Leaked IAAf report on doping

menoscemo · 08-09-2015 08:54PM

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

99% of the general public will pay little or no heed to this in the long term unless there is irrefutable evidence and at the moment that is missing.

That's certainly true of the general UK public if her twitter and UK forums are anything to go by, but I wonder what they think in Russia, China or Kenya?

robinph · 08-09-2015 10:05PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I think, as notwork suggested, that he was talking in a general sense, could be wrong, won't know properly until the transcript comes out.

Interesting though that a couple of the participants of the hearing have rejected any notion that they implicated Radcliffe or anybody else and have actually criticised her insistence that members hid behind 'the cloak of parliamentary privellige'

Think that proves that the minister for Culture Media and Sport doesn't know what he's talking about if he thinks saying a British London Marathon winner is vague enough to not be obvious he's talking about Radcliffe.

shels4ever · 08-09-2015 10:12PM

robinph wrote: »

Think that proves that the minister for Culture Media and Sport doesn't know what he's talking about if he thinks saying a British London Marathon winner is vague enough to not be obvious he's talking about Radcliffe.

Either her or Eamon Martin is losing a lot of sleep now

walshb · 08-09-2015 10:40PM

If Radcliffe does turn out to be a cheater based on actual evidence then I'd jail her. After that 'stunt' she pulled with the placard back in 2001 I think it was, jail would be the only punishment....

STB. · 08-09-2015 10:45PM

walshb wrote: »

Exactly, hence why Paula snd other greats can do no right with this mentality. Ludicrous semantics that we could apply to anything. I will take a sensible and logical and fair approach. Until evidence of doping/cheating arises then athletes are clean. Btw, there is officially clean. It applies to non dope convicted athletes.

You need to get your head out of the sand. Its a very apologetic stance otherwise.
Those analysing reticulocytes, hemocrit and hemoglobin levels know exactly what is going on.

You seem to believe that unless an athlete is pysically caught with epo paraphenalia or admits that they are a doper, then that you must believe it is not happening.

When athletes start using the environment the tests were taken in, you know where the story is going,

Stheno · 08-09-2015 10:46PM

STB. wrote: »

You need to get your head out of the sand. Its a very apologetic stance otherwise.
Those analysing reticulocytes, hemocrit and hemoglobin levels know exactly what is going on.

You seem to believe that unless an athlete is pysically caught with epo paraphenalia or admits that they are a doper, then that you must believe it is not happening.

I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, but if Radcliffe is ever proven to have doped, I will be truly shocked.

downthemiddle · 08-09-2015 10:46PM

walshb wrote: »

If Radcliffe does turn out to be a cheater based on actual evidence then I'd jail her. After that 'stunt' she pulled with the placard back in 2001 I think it was, jail would be the only punishment....

Good man. The voice of reason as usual.

TRR_the_turd · 08-09-2015 10:49PM

walshb wrote: »

If Radcliffe does turn out to be a cheater based on actual evidence then I'd jail her. After that 'stunt' she pulled with the placard back in 2001 I think it was, jail would be the only punishment....

Fcuk it. I think she should be shot!

walshb · 08-09-2015 10:50PM

downthemiddle wrote: »

Good man. The voice of reason as usual.

Cheers, man. Someone has to make sense of this nonsense! That doesn't sound right, but anyway.

walshb · 08-09-2015 10:51PM

downthemiddle wrote: »

Good man. The voice of reason as usual.

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

Fcuk it. I think she should be shot!

Bit OTT that, but I catch your drift.

walshb · 08-09-2015 10:53PM

STB. wrote: »

You need to get your head out of the sand. Its a very apologetic stance otherwise.
Those analysing reticulocytes, hemocrit and hemoglobin levels know exactly what is going on.

You seem to believe that unless an athlete is pysically caught with epo paraphenalia or admits that they are a doper, then that you must believe it is not happening.

When athletes start using the environment the tests were taken in, you know where the story is going,

You need to read up. The investigation is not proof of cheating. Did you miss that part? And, regarding Paula, can you point to solid evidence that she cheated?

menoscemo · 08-09-2015 10:59PM

Stheno wrote: »

I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, but if Radcliffe is ever proven to have doped, I will be truly shocked.

Why?
No-one has ever got within 3 minutes of her WR and the ones that got closest are convicted dopers!!

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-09-2015 11:00PM

Stheno wrote: »

I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, but if Radcliffe is ever proven to have doped, I will be truly shocked.

Is that because you dont believe she doped, or you think she did but its so well managed on the athletes side and/or the authorities are happy to keep things under wraps for her that she is getting away with it (for the moment) ?

For me, the only sensible view to take is that any world class athlete from the last 40 years probably doped. Some may not have. But predominantly, they did, especially the winners and placers.

Stheno · 08-09-2015 11:02PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Why?
No-one has ever got within 3 minutes of her WR and the ones that got closest are convicted dopers!!

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Is that because you dont believe she doped, or you think its so well managed on the athletes side and/or the authorities are happy to keep things under wraps for her ?

For me, the only sensible view to take is that any world class athlete from the last 40 years probably doped. Some may not have. But predominantly, they did, especially the winners and placers.

It's me just being a bit head in the sands tbh. Find it hard to believe that with all of her campaigning over the years that she may be found to have doped.

It's the hypocripsy of it if that makes sense?

downthemiddle · 08-09-2015 11:03PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Is that because you dont believe she doped, or you think she did but its so well managed on the athletes side and/or the authorities are happy to keep things under wraps for her that she is getting away with it (for the moment) ?

For me, the only sensible view to take is that any world class athlete from the last 40 years probably doped. Some may not have. But predominantly, they did, especially the winners and placers.

If this is your sensible view I dread to think what you regard as nonsense.

STB. · 08-09-2015 11:03PM

Stheno wrote: »

I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, but if Radcliffe is ever proven to have doped, I will be truly shocked.

What exactly is proof these days. Highly irregular blood passports or retrospective testing with more up to date methods only ever cast doubt.

Sports enthuasiasts can only remain doubtful until proper thresholds,, monitoring and enforcement and penalties are in place for cheats. Fool me once........

What did it take for armstrong to be stripped of his accolades ? His own admission. The charts, witnesses etc was not enough.

downthemiddle · 08-09-2015 11:04PM

Stheno wrote: »

It's me just being a bit head in the sands tbh. Find it hard to believe that with all of her campaigning over the years that she may be found to have doped.

It's the hypocripsy of it if that makes sense?

Two words - Lance Armstrong.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:04PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Why?
No-one has ever got within 3 minutes of her WR and the ones that got closest are convicted dopers!!

Does this itself not puzzle you? What drugs did she take to be so far ahead of the field, some who were using? You could apply this to many other greats. Bolt's WR is far ahead of convicted dopers. Is it not possible that he is clean?

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-09-2015 11:05PM

downthemiddle wrote: »

If this is your sensible view I dread to think what you regard as nonsense.

That there were clean athletes winning Olympic and World Championship medals in athletics. Now that would be laughable.

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-09-2015 11:06PM

walshb wrote: »

Bolt's WR is far ahead of convicted dopers. Is it not possible that he is clean?

Its possible. But so unlikely that its not worth considering seriously.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:06PM

downthemiddle wrote: »

Two words - Lance Armstrong.

Personalities not come into it? Not everyone is LA. LA never convinced me by his talk and personality. Arrogant swagger about that man

STB. · 08-09-2015 11:06PM

walshb wrote: »

You need to read up.

I dont actually.

Notwork Error · 08-09-2015 11:07PM

STB. wrote: »

What exactly is proof these days. Highly irregular blood passports or retrospective testing with more up to date methods only ever cast doubt.

Sports enthuasiasts can only remain doubtful until proper thresholds,, monitoring and enforcement and penalties are in place for cheats. Fool me once........

What did it take for armstrong to be stripped of his accolades ? His own admission. The charts, witnesses etc was not enough.

Lance was stripped of his titles and banned 5 months before he admitted it. The evidence convicted him.

menoscemo · 08-09-2015 11:07PM

Interesting post from Steve Magness https://www.facebook.com/stephenmagness/posts/10100283829699831?_rdr=p. She has dug her own hole on this one....

SteveMagness wrote:

A few thoughts on the Paula Radcliffe situation:

We all know that external factors can impact any blood parameter. How much so is up for scientific research and experts to determine. Of course there is a level of inspection and variance that we all have to realize.

However, with Radcliffe what doesn't sit well with me is the way she went about it. When approached before the Sunday Times piece broke, she threatened lawsuits if they mentioned her name and remarked that they wouldn't get their money back like they did in the Armstrong situation.

Further than that, she had her lawyers threaten lawsuits to any journalist who revealed that her name was on the list.

At the very same time, she was initially stating that the names on the list should be released!

The hypocrisy is quite concerning but it only got worse. Once the 2nd Sunday Times story broke about the detailed list of names AND values, she changed her tune in public stating that the names should not be released to anyone.

It took until her back was against the wall when British parliament officials hinted at her being on the list that she finally came forward.

If the science and external circumstances really showed that her test results did not show doping, why not hand it over to as many experts as possible, explain the situation and have them all determine it. Let the research dictate the results.

Secondly, for someone who has been outspoken her whole career, it's very disapointing that when the tables are turned she clams up. What this shows, is it's not about the sport at all, it's about image. If it's about the betterment of the sport, and you know the results will come out eventually, you don't threaten lawsuits, you go with openness.

Perhaps the lesson to take away is it's easy to demand honesty and openness when the situation fits, but more difficult to demand when the results don't fit your narrative.

I have no idea if she is clean or not. I don't know about the abnormal tests beyond what is written and will leave that for the expert scientists to decide. Whether the 3 abnormal tests are confirmed or not, what is telling is the reaction to the whole endeavor.

Always go with openness. Be transparent, even if the results don't show exactly what you want. It's transparency at all times, not just when it's convenient, that matters.

Stheno · 08-09-2015 11:09PM

downthemiddle wrote: »

Two words - Lance Armstrong.

See I never believed he was clean whereas with Radcliffe I would have held her up as an example.

I'd tend to view Jess Ennis Hill as a clean athlethe as well.

Perhaps I'm just naive.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:10PM

STB. wrote: »

I dont actually.

You do as regards your reply to me. My head is in no sand.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:11PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Its possible. But so unlikely that its not worth considering seriously.

Nonsense. Your whole view seems to be that only dopers can win medals and set records. Ludicrous.

neilc · 08-09-2015 11:12PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Why?
No-one has ever got within 3 minutes of her WR and the ones that got closest are convicted dopers!!

Long before this latest episode, for me this is the most glaring reason for suspicion.

robinph · 08-09-2015 11:13PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Why?
No-one has ever got within 3 minutes of her WR and the ones that got closest are convicted dopers!!

Was everyone else just not reading the instructions on the bottle of EPO correctly for them to be taking drugs and still be half a mile behind? Was she on some new drug that nobody else has still managed to get their hands on? Is she a freak of nature?

Freak of nature is the most likely explanation based on what we know. Beating convicted drug cheats by such a significant margin doesn't prove cheating. It does prove that everyone else isn't trying hard enough though at either legal or illegal methods.

Stheno · 08-09-2015 11:15PM

robinph wrote: »

Freak of nature is the most likely explanation based on what we know. Beating convicted drug cheats by such a significant margin doesn't prove cheating. It does prove that everyone else isn't trying hard enough though at either legal or illegal methods.

That's probably my line of thinking put better above

Leaked IAAf report on doping

Comments