Has Paula Radliffe been ill advised ?
VTech
Posts: 4,736
I like Paula Radcliffe but I do think she was incredibly ill advised not to make public the 114.86, 109.86 and 109.3 samples.
Not sure if everyone knows but anything over 103.0 is seen as an indication of blood doping in a female and Radcliffe's samples were massively over that value but....
It is seen by some that samples taken after a race can be higher than that level so many doctors wait for 2 hours after a race to take the samples.
Paula had given several samples below 103.0 after full marathons which would indicate her body as not being the type to show high readings post race which to me gives weight to those that think she is guilty.
I actually think she is more than likely innocent but the victim of terrible advice, if nothing more than because you can't hide information like this for long anyway so better to be the one making it public ?
Not sure if everyone knows but anything over 103.0 is seen as an indication of blood doping in a female and Radcliffe's samples were massively over that value but....
It is seen by some that samples taken after a race can be higher than that level so many doctors wait for 2 hours after a race to take the samples.
Paula had given several samples below 103.0 after full marathons which would indicate her body as not being the type to show high readings post race which to me gives weight to those that think she is guilty.
I actually think she is more than likely innocent but the victim of terrible advice, if nothing more than because you can't hide information like this for long anyway so better to be the one making it public ?
Living MY dream.
0
Comments
-
The argument against making your stats public is because it enables people like you and I (no dis-respect) who know jack sh1t about the complicity of such data drawing all manner of conclusions, either right or wrong.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Is nt the latest on her that 2 values were explained by her having trained at altitude and the other after a marathon run in the heat, something which wouldnt happen now?
tbh sounds like a fishing trip, much like the Heath child sex rubbish.0 -
If her results come from hard work and training then anything less than full transparency leads to suspicion.
If she has found a legal substance or practice that boosts her performance to beyond her competitors then she can only avoid suspicion by being tested incredibly rigorously by an independent or ruling body.
Compare to sport to motor racing. The cars on an F1 track are all tested before and after the race and every texting session. The criteria and rules are excessive and cars are kept in quarantine. The only fixing is then done by Ernie and no suspicion publicly falls on the teams. And those teams pay for that testing.
So if she wants to avoid the grief she is getting now, either refuse to compete till it is clean sport (fat chance as the boss is a blood doper), pay more as an entrance fee (she has to be worth a bob or two) so the organisers can test more or pay to have your own tester with her. To do the exact opposite and not reveal why readings are not normal is just weak.0 -
The really sad thing is, like cycling, a cloud of suspicion hangs over anyone who wins, and god forbid they break a world record.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Not sure if everyone knows but anything over 103.0 is seen as an indication of blood doping in a female
NyetWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
People who follow cycling are just going, meh. Heard it all before.
Cycling was bad and possibly still is, but other sports, not just athletics, need to get real on the subject.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Not sure if everyone knows but anything over 103.0 is seen as an indication of blood doping in a female
Nyet
проблема в том, что , потому что это было мне задать вопрос мне трудно признать, что ваш ответ основан на что-нибудь , но вы быть немного идиотомLiving MY dream.0 -
yeah my russian only extended to yes, no, hello, goodbye and good...
Any chance of an expansion on your answer as to why you think she was well advised to keep quiet ?
I am genuinely interested in why someone feels that was the right thing to do given the aggression the media have taken towards her keeping them hidden when she and her advisors knew they were in the open domain after the docs being stolen during a hack earlier this year.
To re-itterate, I don't think she is guilty, I think she is a victim but due to bad advise I think she is now tarnished and will slowly be wiped from the public eye as the clean, responsible athlete she ought to be seen as which is a dreadful shame.Living MY dream.0 -
Discussed here - viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12885414&start=1560 - from pg73 on
We re perhaps harsh on Joel but as you 'll see he is not arguing from a reasonable positionWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Streisand effect? If she had said nothing then there would have been little to no coverage about it. As it is the suspicion has only increased.0
-
The argument against making your stats public is because it enables people like you and I (no dis-respect) who know jack sh1t about the complicity of such data drawing all manner of conclusions, either right or wrong.
^ this ^ this ^ and thisAll lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Streisand effect? If she had said nothing then there would have been little to no coverage about it. As it is the suspicion has only increased.
When your near as makes no difference named in Parliament I'm not sure that the Streisand effect appliesWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Streisand effect? If she had said nothing then there would have been little to no coverage about it. As it is the suspicion has only increased.
When your near as makes no difference named in Parliament I'm not sure that the Streisand effect applies
Perhaps, it's impossible to say at this point. It could have been that nobody would have noticed and nothing more would be said.0 -
It's damage limitation and Mo was implicated by association to the allegations against his coach.
The media will always get into a frenzy with a story like this as you can set the stage for a ongoing argument which is based on interpretation and opinion while selling newspapers.
I agree with V Tech, bad advice has given oxygen to the non story. My stance would have been to call the MP to state the claims outside parliamentary privilege. He doesn't, no comment and the story dies. He does - you sue.
Unless of course your guilty and the actions to date are a mis direction to that fact. Poor advice rather than cheating however unlikely that this may seem.
Who knows if Paula went against the advice provided and the response was emotional rather than measured?
Too many unknowns here except the response to the situation could and should have been better“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
Given that doping in athletics has already been a big story in the press I don't see how it couldnt have come out.After all the government did nt have the enquiry (or whatever it is) just randomly. The was already a lot of press talk about the Sunday Times list, Gatland v Bolt and Seb Coe. There is even a thread on it here. The cat was already out of the bag
@ Slowmart - if she does that then she is "no better than Armstrong and therefore definitely doping"
If she releases the results then people with an agenda will manipulate them to suggest that she is guilty
If she sends them to experts to analyse (which she did) then even when those experts say no, People will still, incorrectly, suggest that the numbers are dodgy as VTech has done here, or will, Like Joel does in Pro Race, say that that expert is clearly biased and demand another, (usually twitter based) expert be allowed to analyse them, and on and on until someone who's income depends on suggesting that there is doping in sport says something suggestive enough about them
It's a classic Catch 22 for her - She couldnt winWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Given that doping in athletics has already been a big story in the press I don't see how it couldnt have come out.After all the government did nt have the enquiry (or whatever it is) just randomly. The was already a lot of press talk about the Sunday Times list, Gatland v Bolt and Seb Coe. There is even a thread on it here. The cat was already out of the bag
@ Slowmart - if she does that then she is "no better than Armstrong and therefore definitely doping"
If she releases the results then people with an agenda will manipulate them to suggest that she is guilty
If she sends them to experts to analyse (which she did) then even when those experts say no, People will still, incorrectly, suggest that the numbers are dodgy as VTech has done here, or will, Like Joel does in Pro Race, say that that expert is clearly biased and demand another, (usually twitter based) expert be allowed to analyse them, and on and on until someone who's income depends on suggesting that there is doping in sport says something suggestive enough about them
It's a classic Catch 22 for her - She couldnt win
That is not the case. The numbers were indeed dodgy but that was never my point, the fact the figures were over 103 means that they are automatically up for scrutiny.
My point was that at the time she went on TV and said she has been advised not to release her blood samples on the breakfast TV show, she automatically made the majority of people think she was covering up.
I don't think because she is guilty but because at that moment in time, she and the interviewer knew that the figures were already known by many due to the hacking. It wasn't as if her not releasing them would stop it. All that did was make people like me google her results which took 1 minute.
Thats my point in this thread.Living MY dream.0 -
It IS the case VTech because that number does not hold true for samples taken during altitude training, which uses a well established, fully accepted higher number which is higher than 2 of the 3 samples (Read the posts in the link)
This is the problem with releasing data for athletes. You put your neck on the line so I ll use you as an example but you have looked at the numbers with an uninformed, even with an unbiased, eye and come to an incorrect conclusion. Now you do things with cars for a living so it's fair enough not know the in's and out's of blood doping and testing but nevertheless you have posted that Paula Radclidffe has 3 suspicions blood tests when in fact she has 1 - again easily explained so actually none. However, the cat is out of tha bag again and once it's out, it rarely goes back in...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
It IS the case VTech because that number does not hold true for samples taken during altitude training, which uses a well established, fully accepted higher number which is higher than 2 of the 3 samples (Read the posts in the link)
This is the problem with releasing data for athletes. You put your neck on the line so I ll use you as an example but you have looked at the numbers with an uninformed, even with an unbiased, eye and come to an incorrect conclusion. Now you do things with cars for a living so it's fair enough not know the in's and out's of blood doping and testing but nevertheless you have posted that Paula Radclidffe has 3 suspicions blood tests when in fact she has 1 - again easily explained so actually none. However, the cat is out of tha bag again and once it's out, it rarely goes back in...
Your arguing for me, not against me ??
I posted not on the results, but on the fact that she wouldn't release the figures herself when in fact they were easy for anyone to get with less than a minutes searching on google.
Thats what has imo made people think she is guilty, not the results which as you say are easily explained.Living MY dream.0 -
What?
Your arguing for me, not against me ??
I posted not on the results, but on the fact that she wouldn't release the figures herself when in fact they were easy for anyone to get with less than a minutes searching on google.
Thats what has imo made people think she is guilty, not the results which as you say are easily explained.
Roughly translated, your arguing with me whilst agreeing with what I am saying. I just found that odd.Living MY dream.0 -
Well I'm not sure they were easy to find
What I am saying is that the entire escapade shows the bind that athletes are in. Release data it will be misinterpreted by people that do not know how to interpret blood data (yourself) or by people with an agenda (twitter) = doper, don't release data, you have something to hide = doper
I'm arguing that she couldnt winWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Well I'm not sure they were easy to find
What I am saying is that the entire escapade shows the bind that athletes are in. Release data it will be misinterpreted by people that do not know how to interpret blood data (yourself) or by people with an agenda (twitter) = doper, don't release data, you have something to hide = doper
I'm arguing that she couldnt win
I agree with that, online is the most dangerous place on earth with little to no protection. I am unsure how people will see her in the future after the past week, to me she looked like a rabbit in the headlights on TV, I really felt sorry for her.Living MY dream.0 -
I was a great fan of Paula..... But I think she dost protest too much.
And it is a rather big WHY, why hasn't she released all her blood data just some????0 -
The reason I heard her coach (and husband) give for not immediately releasing the data was that she did not want her kids at some time in the future Googling their Mum's name and seeing it associated with blood doping.Wilier Izoard XP0
-
The reason I heard her coach (and husband) give for not immediately releasing the data was that she did not want her kids at some time in the future Googling their Mum's name and seeing it associated with blood doping.
Im not sure that has worked out well for them :oops:
Yesterday Daily Thomson commented on it and said that due to her results having been a part of a known "hack" she really ought to have released the data when asked because it was already in the open domain and that the "secret" has only brought doubt upon her.
He did however think she was completely innocent in doping which I would like to think is true.Living MY dream.0
