Leaked IAAf report on doping

walshb

ThisRegard wrote: »

This gives me a laugh though, she's also singing from the same hymn sheet. (and so there's no doubt, I've never claimed she's a cheat, but it's looking sketchy for her)

If you had to say yes or no do you think Paula ever took PEDs? Gun to your head question.....

walshb

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This post is so naive.

Care to elaborate?

If you bothered to read a bit more you will have seen that I clearly said that not every athlete that never tests positive is therefore clean. Some slip through the net. I believe Paula to be not one of these. Nothing naive about this. Athletes can only pass tests that exist. That is they way it is. I have my suspicions about a few great talents and athletes through the years. But it is only suspicion. And, I have degress of suspicion. Some athletes for me are more suspicious than others, and some great athletes I would have a lot of confidence in as regards being honset and clean. Where's the naivety there?

How would you label athletes today that never have tested positive? What title would not be naive? Potentially clean? Almost clean? Clean but not necessarily free from PEDs? This is the ridiculousness of it. People getting caught up in semantics.

I'd rather bypass that sillyness. What is so naive for me to label them clean, whilst also acknowleding the issue regarding the testing not being 100 percent perfect. You have said nothing other than just because an athketes passes the tests doesn't mean they're clean. When they take and pass the tests, at that point in time they are for the authorities competing fairly. They can do no more. For that I will label them presently clean. But to appease and be sematically in lune with others I could put an asterisk beside the word clean.

robinph

Itziger wrote: »

Ouch on some of the numbers there folks.

Together with how she's responded to this saga in the last few months.......

Not looking good. As to how she got so far ahead of the others..... some dopers, some not one supposes.... I'd go with brilliant preparation and incredible attention to detail. It's all the little things add up at that level.

This story ain't over, that's for sure.

You must have read
a differentreport to what I just saw from the Telegraph. They didn't say anything other than repeat what she said and condensed her argument down to make it easier for a bored public to digest.

There was nothing there to counter her arguments.

nobody told me

This might seem like a very simple way of looking at it, but imagine if a male marathon runner was 3 mins ahead of the rest, he would be running 1:59 and it wouldn't add up. Just like her marathon time doesnt.

Chivito550

I'm not sure what to believe with Radcliffe. I think I believe her, but have reservations now which I never had before.

Two things though:

1) Her 2:15 is not evidence of doping. There are outliers out there is many different sports. Also 2:15 was paced by men. The fastest she has run in a female only race is 2:17. And the depth in the women's marathon is not great to be honest, in comparison to the men. I think in years to come, if Kenyans and Ethiopians in their early 20s go straight to the marathon, skipping the track, like we see now with the men, the Radcliffe's time will no longer be an outlier.

2) Saying that all medalists were probably dopers is idiotic. It's like saying any World Cup winning footballer was on drugs. I hope you afford the same scepticism to Zidane and other known blood dopers.

shels4ever

Chivito550 wrote: »

I'm not sure what to believe with Radcliffe. I think I believe her, but have reservations now which I never had before.

Two things though:

1) Her 2:15 is not evidence of doping. There are outliers out there is many different sports. Also 2:15 was paced by men. The fastest she has run in a female only race is 2:17. And the depth in the women's marathon is not great to be honest, in comparison to the men. I think in years to come, if Kenyans and Ethiopians in their early 20s go straight to the marathon, skipping the track, like we see now with the men, the Radcliffe's time will no longer be an outlier.

2) Saying that all medalists were probably dopers is idiotic. It's like saying any World Cup winning footballer was on drugs. I hope you afford the same scepticism to Zidane and other known blood dopers.

Yep I am in the same boat if you just look at the gap between her times and the next best it doesnt look good. But when you take into account the nature of the event and the culture in Kenya etc in regards to women in sport , The Kenyan women for example haven't approached the Marathon the same way the men have. For example Mary keitany for me the best of the rest and the one I though might get close did have for family during her best years, If she has run 2:17/17 Radcliffe record wouldn't look as crazy.
One thing I remember reading before is that Paula said she stored her samples to be tested in the future was this ever done or was it rubbish at the time?

walshb

nobody told me wrote: »

This might seem like a very simple way of looking at it, but imagine if a male marathon runner was 3 mins ahead of the rest, he would be running 1:59 and it wouldn't add up. Just like her marathon time doesnt.

That's far too simplistic. That would imply that her time is not possible. There are other performances in sport that are clearly ahead of the next best. Are they all down to cheating?

average_runner

nobody told me wrote: »

This might seem like a very simple way of looking at it, but imagine if a male marathon runner was 3 mins ahead of the rest, he would be running 1:59 and it wouldn't add up. Just like her marathon time doesnt.

So you must suspect Dibaba’s 1500m time also?

shels4ever

average_runner wrote: »

So you must suspect Dibaba’s 1500m time also?

To bloody right. That would be the most suspect run in the last 10 years.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

So you must suspect Dibaba’s 1500m time also?

Among several others.....

Chivito550

nobody told me wrote: »

This might seem like a very simple way of looking at it, but imagine if a male marathon runner was 3 mins ahead of the rest, he would be running 1:59 and it wouldn't add up. Just like her marathon time doesnt.

No, this type of comment is misleading. It implies that there is equal depth on the women's side as there is in the men's. There isn't. There isn't in any event, but in particular the marathon. Paula's time would be more like her running a 2:02, while the next best is 2:04/2:05

happygoose

Chivito550 wrote: »

No, this type of comment is misleading. It implies that there is equal depth on the women's side as there is in the men's. There isn't. There isn't in any event, but in particular the marathon. Paula's time would be more like her running a 2:02, while the next best is 2:04/2:05

But the best are running 2:02?

Ed Caesar's book 'Two Hours: The Quest to Run the Impossible Marathon' states her 2:15 is the equivalent of 1:59.

Radcliffe, Dibaba, Bolt. All WR holders with times well ahead of a pool of dopers. No evidence but those outliers do arouse suspicions.

youngrun

shels4ever wrote: »

To bloody right. That would be the most suspect run in the last 10 years.

Why ?

walshb

youngrun wrote: »

Why ?

Don't be asking silly questions.......Because it's great!:)

robinph

nobody told me wrote: »

This might seem like a very simple way of looking at it, but imagine if a male marathon runner was 3 mins ahead of the rest, he would be running 1:59 and it wouldn't add up. Just like her marathon time doesnt.

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

Chivito550

happygoose wrote: »

But the best are running 2:02?

Ed Caesar's book 'Two Hours: The Quest to Run the Impossible Marathon' states her 2:15 is the equivalent of 1:59.

Radcliffe, Dibaba, Bolt. All WR holders with times well ahead of a pool of dopers. No evidence but those outliers do arouse suspicions.

You're not following me. There is far more depth in men's marathon running than women's, hence a much higher overall standard. Suggesting that Radcliffe is worth a 1:59, means that somebody like Deena Castor was a 2:03 runner effectively, which is truly laughable. The reality is that the depth in women's marathon running is poor, hence there being more chance of an outlier. Radcliffe is probably equivalent to a 2:02/2:03, with the rest of the women being no better than 2:05.

Assuming that the 10th best woman is of a similar standard to the 10th best man is wrong. There is far more depth in men's athletics. The World Championships shows us that. Look at the women's 10k. Pedestrian pace, and yet the people outside the top 10 couldn't keep up with it.

menoscemo

robinph wrote: »

You must have read
a differentreport to what I just saw from the Telegraph. They didn't say anything other than repeat what she said and condensed her argument down to make it easier for a bored public to digest.

There was nothing there to counter her arguments.

Well she says her tests were 1 in 100 and the telegraph says 1 in 1000. She says there was a small spike in her levels, they say 47%.
It may not be anything new but it specifically talks about Radcliffe's tests for the first time.

shels4ever

youngrun wrote: »

Why ?

Because its bloody amazing, most jaw dropping running for me since Bekele. I never though i'd see a women go sub 3:50 and no I expect it.

Chivito550

Here's a thought. How much faster would the men's WR be if they were able to be paced for the whole 26.2 miles? Suppose there was some high tech robot designed to run at 2:00 pace, could the very best runner hang on to that and squeeze out an extra 2 minutes.

Radcliffe had the benefit of a male pacing her the whole way. That to me explains why she ran 2:15. What would she have run that day had she been running solo? Possibly 2:17.

walshb

With the right conditions and the right money and dedication surely 2 hrs is achievable for man? I bet if major money was offered to the first man to run 2 hrs we would see that really challenfged. It's pure endurance, with some speed thrown in. It's humanly possible without drugs.

demfad

Chivito550 wrote: »

No, this type of comment is misleading. It implies that there is equal depth on the women's side as there is in the men's. There isn't. There isn't in any event, but in particular the marathon. Paula's time would be more like her running a 2:02, while the next best is 2:04/2:05

Plenty of men have ran 2:04. So surely at least one other 2:04 (doped or clean) time would be recorded if the men's depth was as that of the women. That would make Radcliffe's time 2:01. If any man ran this time today , no one would believe it clean, no one.

IMO when you are watching a major marathon, you are watching a contest between doped elite athletes. Its as simple as that. I don't bother watching any more.

Nermal

This is a really great post - if you expect 'positive tests', you're behind the curve. They will become increasingly rare:

STB. wrote: »

What exactly is proof these days. Highly irregular blood passports or retrospective testing with more up to date methods only ever cast doubt.

This is a really bad one, implying that some elite athletes don't try hard enough. Blindly swallowing the crap spouted about 'marginal gains' or 'pain thresholds':

robinph wrote: »

Beating convicted drug cheats by such a significant margin doesn't prove cheating. It does prove that everyone else isn't trying hard enough though at either legal or illegal methods.

Halloween Jack

menoscemo wrote: »

Well she says her tests were 1 in 100 and the telegraph says 1 in 1000. She says there was a small spike in her levels, they say 47%.
It may not be anything new but it specifically talks about Radcliffe's tests for the first time.

I'm slightly confused by the numbers here, Radcliffe seems to say her samples were marginally above the 1/100 threshold, and states that the times claimed it was 1/1000. I'm not sure what this threshold or the numbers mean, but telegraph article states the expert claimed her results were so abnormal that there is a 1/1000 chance they occurred naturally, is it possible that they are referring to two different things here?

I mean if The measure that Radcliffe is talking about is a probability based measure then surely, probability wise, having 3 *1/100 chance naturally occurring anomalous values is practically nil?

demfad

Chivito550 wrote: »

Here's a thought. How much faster would the men's WR be if they were able to be paced for the whole 26.2 miles? Suppose there was some high tech robot designed to run at 2:00 pace, could the very best runner hang on to that and squeeze out an extra 2 minutes.

No they couldn't. They can barely hang onto a human for 20 miles at 2:03.00 pace. By stating that they would gain 2 mins with a pacer for the entire duration, you are implying that male world record breakers somehow lose 2 mins in the last 6 miles due to lacking a pacer. You're clutching at straws there. You can easily check and see how much these guys actually slow in the last 10k before making that claim. Its seconds rather than minutes I assure you.

robinph

Nermal wrote: »

This is a really bad one, implying that some elite athletes don't try hard enough. Blindly swallowing the crap spouted about 'marginal gains' or 'pain thresholds':

Why has no doped athlete, or any other athlete, run a time close to 2:15 or the low 2:17's then? They have had over 10 years to figure out what these super drugs were.

That they haven't figured out the super drugs suggests that they are either incompetent and Radcliffe is some super chemist who has invented a new drug all on her own. Or the drugs don't exist and the other athletes are just not as good.

The numbers of top marathon runners between the mens and womens fields are vastly different.
Top 500 mens times are 5 minutes apart:
http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/alltimelist.cfm?gen=m
Top 500 womens times are 10 minutes apart:
http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/alltimelist.cfm?gen=f

There is just not the numbers of women running. The other genetic freaks that are so good at marathon running have not taken up the sport in the same numbers for womens running. Therefore the one person at the top of the pile is obviously going to be left out on their own more than in the mens event.

NIMAN

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!

Djoucer

Chivito550 wrote: »

Here's a thought. How much faster would the men's WR be if they were able to be paced for the whole 26.2 miles? Suppose there was some high tech robot designed to run at 2:00 pace, could the very best runner hang on to that and squeeze out an extra 2 minutes.

Radcliffe had the benefit of a male pacing her the whole way. That to me explains why she ran 2:15. What would she have run that day had she been running solo? Possibly 2:17.

What do you think?

It's a good question. Would make for a fantastic event. Get some elites to run behind/in front of the pace car ala the Red Bull World Run.

Last man running wins a big cheque.

Chivito550

demfad wrote: »

Plenty of men have ran 2:04. So surely at least one other 2:04 (doped or clean) time would be recorded if the men's depth was as that of the women. That would make Radcliffe's time 2:01. If any man ran this time today , no one would believe it clean, no one.

IMO when you are watching a major marathon, you are watching a contest between doped elite athletes. Its as simple as that. I don't bother watching any more.

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?

demfad

robinph wrote: »

Why has no doped athlete, or any other athlete, run a time close to 2:15 or the low 2:17's then? They have had over 10 years to figure out what these super drugs were.

That they haven't figured out the super drugs suggests that they are either incompetent and Radcliffe is some super chemist who has invented a new drug all on her own. Or the drugs don't exist and the other athletes are just not as good.

The numbers of top marathon runners between the mens and womens fields are vastly different.
Top 500 mens times are 5 minutes apart:
http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/alltimelist.cfm?gen=m
Top 500 womens times are 10 minutes apart:
http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/alltimelist.cfm?gen=f

There is just not the numbers of women running. The other genetic freaks that are so good at marathon running have not taken up the sport in the same numbers for womens running. Therefore the one person at the top of the pile is obviously going to be left out on their own more than in the mens event.

The top 497 times (not counting Radcliffe) are only 7 mins apart.
Now you can use that 7 minute spread and compare it to the mens to correctly establish exactly how much of an outlier her time is.

You don't have to be a statistician to work out that the likelihood of one runner of being 3 mins clear of the entire spread is slim, a lot slimmer than 1000-1.

Chivito550

demfad wrote: »

The top 497 times (not counting Radcliffe) are only 7 mins apart.
Now you can use that 7 minute spread and compare it to the mens to correctly establish exactly how much of an outlier her time is.

You don't have to be a statistician to work out that the likelihood of one runner of being 3 mins clear of the entire spread is slim, a lot slimmer than 1000-1.

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.