Drugs in other sports and the media.
Comments
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19700027#p19700027]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe
Well. Ashenden and Parisotto.
Didn't Lance drip feed blood tests?
No idea what that even means
But does everything have to come back to him? Christ on a bike, he wasnt even part of the greatest doping scam in the world, despite that handy tagline by Tygart at the time (which Tygart then transferred to A-Rod, once he got done)0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19700027#p19700027]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe
Well. Ashenden and Parisotto.
all seems pretty well explained to me0 -
Hull midfielder Jake Livermore will face no suspension after testing positive for cocaine.
Given mitigating circumstances owing to the tragic death of his new-born son.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/342123580 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19700038#p19700038]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19700027#p19700027]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe
Well. Ashenden and Parisotto.
Didn't Lance drip feed blood tests?
No idea what that even means
But does everything have to come back to him? Christ on a bike, he wasnt even part of the greatest doping scam in the world, despite that handy tagline by Tygart at the time (which Tygart then transferred to A-Rod, once he got done)
TBF she was the one to mention it when threatening the Sunday Times. Be interesting to see what they print this weekend, I guess could get ugly.coriordan wrote:Hull midfielder Jake Livermore will face no suspension after testing positive for cocaine
<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34212358</span>
Common sense prevails.0 -
Sigh.... I'll try again.There is currently a red flag by her name and no amount of saying 'I've never doped' will change that.
If by red flag you mean "she's on a list of suspicious BPs", then yes, there has to be suspicion. So she has cited evidence that the suspicious BP can, and should, be explained by entirely innocent things - dehydration, training at altitude, etc*.
Then the defence has outlined its case: it is now up to the prosecution to offer some evidence to try and demolish that case.
I've not heard any such evidence yet: only "well that's the kind of thing that LA said".
If, on the other hand, by "red flag" you mean "I've now leapt to the conclusion that she is a doper and therefore it is cognitively impossible for me ever to change my mind" then there's not a lot of point discussing it.
*thankfully she didn't offer "I went on a drinking binge" as one of the factors.
You are completely missing the point. This isn't about what you or I think. It's what the internet says and will always say until the balance of probability says otherwise.
What does this say currently?
- 15 year old world record that no one has come close to, not even busted doping runners
- IAAF suspicious list, not followed up by IAAF, smacks of a cover-up
- Blood doping prevalent in sports at the time of the record
As I said, it's not about what you or I or ddraver or The Clinic think. Until she provides detailed explanations and transparency those flags will be there.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19700027#p19700027]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe
Well. Ashenden and Parisotto.
I take it Ashendon is now on the same pyre as David Walsh?
How dare he suggest she might be clean!!
This will mean nothing to Joel of course...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19700027#p19700027]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe
Well. Ashenden and Parisotto.
I take it Ashendon is now on the same pyre as David Walsh?
How dare he suggest she might be clean!!
Have a read of that article.0 -
Sigh.... I'll try again.There is currently a red flag by her name and no amount of saying 'I've never doped' will change that.
If by red flag you mean "she's on a list of suspicious BPs", then yes, there has to be suspicion. So she has cited evidence that the suspicious BP can, and should, be explained by entirely innocent things - dehydration, training at altitude, etc*.
Then the defence has outlined its case: it is now up to the prosecution to offer some evidence to try and demolish that case.
I've not heard any such evidence yet: only "well that's the kind of thing that LA said".
If, on the other hand, by "red flag" you mean "I've now leapt to the conclusion that she is a doper and therefore it is cognitively impossible for me ever to change my mind" then there's not a lot of point discussing it.
*thankfully she didn't offer "I went on a drinking binge" as one of the factors.
You are completely missing the point. This isn't about what you or I think. It's what the internet says and will always say until the balance of probability says otherwise.
What does this say currently?
- 15 year old world record that no one has come close to, not even busted doping runners
- IAAF suspicious list, not followed up by IAAF, smacks of a cover-up
- Blood doping prevalent in sports at the time of the record
As I said, it's not about what you or I or ddraver or The Clinic think. Until she provides detailed explanations and transparency those flags will be there.
She's provided her off-scores
Pls analyse and revert.0 -
I've not heard any such evidence yet: only "well that's the kind of thing that LA said".Didn't Lance...0
-
"Radcliffe said the test results were followed up and cleared by the IAAF at the time they were given, and she has since had independent expert advice that clears her name"
Minor point but surely only the IAAF can clear her name, not an independent expert?0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19700053#p19700053]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:
Sigh.... I'll try again.There is currently a red flag by her name and no amount of saying 'I've never doped' will change that.
If by red flag you mean "she's on a list of suspicious BPs", then yes, there has to be suspicion. So she has cited evidence that the suspicious BP can, and should, be explained by entirely innocent things - dehydration, training at altitude, etc*.
Then the defence has outlined its case: it is now up to the prosecution to offer some evidence to try and demolish that case.
I've not heard any such evidence yet: only "well that's the kind of thing that LA said".
If, on the other hand, by "red flag" you mean "I've now leapt to the conclusion that she is a doper and therefore it is cognitively impossible for me ever to change my mind" then there's not a lot of point discussing it.
*thankfully she didn't offer "I went on a drinking binge" as one of the factors.
You are completely missing the point. This isn't about what you or I think. It's what the internet says and will always say until the balance of probability says otherwise.
What does this say currently?
- 15 year old world record that no one has come close to, not even busted doping runners
- IAAF suspicious list, not followed up by IAAF, smacks of a cover-up
- Blood doping prevalent in sports at the time of the record
As I said, it's not about what you or I or ddraver or The Clinic think. Until she provides detailed explanations and transparency those flags will be there.
She's provided her off-scores
Pls analyse and revert.
It's not for me to analyse. If a/some respected experts say that there is nothing of note, then good news all round. I hope that is the case.0 -
@ corodian Yes, true
The point is about PR though - The IAAF, WADA, UKAD and independent Tsar Ashenden have all looked at the values and see nothing that is suspicious
Joel to name a new expert that has to look at them in 3...2...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Leaving aside the fact that you are currently the voice of "the internet" here...You are completely missing the point. This isn't about what you or I think. It's what the internet says and will always say until the balance of probability says otherwise.
What does this say currently?
- 15 year old world record that no one has come close to, not even busted doping runners
- IAAF suspicious list, not followed up by IAAF, smacks of a cover-up
- Blood doping prevalent in sports at the time of the record
As I said, it's not about what you or I or ddraver or The Clinic think. Until she provides detailed explanations and transparency those flags will be there.
The things you list are certainly grounds for suspicion. She has answered those, at least partially: so let me repeat - the ball is back in your - sorry, "the internet's" - court.
Until I see some more evidence, I'm out.0 -
"Radcliffe said the test results were followed up and cleared by the IAAF at the time they were given, and she has since had independent expert advice that clears her name"
Minor point but surely only the IAAF can clear her name, not an independent expert?
Turn of phrase0 -
Leaving aside the fact that you are currently the voice of "the internet" here...You are completely missing the point. This isn't about what you or I think. It's what the internet says and will always say until the balance of probability says otherwise.
What does this say currently?
- 15 year old world record that no one has come close to, not even busted doping runners
- IAAF suspicious list, not followed up by IAAF, smacks of a cover-up
- Blood doping prevalent in sports at the time of the record
As I said, it's not about what you or I or ddraver or The Clinic think. Until she provides detailed explanations and transparency those flags will be there.
The things you list are certainly grounds for suspicion. She has answered those, at least partially: so let me repeat - the ball is back in your - sorry, "the internet's" - court.
Until I see some more evidence, I'm out.
Again. All I'm doing is stating what it on record. I'm unware that Ashenden has 'cleared' Paula. Providing some off-scores that fall within the outer limit is also out of context and is probably nowhere near enough to refute the claims. Seb Coe may be persuaded though.0 -
Well, ok, lets start small and forget the internet - what would it take to convince you
You mentioned Ashendon, well he has said there is nothing suspicious in the values, so what next?
He hasn't as far as I'm aware. Can you link that article for me please?
I'm undecided to be honest. I'd like to think that she was clean but I'm struggling to currently, given what I have read (and yes that includes her written responses and several interviews I've watched). I'd like to see her open her samples up to retesting (if they are still frozen somewhere) and the latest techniques used on them. Failing that I'd like to see her post passport figures for comparison, especially those after altitude training. Don't forget she is very close to the upper 'altitude' limit of 117, way over the normal upper limit of 103 on the off scores. Those parameters are not tight remember, so as to potentially avoid innocent busts.0 -
Well, ok, lets start small and forget the internet - what would it take to convince you
You mentioned Ashendon, well he has said there is nothing suspicious in the values, so what next?
He hasn't as far as I'm aware. Can you link that article for me please?
I'm undecided to be honest. I'd like to think that she was clean but I'm struggling to currently, given what I have read (and yes that includes her written responses and several interviews I've watched). I'd like to see her open her samples up to retesting (if they are still frozen somewhere) and the latest techniques used on them. Failing that I'd like to see her post passport figures for comparison, especially those after altitude training. Don't forget she is very close to the upper 'altitude' limit of 117, way over the normal upper limit of 103 on the off scores. Those parameters are not tight remember, so as to potentially avoid innocent busts.
Yeah.0 -
This is bullsh1t Joel, it was linked to about 5 times up thread.
You re not even reading anything that will oppose your view. This is now ridiculous
"Leave it ddraver, its not wurf it!"
Sorry, channelling the spirit of Babs Windsor for a minute there0 -
This is bullsh1t Joel, it was linked to about 5 times up thread.
You re not even reading anything that will oppose your view. This is now ridiculous
In Joel's defence (not that he isn't being cyclopean in the extreme here) I can't see any reference to Ashenden stating Radcliffe is clean. Afaict he has rather sensibly not mentioned anyone by name.
The Sky article linked above (I'm not trawling any further back - I'm lazy and this thread is getting silly) is using Ashenden and Parisotto's paper from 2003 as a reference, but neither is author is quoted in the article.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19700243#p19700243]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:This is bullsh1t Joel, it was linked to about 5 times up thread.
You re not even reading anything that will oppose your view. This is now ridiculous
"Leave it ddraver, its not wurf it!"
Sorry, channelling the spirit of Babs Windsor for a minute there
Wouldn't Babs be well up for a ruck? As long as you love yer mum, and that...Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
This is bullsh1t Joel, it was linked to about 5 times up thread.
You re not even reading anything that will oppose your view. This is now ridiculous
In Joel's defence (not that he isn't being cyclopean in the extreme here) I can't see any reference to Ashenden stating Radcliffe is clean. Afaict he has rather sensibly not mentioned anyone by name.
The Sky article linked above (I'm not trawling any further back - I'm lazy and this thread is getting silly) is using Ashenden and Parisotto's paper from 2003 as a reference, but neither is author is quoted in the article.
Correct. Hence why I asked for a link.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19698277#p19698277]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Fair Play Paula that is a bangin' response. She's gone up in my eyes there...
Glazed eyes? Or turning a blind eye?
Haven't we heard the same excuses from Pantani?
Joel, serious question. You're on Twitter and discuss all this, you're on Velorooms and post in The Dark Side there.
Dont you think you have enough different channels for going over all this to your heart's content?
I don't get involved with the nutters on Twitter. Simply posted something relevant. It's interesting to note that she hasn't mentioned never doping, just not cheating.
This might well be the most stupid comment I've read on a doping thread which is quite an achievement. The comment mentioned no cheating in anyway which to anyone not desperately trying to read between the lines would suggest any form of cheating rather than just cheating by doping. It's actually a stronger statement than 'never doped'.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19698277#p19698277]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Fair Play Paula that is a bangin' response. She's gone up in my eyes there...
Glazed eyes? Or turning a blind eye?
Haven't we heard the same excuses from Pantani?
Joel, serious question. You're on Twitter and discuss all this, you're on Velorooms and post in The Dark Side there.
Dont you think you have enough different channels for going over all this to your heart's content?
I don't get involved with the nutters on Twitter. Simply posted something relevant. It's interesting to note that she hasn't mentioned never doping, just not cheating.
This might well be the most stupid comment I've read on a doping thread which is quite an achievement. The comment mentioned no cheating in anyway which to anyone not desperately trying to read between the lines would suggest any form of cheating rather than just cheating by doping. It's actually a stronger statement than 'never doped'.
It's not actually. If you actually read some articles then you will find that many people think that if you pass the tests you are not cheating.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19698277#p19698277]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Fair Play Paula that is a bangin' response. She's gone up in my eyes there...
Glazed eyes? Or turning a blind eye?
Haven't we heard the same excuses from Pantani?
Joel, serious question. You're on Twitter and discuss all this, you're on Velorooms and post in The Dark Side there.
Dont you think you have enough different channels for going over all this to your heart's content?
I don't get involved with the nutters on Twitter. Simply posted something relevant. It's interesting to note that she hasn't mentioned never doping, just not cheating.
This might well be the most stupid comment I've read on a doping thread which is quite an achievement. The comment mentioned no cheating in anyway which to anyone not desperately trying to read between the lines would suggest any form of cheating rather than just cheating by doping. It's actually a stronger statement than 'never doped'.
It's not actually. If you actually read some articles then you will find that many people think that if you pass the tests you are not cheating.
:roll: FFS this is pointless.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19698277#p19698277]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Fair Play Paula that is a bangin' response. She's gone up in my eyes there...
Glazed eyes? Or turning a blind eye?
Haven't we heard the same excuses from Pantani?
Joel, serious question. You're on Twitter and discuss all this, you're on Velorooms and post in The Dark Side there.
Dont you think you have enough different channels for going over all this to your heart's content?
I don't get involved with the nutters on Twitter. Simply posted something relevant. It's interesting to note that she hasn't mentioned never doping, just not cheating.
This might well be the most stupid comment I've read on a doping thread which is quite an achievement. The comment mentioned no cheating in anyway which to anyone not desperately trying to read between the lines would suggest any form of cheating rather than just cheating by doping. It's actually a stronger statement than 'never doped'.
It's not actually. If you actually read some articles then you will find that many people think that if you pass the tests you are not cheating.
:roll: FFS this is pointless.
It is. Even when there is plenty to consider and plenty that needs a full and detailed explanation. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here. The Clinic think everyone's guilty even with no evidence at all, some on here think no one is even when there's smoke.0 -
Ross Tucker on Paula:
http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/
Mayweather bending rules:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/boxing/34218049Contador is the Greatest0 -
Ross Tucker on Paula:
http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/
All this maximum transparency stuff is well and good, but a. it's the cynics equivalent of the 'I never failed a dope test' line as it whatever transparency is given is never as transparent as the they want, and b. you risk getting screwed anyway (OTbut great example of this happening over at Gawker courtesy the Mail)0
