition to doping, I'd be shocked if Radcliffe doped in her career.

menoscemo

hinault wrote: »

Radcliffe has been a world class long distance athlete from her late teens.
We're not talking Uniballer "world class" athlete here.

Her pedigree as a world class athlete has never been in doubt throughout. Until this IAAF report obtained by ARD and the Sunday Times newspaper.

Gerry Hartmann, a man who has treated world class athletes in many disciplines from cycling to athletics to rowing, said several years ago that by far the toughest athlete he had to treat was Radcliffe (and his client list includes the likes of cyclist Sean Kelly, British rowers Steve Redgrave).

Given her expressed opposition to doping, I'd be shocked if Radcliffe doped in her career.

Hartmann treated many proven dopers including Kelly. Sorry if that destroys your delusions of the likes of Sean Kelly, but it's a fact.

Notwork Error

Don't know if it's been posted already as I haven't seen the thread over the weekend but It's all over now at an official level. WADA have spoke out that any tests on blood values pre-2009 will not be used to ban athletes and will never be.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-09/statement-from-wada-director-general

The leaks were never made with the intention of implicating single athletes and I think that seemed to get lost along the way. Incomplete data is worse than none at all and that's all there is and even if Radcliffe released the leaked information, that's all there would be, 3 data points out of 100's(2 of which weren't even above threshold)of samples which isn't how the BP works even if it was in use during Paula's career.

CramCycle

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

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

If it alters an athletes blood profile on purpose, whether stated or known about, it's banned. It's in the code which is why tests years later are allowed.

menoscemo wrote: »

Hartmann treated many proven dopers including Kelly. Sorry if that destroys your delusions of the likes of Sean Kelly, but it's a fact.

He also ran a youth team of doers years ago, I could almost excuse him as being the culture when he was young but knowing the risks and having youths getting into it, the man is a disgust.

STB.

Hartmann is the same guy who stood by Armstrong when he was finally outed as a drugs cheat, right ?

noway12345

Basically, Hartmann backing you is not a good sign!

KielyUnusual

STB. wrote: »

Hartmann is the same guy who stood by Armstrong when he was finally outed as a drugs cheat, right ?

That article is almost unbelievable. I was looking at the website banner and honestly expected to see The Waterford Whispers.

I see some .... in this quote, which always worries me with respect to context but I don't think there's any context in which the below opinion is defencible

“I have no doubt but that he crossed the line and was part of a systematic and very scientific system of performance enhancing drug use. He was part of a culture that was professional cycling at the time, and within the peloton the use of performance enhancing substances was the norm.
“Nonetheless, he brought joy to the world – to win the Tour de France seven years in-a-row was a wonderful achievement. Think of the time, dedication and training he had to put in.
“From a moral and ethical point of view, I deplore athletes who take drugs.
“However, it is well documented that his Tour de France competitors also took drugs. Lance stuck to his guns when the accusations were flying around about him…the fact is, he never tested positive.
“I question the policing system.
If a security system is top notch, how then do banks get broken into”.

It is worrying that this man spent so much time with Paula and is coming to her defence when his attitude towards drug taking is questionable to say the least. Given the recent accusations towards athletics with regard to the amount of top drawer athletes under suspicion, maybe he thinks its equally justifiable for runners to take drugs in order to level up the playing field. They bring joy to the world too after all :eek:

hinault

menoscemo wrote: »

Hartmann treated many proven dopers including Kelly. Sorry if that destroys your delusions of the likes of Sean Kelly, but it's a fact.

You're not destroying anything despite your best efforts.

robinph

Did the Sunday Times have anything further to add this weekend?

nobody told me

robinph wrote: »

Did the Sunday Times have anything further to add this weekend?

Nothing David Walsh said on Twitter said he is interviewing paula during the week.

Interesting if he takes the softly softly groove approach or goes lance on her

ThisRegard

Rightly or wrongly, Walsh has lost credibility to some after what they see as him getting into bed with the Sky cycling team.

shels4ever

Yep agree, I was at a talk he gave with kimmage a few years ago. Kimmage attached him in his stance that sky were 100% clean. For me it was entertaining but to me it looks like the war was on lance and not drug cheats in general.

TRR_the_turd

nobody told me wrote: »

Nothing David Walsh said on Twitter said he is interviewing paula during the week.

Interesting if he takes the softly softly groove approach or goes lance on her

He was on "off the ball" a few weeks back and Ger Gilroy was questioning him regards his lack of scepticism regards Froome etc. He was pretty annoyed at Gilroy's questioning and more or less said that the scientific data on it's own wasn't enough for him. Made the point that with Lance he had plenty of whistle blowers and people willing to corroborate stories of drug taking etc. Also said he wasn't a sports scientist so can't interpret the data properly. From what I can see, there is no one coming out and saying that they specifically seen PR take anything during her career. Based on that I would suggest an easy interview for her to negotiate.