Radcliffe says she's not releasing blood values

So here we are, almost 3 days after Worlds and what do we have? Nothing! Nothing from the lists the existence of which were revealed back in January, nothing from the lists revealed in July. No word about most of the 28 who tested positive. Nothing from USADA - exculpatory or not - about NOP. Nothing nothing nothing. Just 'Lord' Coe saying that any doping allegations is an attack on 'his' sport.

I lost my innocence concerning PEDs in sport 25 years ago. But, I stupidly retained a naivete that I wasn't aware of. I thought that, if dopers and wide spread doping was revealed to the public that we'd see some positive, if reluctant, action taken by the sport's governing bodies. Even Nike cut ties with Lance, after all. Now? Nothing! If none of the stories which broke this year are followed up on by the end of the year, then, we know that the sport is no sport at all, but, merely a spectacle.

That's too bad. Because it not only spells the end of T&/F as sport, but, as spectacle as well.

322 posts and still no convincing argument as to why Radcliffe shouldn't release her blood values, after all, plenty of other high profile Brits have. Time for someone to leak me thinks.

It's already been said by knowledgable experts and journalists who have seen the list that the figures of the British athlete on the list showed a huge jump over the course of just 3-4 days and the most likely reason for this was a blood transfusion. These figures have nothing to do with the marginal increases you would see after altitude or 'legal' EPO producing methods. This is the reason why the records won't be released.

The Scot wrote:

I would also say that anyone who competes in an event where tickets are sold to the public (including marathons finishing in a ticketed stadium, or world xc) can't argue their blood values are 'private'. This could be a good angle to use should the authorities change their mind (highly unlikely of course).

Agreed, really the onus is now on the regulatory bodies/athletes to prove that they are playing by the rules. Do not marathons also recieve an certain amount of local goverment support with the policing etc? Not respecting the rules in these races would therefore also be cheating the taxpayer and technically constitutes fraud.

Expat Brit wrote:

The Scot wrote:

I would also say that anyone who competes in an event where tickets are sold to the public (including marathons finishing in a ticketed stadium, or world xc) can't argue their blood values are 'private'. This could be a good angle to use should the authorities change their mind (highly unlikely of course).

Agreed, really the onus is now on the regulatory bodies/athletes to prove that they are playing by the rules. Do not marathons also recieve an certain amount of local goverment support with the policing etc? Not respecting the rules in these races would therefore also be cheating the taxpayer and technically constitutes fraud.

By that logic civil servants and indeed all public servants should be required to make their medical records public.

No way hozay wrote:

It's already been said by knowledgable experts and journalists who have seen the list that the figures of the British athlete on the list showed a huge jump over the course of just 3-4 days and the most likely reason for this was a blood transfusion....

Do you have a link to this? (Particularly the huge jump over 3 or 4 days)?

By that logic civil servants and indeed all public servants should be required to make their medical records public.

No that is not same the logic at all.

The blood tests we are talking about were not medical tests for any disease, they were performed to check for signs of using performance enhancing drugs/blood doping; ie to check that the athlete was respecting the rules of competition and that is why they should be made public by default.

To use the civil servant anology, this is more equivalent to civil servants making their expenses claims public so that is can be seen that their expenses claims have been made within the rules. There is nothing wrong with that.

ukv40 wrote:

Expat Brit wrote:

Agreed, really the onus is now on the regulatory bodies/athletes to prove that they are playing by the rules. Do not marathons also recieve an certain amount of local goverment support with the policing etc? Not respecting the rules in these races would therefore also be cheating the taxpayer and technically constitutes fraud.

By that logic civil servants and indeed all public servants should be required to make their medical records public.

Race organisers pay the police, local government etc for the facilities that they use. There'd be no "technical" fraud, and in any event its one runner (or a few of the elites), not the 40,000 other runners.

Jeez, bobblehead is such a blatant drug cheat that I don't know why there is even a discussion of this.

She cheated, and everybody knows it.

The sport is dead, and you can thank Sleazy, Rupp, Radcliffe, Centro, and Mo.

The blood tests we are talking about were not medical tests for any disease, they were performed to check for signs of using performance enhancing drugs/blood doping; ie to check that the athlete was respecting the rules of competition and that is why they should be made public by default.

If an athlete has a big change in blood score it can be as the result of disease/pregnancy.

The athlete in question would have to publically declare that they are ill or pregnant.

The experts have already ds aid that the jump could not be explained by illness or pregnancy. There would not be such a significant change.

Actual Clean (Slow) Athlete wrote:

I think that this thread (especially rojo's post) and the "Paula's silence is DEAFENING" thread are two of the best, bravest actions (at least in leaving them up) that the brojos have ever taken, showing that even their personal heroes are not above questioning. As far as I can tell, this is the only place on the internet that is actively inquiring into this sordid affair.

Two thumbs and two big toes up on this.

I'm not sure our sport can be saved at the top level, but at least we can put up a fight from the trenches and the sidelines. If you have kids who run or coach, you should take an interest in their future by keeping these threads alive, and the pressure on.

Guess what you nose smells like toosh smoocher?

If any of the Nike athletes they hate had taken Paula's stance they would have whipped their board in to a frenzy by trolling it themselves...

Arse kissing is ugly and sad, expand your realism.

I thought I conceded that the wind was not the only factor in London. Yet it was still a factor, significant enough worth mentioning. But OK, let me restate, the London 2003 race time bias, not the tailwind, was comparable to Boston 2011.The point is that, if you think these statistics improve our ability to objectively compare, put the 2003 Paula in the wind-aided 2011 Boston race, and statistically, she would be 4 seconds slower. Taking out the average bias (something that should improve our ability to compare marathons), Paula becomes a 2:17 runner. Then it doesn't seem to be so bad, when compared to all of the other bias adjusted performances. (She's still the best though, by more than 1 minute, so the non-believers can still not believe.)Simillarly, Ryan Hall's sub-2:05 becomes something like 2:06:30, which seems to be about his best. (Not relevant to the discussion, but something that helps corroborate using race time bias to compare different races).

Avocado's Number wrote:

...

The dramatically faster times at Boston in 2011 are, as you know, generally attributed to the strong tailwind all along the point-to-point course. Although I have no reason to doubt that there may have a net tailwind at London in 2003, your statement that it helped the runners "on a scale comparable to Boston 2011" is not supported by anything that you've cited or anything that I've yet seen.

I'm not making anything up. The ARD/Sunday Times says the IAAF did nothing. These examples of "something" don't come from me. Many of these suspicious Russians and Kenyans were busted with urine. The next relevant step is to see WADA's opinion regarding the allegations.

pop_pop! wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

While that may be the point, is this point justified? Do the ARD/Sunday Times experts have complete information? For example, following up with urine testing is something, not nothing, and this wouldn't be in a blood database. The IAAF adopted and used the blood passport. They use it the most. That is something.

No. No. No. No. You just keep making stuff up.

Cycling performs many more tests, blood and urine.

Following up with urine test at any time does nothing. Zero.

If someone fails a urine test then they've failed an IQ test.

My gift to you: Secret information about anti-doping more secret than Seppelt's data disclosure:

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada-2014-annual-report-en-rev.pdf

Oh sorry, I misread that part, as something that could not be reasonably called natural.

Avocado's Number wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I wouldn't call living and training at altitude "unnatural"

I wouldn't call living and training at altitude "unnatural," either. In fact, I referred to "'natural' practices like living and training at higher elevations."

Congrats - it is a good time. You should have offered to pace the women - you would have been 50 seconds faster.

Jon Orange wrote:

rekrunner, I also ran my PB at London 2003 and I can assure you that the wind direction you see on any weather map for that day was not a reliable indicator of wind direction in the race. This is becuase much the race is run along or the near the meaders of the river Thames and when you combine this with thermals coming of buildings, you get wind swirling in all directions.

I remember the strongest headwinds coming from the south west at 15 and 25 miles and the strongest crosswind coming from the south at 13 miles. Conditions that day were good but not ideal.

Who cares with all this in-depth bias stuff. Fact 1, it was an approved course for record purposes (unlike Boston). Fact 2, she ran 2:15, (she ran it, no one else ran it for her) which no other woman, drugged or otherwise has come near, next best (drugged or otherwise) would be around a kilometer further back.

Suspicious?, yes. Unless she releases her blood values the suspicions will remain.

In another subject, Kim Smith had some blood clots. She will have to take blood thinners for the rest of her life. Just wondering....

Suspicious?, yes. wrote:

Who cares with all this in-depth bias stuff. Fact 1, it was an approved course for record purposes (unlike Boston). Fact 2, she ran 2:15, (she ran it, no one else ran it for her) which no other woman, drugged or otherwise has come near, next best (drugged or otherwise) would be around a kilometer further back.

Suspicious?, yes. Unless she releases her blood values the suspicions will remain.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm not making anything up. The ARD/Sunday Times says the IAAF did nothing. These examples of "something" don't come from me. Many of these suspicious Russians and Kenyans were busted with urine. The next relevant step is to see WADA's opinion regarding the allegations.

pop_pop! wrote:

No. No. No. No. You just keep making stuff up.

Cycling performs many more tests, blood and urine.

Following up with urine test at any time does nothing. Zero.

If someone fails a urine test then they've failed an IQ test.

My gift to you: Secret information about anti-doping more secret than Seppelt's data disclosure:

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada-2014-annual-report-en-rev.pdf

The link is now dead! Wonder why? Thank you google cache