Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Leaked IAAf report on doping

1…1415171920…38

Comments

  • #482
    Halloween Jack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭Halloween Jack


    walshb wrote: »
    If there is no doubt then why is there doubt?:confused:

    Because the data is unpublished. The expert that has seen the data is in no doubt. If I were really keen to clear my name is publish the data.

    I wouldn't release an interview advocating not releasing data before being named in a parliamentary hearing then release and obfuscatory report attacking the messenger


  • #483
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,333 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Halloween Jack wrote: »
    Because the data is unpublished. The expert that has seen the data is in no doubt. If I were really keen to clear my name is publish the data.

    I wouldn't release an interview advocating not releasing data before being named in a parliamentary hearing then release and obfuscatory report attacking the messenger

    Hold on. Are we saying that Paula's data/readings are in no doubt due to doping/cheating? That's news to me. I haven't digested everything here, but is there some data out there that doubtlessly shows that Radcliffe is a cheat?


  • #484
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    CramCycle wrote: »
    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.

    But are the Times even stating that they think she doped? They were just saying that there is someone with really odd results that were taken pre-blood passport time and when the testing was done in a different way.


  • #485
    Halloween Jack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭Halloween Jack


    walshb wrote: »
    Hold on. Are we saying that Paula's data/readings are in no doubt due to doping/cheating? That's news to me.

    That was the considered opinion that the expert who examined the data provided to the hearing today. Only he didn't name anyone/wasn't asked to provide names. Radcliffe has done that herself


  • #486
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,957 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Halloween Jack wrote: »
    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.

    Apologies, I thought from her statement that the Times had also strongly implicated her, the statement without her name would be strong grounds for libel, I got a bit confused.

    I agree with the releasing her data though, if she wants to be proved innocent, let the data out, there is either a pattern or there isn't. She is retired from competitive running this year, there is no risk of her giving any advantages away by releasing all her data and any explanations or cliff notes that are needed.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,957 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    robinph wrote: »
    But are the Times even stating that they think she doped? They were just saying that there is someone with really odd results that were taken pre-blood passport time and when the testing was done in a different way.

    Sorry, like I said, I misread her statement, I thought she was saying the times implicated her unfairly. I don't think they said that but I haven't read up everything on the situation.


  • #488
    Halloween Jack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭Halloween Jack


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Apologies, I thought from her statement that the Times had also strongly implicated her, the statement without her name would be strong grounds for libel, I got a bit confused.

    I agree with the releasing her data though, if she wants to be proved innocent, let the data out, there is either a pattern or there isn't. She is retired from competitive running this year, there is no risk of her giving any advantages away by releasing all her data and any explanations or cliff notes that are needed.

    Agreed, like I say I'm not well up on libel law but I'm sure the times will be well covered here after their experience with lance.


  • #489
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,333 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    CramCycle wrote: »

    I agree with the releasing her data though, if she wants to be proved innocent, let the data out, there is either a pattern or there isn't. She is retired from competitive running this year, there is no risk of her giving any advantages away by releasing all her data and any explanations or cliff notes that are needed.

    Releasing her data proves nothing, just as not releasing it proves nothing. The report and investigation proves nothing.


  • #490
    Halloween Jack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭Halloween Jack


    walshb wrote: »
    Releasing her data proves nothing, just as not releasing it proves nothing. The report and investigation proves nothing.

    How so?


  • #491
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,333 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Halloween Jack wrote: »
    How so?

    In a nutshell Paula is the smae today as she was yesterday and the day before and the day before. This whole saga is a fcuking nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    Sandwell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 755 ✭✭✭Sandwell


    walshb wrote: »
    Releasing her data proves nothing, just as not releasing it proves nothing. The report and investigation proves nothing.

    To be fair, even if there was footage of her with a blood bag in one arm and a syringe full of EPO in the other you'd be saying the same.


  • #493
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,333 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Sandwell wrote: »
    To be fair, even if there was footage of her with a blood bag in one arm and a syringe full of EPO in the other you'd be saying the same.

    No, I wouldn't. What a silly thing to say. You want her to be guilty it seems. That is about all the evidence you have.


  • #494
    Halloween Jack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭Halloween Jack


    walshb wrote: »
    In a nutshell Paula is the smae today as she was yesterday and the day before and the day before. This whole saga is a fcuking nonsense.

    I don't understand what this means.

    The whole point of the irregularities are that her blood levels fluctuated wildly at time from accepted norms.
    The statement reads strangely to me because she seems to state in parts that her values weren't abnormal at all but then seems to provide a load of excuses for why they might be abnormal.

    It'll be interesting to see the times response


  • #495
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,333 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Halloween Jack wrote: »
    I don't understand what this means.

    The whole point of the irregularities are that her blood levels fluctuated wildly at time from accepted norms.
    The statement reads strangely to me because she seems to state in parts that her values weren't abnormal at all but then seems to provide a load of excuses for why they might be abnormal.

    It'll be interesting to see the times response

    It means that she is clean today just like she was clean the days previous. To some that is not enough, because even being officially clean does not satisfy them.


  • #496
    velo.2010
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭velo.2010


    Regarding the Hgb reading. Good post here from Cyclingnews forums.


    Quote... 'If a pro tour cyclist enters the Tour with a Hgb of say 15, by the end of the tour due to hemo-dilution, you expect a 10% drop, so it would be around 13.5.

    To go up 2.8 during a race from say 14 is a 20% increase.

    To do so due to hem-concentration, she would need to lose so much fluid to have that much impact on her Hgb that she would be dehydrated, surely? And thus performing poorly, not putting in the biggest winning margin since ever?'

    The race referred to was her third World Half Marathon title which came with the biggest winning margin in its history.


  • #497
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,333 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Surely any top class marathon runner dehydrates themselves during a marathon, moreso during hot conditions. No matter what they take on it cannot be too much to keep them optimally hydrated. That is why they perform so well, they take on as little fluids as possible so as to not negatively impact their performance. They don't want to be running around with fluids in their belly. Some fluid, of course, but they try and keep the intake as low as possible. They are in an elite race where the smallest of detauils can decide their positions.


  • #498
    mikedoherty99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 70 ✭✭mikedoherty99


    UKAD can take no action over 2003 data
    from the portugal race
    But the UKAD lady said today that they will likely investigate suspicious post 2005 data belonging to British athletes
    They can request the data from the IAAF


  • #499
    Notwork Error
    Closed Accounts Posts: 785 ✭✭✭Notwork Error


    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.

    Bending context there slightly? Ashenden was talking about the leaked files in General and not a single case at the time as he had already stated previous to this hearing.

    Either way, I'll wait for the full transcripts.


  • #500
    Halloween Jack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭Halloween Jack


    Notwork Error wrote: »
    Bending context there slightly? Ashenden was talking about the leaked files in General and not a single case at the time as he had already stated previous to this hearing.

    Either way, I'll wait for the full transcripts.

    Well according to Dan Roans twitter Ashenden stated today he saw 'extreme' levels of doping in major city marathons and uses the term again specifically in reference to the London event, but point taken regarding radcliffe in particular.


  • #501
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    walshb wrote: »
    . At least real fans.......

    Jesus.


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Halloween Jack wrote: »
    Well according to Dan Roans twitter Ashenden stated today he saw 'extreme' levels of doping in major city marathons and uses the term again specifically in reference to the London event, but point taken regarding radcliffe in particular.

    Could that be Shobukhovas results that he's looking at?


  • #503
    fishfoodie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 564 ✭✭✭fishfoodie


    walshb wrote: »
    It means that she is clean today just like she was clean the days previous. To some that is not enough, because even being officially clean does not satisfy them.


    Except there is, & never can be, any, 'Officially Clean'

    You can't prove a negative ! All you can say is that someone is currently not positive.


  • #504
    Halloween Jack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭Halloween Jack


    robinph wrote: »
    Could that be Shobukhovas results that he's looking at?

    I think, as notwork suggested, that he was talking in a general sense, could be wrong, won't know properly until the transcript comes out.

    Interesting though that a couple of the participants of the hearing have rejected any notion that they implicated Radcliffe or anybody else and have actually criticised her insistence that members hid behind 'the cloak of parliamentary privellige'


  • #505
    groovyg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭groovyg


    Halloween Jack wrote: »
    I think, as notwork suggested, that he was talking in a general sense, could be wrong, won't know properly until the transcript comes out.

    Interesting though that a couple of the participants of the hearing have rejected any notion that they implicated Radcliffe or anybody else and have actually criticised her insistence that members hid behind 'the cloak of parliamentary privellige'

    I don't understand why she released a statement, her name wasn't mentioned at the meeting. If anything her statement has just implicated and created suspicion about her. If she had just stayed quiet I doubt that parliamentary meeting would have even got a mention in the news. Either she's cracking under the pressure or her PR team got it badly wrong.


  • #506
    mikedoherty99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 70 ✭✭mikedoherty99


    groovyg wrote: »
    I don't understand why she released a statement, her name wasn't mentioned at the meeting. If anything her statement has just implicated and created suspicion about her. If she had just stayed quiet I doubt that parliamentary meeting would have even got a mention in the news. Either she's cracking under the pressure or her PR team got it badly wrong.
    The papers may have approached her and she's pre-empting that

    Unfortunately imo the statement falls short on hard facts and I fear the situation will deteriorate for her


  • #507
    fishfoodie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 564 ✭✭✭fishfoodie


    mikedoherty99 wrote: »
    The papers may have approached her and she's pre-empting that

    Unfortunately imo the statement falls short on hard facts and I fear the situation will deteriorate for her


    From what I've heard,the MP described the athlete in such a way as that it could only have been Radcliffe.

    Of course, by admitting that she is the athlete, & the test results are hers, she's now opened the door up to the Times & any other Media outlets to discuss the results.

    "Better to be silent, & thought a fool; than to speak & remove all doubt !"


  • #508
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,333 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    fishfoodie wrote: »
    Except there is, & never can be, any, 'Officially Clean'

    You can't prove a negative ! All you can say is that someone is currently not positive.

    Exactly, hence why Paula snd other greats can do no right with this mentality. Ludicrous semantics that we could apply to anything. I will take a sensible and logical and fair approach. Until evidence of doping/cheating arises then athletes are clean. Btw, there is officially clean. It applies to non dope convicted athletes.


  • #509
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,333 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Jesus.

    You're a doping speculation fan, not a track and field fan. At least that's the impression I get from the majority of your posts on the forum.


  • #510
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    walshb wrote: »
    Exactly, hence why Paula snd other greats can do no right with this mentality. Ludicrous semantics that we could apply to anything. I will take a sensible and logical and fair approach. Until evidence of doping/cheating arises then athletes are clean. Btw, there is officially clean. It applies to non dope convicted athletes.


    We've been over this a million times, it's not playing with semantics, it's simply fact.

    And how can you claim to be logical about this when you are blind to the fact that because someone passes the existing tests they are not necessarily clean.

    History and science has proven this.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    TRR_the_turd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 928 ✭✭✭TRR_the_turd


    CramCycle wrote: »
    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.

    This is the point I'd love clarified. Lets say they have 50 samples for Radcliffe and 3 of them show irregularities, I'd be inclined to put a bit of faith in her explanations for them. However, if they only have 3 samples for her and every single one of them is odd then I'd be highly skeptical of her explanations.

    She also mentions how she passed urine EPO tests at the times of these blood irregularities. Hmmmm microdosing! Synthetic EPO leaves the system within hours, so she is falling back on the Lance defence. Not a wise move!

    I don't know either way and will be interested to see how this plays out. One thing you can be sure about, 99% of the general public will pay little or no heed to this in the long term unless there is irrefutable evidence and at the moment that is missing.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement