she ran a 2:15 marathon in the same year she ran a 30:21 10K. Nobody can improve buy that much in such a short period of time.
Ian Thompson ran a 29 min 10k PB and a 2:09 marathon in the same year.
Lots of men have run 2:15 off 30 min 10k speed.
she ran a 2:15 marathon in the same year she ran a 30:21 10K. Nobody can improve buy that much in such a short period of time.
Ian Thompson ran a 29 min 10k PB and a 2:09 marathon in the same year.
Lots of men have run 2:15 off 30 min 10k speed.
There's another one from 2002 that I posted from the independent. Would like to find a more recent one but I still think that the change of stance is more to do with finding her name on a list than anything UK Athletics or WADA have said:-
I'll repost this
Here's another quote from 2002. She really was sure back then that she'd be happy for her results to be published:-
One of the blood tests was conducted at the Flora London Marathon, and Radcliffe, who is involved in setting up a new website for the International Association of Athletics Federations educating young competitors about the dangers of drug abuse, has put in a request to UK Sport to publicise the details. "I have absolutely no objection to my test being released," she said. "I would like to know it myself."
http://www.independent.co.uk/s...72526.htmlIf you haven't watched the video, I challenge anyone to go and watch it and come back thinking she's telling the truth.
It's dreadful.
Every question is talked around, everything about her demeanour looks wrong, and thats an easy comparison of you've seen her punditry.
So, so bad.
You just convinced me to watch it, and I was surprised by how convincing she was. Not sure what you saw that I didn't. And I think she is likely to have cheated.
You didn't see terror, fear?
Guilt?
I think it's beyond doubt her name is on the list and her values are screwy. The only question is is there any situation where that means she is clean? Can't see it.
If she was dirty then I think it would be in her interests just to admit it now. She isn't like Lance, she doesn't have that psychopathic shark eye stare and she isn't a bully. She has played the victim before and she could play the victim again now.
If she gave a heartfelt interview, crying frequently and emphasising how ashamed she was, I think she could win people around to her point of view. Someone who was desperate to remain clean, fought for years for clean competition but eventually was left with no option but to dope. The real villain wouldn't be her, or even the other athletes, but the corrupt pigs at the federations who have allowed this situation to develop for decades.
Jon Orange = Truth to Power wrote:
Congratulations Jon Orange, as a member of the British athletics community you are really sticking your neck out here in defending a British media darling who's threatened to sue anyone in the UK who mentions her name in relation to any of this.
Well, at least the TV interview suggest there isn't a "super injunction" in effect. In those cases, the person taking out the injunction isn't allowed to refer to the issue either.
If the issue of the super injunction are the suspicious blood values of the top British athlete, she isn't referring to them. She is just making a general statement regarding blood values.
Paula’s stance on making blood data public:
Paula Radcliffe has warned athletes against making their blood data public, insisting that the information could not prove whether someone was clean or a doper.
Radcliffe, a leading anti-doping campaigner, declared that keeping such records private was the best way to combat the scourge of drug-taking in the sport.
Allegations of systematic doping in athletics and a cover-up by the authorities this month prompted several British stars to agree to publish their blood data, including the country’s top distance runners Mo Farah and Jo Pavey. But Radcliffe, the British marathon world-record holder who retired this year after the London Marathon – a race she won three times in her career – backed the stance of the World Anti-Doping Agency which does not share this information for fear it could lead to false accusations.
“The key point is you can’t prove you are clean,” Radcliffe, 41, told the BBC. “We don’t have a foolproof, 100 per cent testing programme in place right now so we can’t prove that. In some sense, what Wada are trying to say is we don’t want this data out there in the public domain because people don’t understand it, it is very complicated.
“Something like the blood passport has taken a long, long time to get to a position where it can be properly interpreted by experts and used. It is not a test you can fail, that is important to stress. It is a tool that is used to guide more targeted testing and then can be built up to a point where the experts agree, it can be an accurate pointer to blood testing.
“I think if you put too much of that information in the public domain you risk doing a lot of things, you risk it being misunderstood and misinterpreted, you also risk putting information into the hands of people who are trying to cheat that system and who then are going to learn the information of how to manipulate and how to make sure they stay within this perfect zone and that is not what we want or what it was ever designed to do.
“We all want to do whatever we can to show we are clean. The sad thing is there is nothing in place at the moment that allows us to do that. That is why it is really important what you believe in and what you stand for because that, at the moment, is the strongest thing.”
At the IAAF World Championships -
Here is your new World Record Holder -
1. Mary Keitany, 2:18:37 (London, 2012)
Can someone tell Paula that blood is not complicated?
Having synthetic EPO in your blood is not complicated.
Having steroids in your blood is not complicated.
Having a hematocrit about 50 is not complicated.
(Also posting under my real name!)
Am I correct in saying that the original Sunday Times article made reference to a British athlete with very suspicious blood values? Values that the experts considered very unlikely to have been achieved by any means other than doping?
The name of this athlete has never been made public but is known to many journalists and officials in the "athletics bubble" - including those individuals who make up the BBC commentary team. Since the BC is funded entirely by the British public haven't those individuals got a duty to their audience (who pay their wages!!) to reveal this individual's identity? Unless the athlete concerned is going to deny the accuracy of the reading the threat of libel is surely not relevant; the media would merely be reporting a fact; that this individual did return this unusual test result. Then the explanation can be given.
At the moment it is all too much "friends together"; Paula, Crammy, Seb and Colin. The close personal ties of friendship (and in most cases Nike consultancies!!) are getting in the way of proper public sector journalism/broadcasting.
Precisely, Mark, this is something I've been saying.
I find it particularly galling that the BBC gave her that platform yesterday without putting it into proper context - ie her 2001-12 blood data.
Let's face it, if her blood scores were 'normal' as was deemed to be the case with Pavey and Mo, she would have released them.
Yesterday was a blatant case of her chums in high places rallying round in the wake of the Sunday Times articles (and probably the message boards here) in order for Paula to do a highly publicised PR job on allegations which have yet to reach the ears of the average Man in the street.
Technically the athlete was found not guilty and so their privacy is protected.
Morally, I think you could argue it either way.
If I was say a race director I feel I would like to know that someone I'm considering paying an appearance fee to has raised suspicions - maybe I might want to arrange extra testing to protect the integrity of my event.
As for the BBC I'm not sure they have a duty to reveal an 'innocent' person's name.
Right now part of me thinks they should put her on gardening leave at least. Especially after yesterday's interview video.
I've opposed the use of proven drug cheat David Millar on TV commentary which seems to put me in a small minority.
Jimbo68 wrote:
.
Let's face it, if her blood scores were 'normal' as was deemed to be the case with Pavey and Mo, she would have released them.
You are just saying things. Why would she have released her blood results if they were normal? If I was her I wouldn't.
I don't know about the personal relationships, but the commentary on the BBC by the assembled Nike sponsored ex athletes was appalling in the way itt effectively dismissed the initial stories as being of no consequence.
Interestingly to me, the way the Farah/Vernon relationship and post race incident was played down was also dreadful. No one had the courage to suggest that Farah's response was any of:- rude, arrogant, inappropriate or otherwise indicative of poor character.
I was actually really disappointed in Crammy, in particular. Hoped for better, but then that's probably just because I'm a northerner (Brit reference)
US hypocrisy wrote:
Flat Stanley wrote : Galen Rupp and all other Americans athletes have all done the same thing as Radcliffe i.e. not released their blood data. Where is the campaign to have all the US runners data published.
Agreed. The silence from Galen Rupp and all the other US athletes is, what's the word, DEAFENING.
No doubt the US fans will be cheering for twice convicted drug cheat Gatlin.
US wins gold for hypocrisy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock the entire summer?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. Which US athletes have released their blood data during the "entire summer".
The Sunday Times now has 13 athletes in total and also I just went there and it has fly over tips with the exact dates of the tests including Mo's which must be new?
Flat Stanley wrote :
Galen Rupp and all other Americans athletes have all done the same thing as Radcliffe i.e. not released their blood data. Where is the campaign to have all the US runners data published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are still waiting Galen. What are you afraid of.
Interesting article in retrospect From The Independent in 2002:
Second last paragraph. Paula Radcliffe put in a request for UK Sports to publicise her blood test results. Not just happy for her results to be made public but actively lobbied for it.
Times have changed.
Irish gymnast shows you can have sex in the "anti-sex" cardboard beds in the Olympic village (video)
Finishing a mountain stage in the Tour De France vs running a marathon: Which is harder?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Per sources, Colorado expected to hire NAU assistant coach Jarred Cornfield as head xc coach
George Mills' dad: "Watching athletics is the worst on the planet."
Serious question: Does anyone think Kamala Harris can actually win? Seems very unlikely to me...