Drugs in other sports and the media.
Comments
-
This thread looks like it might be going off topic. So here's another drumming dog
http://youtu.be/TnPxN0r90WE
Trench and Maple are quality, to be fair0 -
I'd also like to add that my posts about doping, even if my sense is that there is far more doping than is being caught, are not made when there is no smoke.0
-
dont follow it closely enough but wasn't some motor pacing involved in Paula's world record time ?0
-
Ah OK, we are doing the whole "guilty until proven innocent" thing then? Just wanted to check.Given the (at least) 3 odd tests, and the fact that no one (proven dopers included) has run within 3 minutes of her very long standing world record, it's more than likely that she has been doing something untoward. Now the onus is on her to explain it away.0 -
No, she had pacemaking from men. Perfectly legal and possible at the time as the men and women started together, but impossible in any major marathon now.dont follow it closely enough but wasn't some motor pacing involved in Paula's world record time ?Twitter: @RichN950 -
No, she had pacemaking from men. Perfectly legal and possible at the time as the men and women started together, but impossible in any major marathon now.dont follow it closely enough but wasn't some motor pacing involved in Paula's world record time ?
Thanks for clearing that up. Knew it was something to do with pacing0 -
Oh andIt seems there may well have been a super-injunction then.
Nopetelegraph wrote:We refrained from identifying Radcliffe to prevent her being unfairly tarnished as a drugs cheat in the absence of the full context behind those “suspicious” readings. We reached out to the marathon world record holder in an attempt to offer her an opportunity to provide that context. We received no response.
Just a rare bit of responsible JournalismWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Oh andIt seems there may well have been a super-injunction then.
Nopetelegraph wrote:We refrained from identifying Radcliffe to prevent her being unfairly tarnished as a drugs cheat in the absence of the full context behind those “suspicious” readings. We reached out to the marathon world record holder in an attempt to offer her an opportunity to provide that context. We received no response.
Just a rare bit of responsible Journalism
That's not responsible journalism. By writing it now they've done exactly what they said they were trying to avoid (which means they never intended to do it, but were more worried about legal matters). They are implying that purely because she didn't reply to them means there is some kind of guilt. That's crap journalism. What would they have done with any explanation from her? Why should she explain away anything to a paper?0 -
No they re writing it now because she was as near as makes no difference named in a Parliamentary Enquiry, which kinda renders their quote above pointless doesnt it...
What I meant was (using their quote as basis):
We have now identified Radcliffe which has unfairly tarnished her as a drugs cheat despite the absence of the full context behind those “suspicious” readings.0 -
erm, ok, I think we re at crossed purposes a bit
With regard to the telegraph article, I think this is another sorry episode which shows precisely why athletes shouldnt release data. Even in a well written letter explaining the context, it will still be abused by people with an agenda or an axe to grind. There are simply no words left in the english language to deny doping that have nt been used by somebody somewhere once before (1 man - Armstrong - accounts for nearly all of them). Athletes are being put is the ridiculous position where not releasing data = doper, but also releasing data = doper. Why would you bother engaging with people who think like that?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
erm, ok, I think we re at crossed purposes a bit
With regard to the telegraph article, I think this is another sorry episode which shows precisely why athletes shouldnt release data. Even in a well written letter explaining the context, it will still be abused by people with an agenda or an axe to grind. There are simply no words left in the english language to deny doping that have nt been used by somebody somewhere once before (1 man - Armstrong - accounts for nearly all of them). Athletes are being put is the ridiculous position where not releasing data = doper, but also releasing data = doper. Why would you bother engaging with people who think like that?
It's not an agenda, or an axe to grind dd. The whole athletics situation looks like a huge cover-up of epic proportions, compounded by allegations and evidence of systemic doping by whole countries, most of whose athletes have tested clean for years.
If the IAAF had done its best then there wouldn't be all this talk.
Radcliffe, rightly or wrongly, is a victim of this.0 -
It's not an agenda, or an axe to grind dd.
Your posts suggest differently Joel...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
It's not an agenda, or an axe to grind dd.
Your posts suggest differently Joel...
Not at all. It's just pretty obvious that much more can be done to reduce the level of doping in sports, athletics clearly has a huge problem and even clean athletes are being tainted by it. Nothing will be done of course, although this case with Radcliffe goes outside of the IAAF which can only be a good thing for the sport long-term. British Athletics is no better and I think they will live to regret their Salazar stance over the next few months.0 -
Doesn't Paula's statement roughly translate as:
All my tests around the time of the tour were fine, it was just a few during the Dauphine that indicated a 99% likelihood of doping. Lots of experts have reviewed them and they can't 100% conclusively prove I was doping, so let me say it again, I have never tested positve. Plus, the scientific rigour of those tests in on a par with those 2005 retest shockers and simply wouldn't be admissible in court.0 -
No, it doesn't. Try reading it.Doesn't Paula's statement roughly translate as:
All my tests around the time of the tour were fine, it was just a few during the Dauphine that indicated a 99% likelihood of doping. Lots of experts have reviewed them and they can't 100% conclusively prove I was doping, so let me say it again, I have never tested positve. Plus, the scientific rigour of those tests in on a par with those 2005 retest shockers and simply wouldn't be admissible in court.0 -
Doesn't Paula's statement roughly translate as:
All my tests around the time of the tour were fine, it was just a few during the Dauphine that indicated a 99% likelihood of doping. Lots of experts have reviewed them and they can't 100% conclusively prove I was doping, so let me say it again, I have never tested positve. Plus, the scientific rigour of those tests in on a par with those 2005 retest shockers and simply wouldn't be admissible in court.
Yes it does.0 -
Doesn't Paula's statement roughly translate as:
All my tests around the time of the tour were fine, it was just a few during the Dauphine that indicated a 99% likelihood of doping. Lots of experts have reviewed them and they can't 100% conclusively prove I was doping, so let me say it again, I have never tested positve. Plus, the scientific rigour of those tests in on a par with those 2005 retest shockers and simply wouldn't be admissible in court.
LOL
That's all I have to contribute to the thread sadly
0 -
So finally this debate reaches the vanishing point of absurdity. Although it's been asymptotic to it for a long time.Doesn't Paula's statement roughly translate as:
All my tests around the time of the tour were fine, it was just a few during the Dauphine that indicated a 99% likelihood of doping. Lots of experts have reviewed them and they can't 100% conclusively prove I was doping, so let me say it again, I have never tested positve. Plus, the scientific rigour of those tests in on a par with those 2005 retest shockers and simply wouldn't be admissible in court.
Yes it does.0 -
So finally this debate reaches the vanishing point of absurdity. Although it's been asymptotic to it for a long time.Doesn't Paula's statement roughly translate as:
All my tests around the time of the tour were fine, it was just a few during the Dauphine that indicated a 99% likelihood of doping. Lots of experts have reviewed them and they can't 100% conclusively prove I was doping, so let me say it again, I have never tested positve. Plus, the scientific rigour of those tests in on a par with those 2005 retest shockers and simply wouldn't be admissible in court.
Yes it does.
Can you tell me what is absurd given the doping situation in athletics over the last 30 years or more, especially given one of the longest standing world records (no one has come close, ever) and suspicious blood values?0 -
Doesn't Paula's statement roughly translate as:
so let me say it again, I have never tested positve.
BB I know your skeptical and fair enough. But her statement goes further than a denial of a positive. She says straight up that she didn't dope. Ok, she doesn't use those words, but the quotes below are pretty unambiguous in their meaning.I categorically deny that I have resorted to cheating in any form whatsoever at any time in my careerNothing improper has ever been found, since it never occurred.I have nothing to hide and have done nothing wrongI have never resorted to cheating in any form whatsoever at any time in my career. I welcome further investigation if it is necessary
Incidentally her physio speaks his mind0 -
there is nothing an accused athlete can do or say to help themselves if they are clean. But you need people to push and push to find out the truth had people given up so easy Armstrong would still be regarded as clean. When you look what Paula has done she deserves to be heavily scrutinised she has the three fastest ever womens marathon times with the 4th fastest being some 3 minutes slower having been convicted for doping.
There would be something wrong if people weren't suspicious of her0 -
there is nothing an accused athlete can do or say to help themselves if they are clean. But you need people to push and push to find out the truth had people given up so easy Armstrong would still be regarded as clean. When you look what Paula has done she deserves to be heavily scrutinised she has the three fastest ever womens marathon times with the 4th fastest being some 3 minutes slower having been convicted for doping.
There would be something wrong if people weren't suspicious of her
And set at a time when blood doping was at its peak.
This is interesting too. And good news to get the slimy one shuffling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/342021330 -
Was it? And you know that how? Because I'm guessing like many others who are suddenly 'experts' and know all about athletics, you couldn't name a single Olympic marathon champion of the last two decades without looking it up.
And set at a time when blood doping was at its peak.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Was it? And you know that how? Because I'm guessing like many others who are suddenly 'experts' and know all about athletics, you couldn't name a single Olympic marathon champion of the last two decades without looking it up.
And set at a time when blood doping was at its peak.
Blimey, you are difficult sometimes. It was set in 2003. You don't need to be Einstein.0 -
And what do you have that suggests that that was the peak of blood doping in athletics
Was it? And you know that how? Because I'm guessing like many others who are suddenly 'experts' and know all about athletics, you couldn't name a single Olympic marathon champion of the last two decades without looking it up.
And set at a time when blood doping was at its peak.
Blimey, you are difficult sometimes. It was set in 2003. You don't need to be Einstein.Twitter: @RichN950 -
0
-
Strong statement eh. Sounds like she is worried about her bank balance.
She should just take it like all the bankers have to and deal with it.
Shame they didn't publicize this before hand so we could have watched it. The bankers ones are good fun.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Radcliffe's defence seems simply to say she's innocent over and over again with the occasional suggestion that no one is capable of understanding the results of a blood test. That kind of defence wouldn't do in cycling or skiing or any other sport really so why does she think that's good enough? The woman is a fraud.Cannondale Supersix / CAAD9 / Boardman 9.0 / Benotto 30000
