Leaked IAAf report on doping

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:17PM

I'd love anyone to break down why 135 mins to run 26 miles is somehow too good to believe. This us the performance that has everyone so very suspicious.

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-09-2015 11:17PM

walshb wrote: »

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

Roughly what is the percentage of now known dopers who have ?
It is widely accepted that the testing procedure over the years have always been a step behind them. So what was the failure rate of the testing ? So we can assume there are many who got away with it.

Add the two, and it must be a pretty significant group.

Meaning medal winners are more likely dopers than not.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:19PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Roughly what is the percentage of now known dopers who have ?
It is widely accepted that the testing procedure over the years have always been a step behind them. So what was the failure rate of the testing ? So we can assume there are many who got away with it.

Add the two, and it must be a pretty significant group.

Meaning medal winners are more likely dopers than not.

Oh, so it's now 'more likely'......

Do you believe clean athletes can produce WRs?

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-09-2015 11:21PM

walshb wrote: »

I'd love anyone to break down why 135 mins to run 26 miles is somehow too good to believe. This us the performance that has everyone so very suspicious.

1) She is 3 minutes faster than the next best.
2) She is white.
3) How much faster is she than the next best white woman ?

STB. · 08-09-2015 11:22PM

Notwork Error wrote: »

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

After 14 years of inaction by sporting and regulatory bodies. Despite damning witness testimonials and failed tests going back years. And that was a team sport!

Until lifetime bans are handed out, one cannot believe that the risks outway the temptation. Justin Gatlin is hardly a posterboy for the sport.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:23PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

1) She is 3 minutes faster than the next best.
2) She is white.
3) How much faster is she than the next best white woman ?

So what drugs was she using to give her such a clear advantage? Surely by your logic if most are cheats we'd see very close times? What has skin colour got to do with it? And, were black athletes not using drugs to keep up with the white cheater? I assume you believe that they are inherently faster? If so, why so far behind? They all chose not to dope?

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-09-2015 11:27PM

walshb wrote: »

So what drugs was she using to give her such a clear advantage? Surely by your logic if most are cheats we'd see very close times? What gas skin colour got to do with it?

Everything. Its the smoking gun.
Africans are better runner than caucasians. You might legitimately see a few in the mix with the Africans, but not at the top. But leaving them for dead ? It was terrible mistake by Radcliffe to post that time. Two smoking guns cannot be ignored.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:30PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Everything. Its the smoking gun.
Africans are better runner than caucasians. You might legitimately see a few in the mix with the Africans, but not at the top. But leaving them for dead ? It was terrible mistake by Radcliffe to post that time. Two smoking guns cannot be ignored.

Can you answer why an inferior white runner was so far ahead of black runners? Surely you're not going to make out that it was because the black athletes were not doping, as well as the white athlete being on some seriously strong gear?

STB. · 08-09-2015 11:30PM

walshb wrote: »

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

Dopers do win medals and get away with it.

Like I said you do need to open your mind to this fact. Dont pretend it is not rampant.

menoscemo · 08-09-2015 11:30PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

3) How much faster is she than the next best white woman ?

Well the next fastest woman was also white, but her times are now expunged

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:33PM

STB. wrote: »

Dopers do win medals and get away with it.

Like I said you do need to open your mind to this fact. Dont pretend it is not rampant.

Who said otherwise? Clean athletes also win medals, but seeing as it's impossible to prove your clean, let's just call them dopers?

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-09-2015 11:36PM

walshb wrote: »

Who said otherwise? Clean athletes also win medals, but seeing as it's impossible to prove your clean, let's just call them dopers?

Just probable dopers.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:38PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Just probable dopers.

Let's cut them a little slack, possible dopers?

Is there any true greats that you believe were clean and fair?

STB. · 08-09-2015 11:41PM

walshb wrote: »

Who said otherwise? Clean athletes also win medals, but seeing as it's impossible to prove your clean, let's just call them dopers?

You said otherwise.

You are an apologist.

I have no such time for drugs cheats, probable or otherwise. Lets call em that.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:41PM

STB. wrote: »

Dopers do win medals and get away with it.

Like I said you do need to open your mind to this fact. Dont pretend it is not rampant.

I assume you have stats to back up your claim that doping amongst medal winning athletes is rampant? Rampant to me implies a very high percentage of medal winners are cheats.

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-09-2015 11:44PM

walshb wrote: »

Is there any true greats that you believe were clean and fair?

Owens.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:45PM

STB. wrote: »

You said otherwise.

You are an apologist.

I have no such time for drugs cheats, probable or otherwise. Lets call em that.

I did not say otherwise. Apologising for athletes with no doping sanctions against them? Silly me.

To be clear. I am not foolish enough to believe that every medal winning athlete in history that never had a doping conviction against them is therefore clean. It is not a perfect system. Some get away with it.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:45PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Owens.

That it?

STB. · 08-09-2015 11:47PM

walshb wrote: »

I assume you have stats to back up your claim that doping amongst medal winning athletes is rampant? Rampant to me implies a very high percentage of medal winners are cheats.

If you want a debate i suggest you join a debating society. Stats cannot change your mindset.

walshb · 08-09-2015 11:48PM

STB. wrote: »

If you want a debate i suggest you join a debating society. Stats cannot change your mindset.

So you have nothing. Grand. Put it down to a hunch. I'd go with that.

ThisRegard · 08-09-2015 11:56PM

walshb wrote: »

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

This gives me a laugh though, she's also singing from the same hymn sheet. (and so there's no doubt, I've never claimed she's a cheat, but it's looking sketchy for her)

STB. · 08-09-2015 11:58PM

walshb wrote: »

So you have nothing. Grand. Put it down to a hunch. I'd go with that.

I am not here for your entertainment. At first i put your defensive posts down to naivety, but it may be just ignorance.

Doping stories in the sport are nothing new. Google is your friend.

walshb · 09-09-2015 12:03AM

STB. wrote: »

I am not here for your entertainment. At first i put your defensive posts down to naivety, but it may be just ignorance.

Doping stories in the sport are nothing new. Google is your friend.

Grand. Then don't engage me. In case you hadn't noticed this is a forum for topics and discussion and debate. No need for me to join a debating society, though you may be in the wrong place seeing as you're reluctant to discuss/debate. That's fine. Your right. Just quit teasing me ☺️

walshb · 09-09-2015 12:05AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

This gives me a laugh though, she's also singing from the same hymn sheet. (and so there's no doubt, I've never claimed she's a cheat, but it's looking sketchy for her)

Hymn sheets aren't always the same. I never got a sincere vibe from LA. I get it from Paula.

menoscemo · 09-09-2015 12:28AM

Notwork Error wrote: »

Bending context there slightly? Ashenden was talking about the leaked files in General and not a single case at the time as he had already stated previous to this hearing.

Either way, I'll wait for the full transcripts.

Well the telegraph are reporting it that he was specifically speaking about her values....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11852423/Paula-Radcliffe-defends-herself-against-claims-of-doping-but-does-it-stand-up-to-scrutiny.html

wrote:

According anti-doping experts employed by The Sunday Times, who analysed the leaked IAAF data, on three occasions during Radcliffe’s career her test results were so “abnormal” that it is claimed there was only a one-in-1,000 chance that they were natural. The newspaper claimed that, of nearly 500 tests on British athletes between 2001 and 2012, Radcliffe produced the highest score above the threshold. To allay any suggestion that her blood values were always naturally higher than most, the newspaper said her results varied by as much as 47 per cent.

MD1990 · 09-09-2015 12:48AM

To just assume an athlete is clean because they never tested positive is naive. It is probably unfair but u really can't be 100% sure of any athlete being clean. Anyone athlete with any dodgy connections I would be suspicious of.

Notwork Error · 09-09-2015 12:59AM

menoscemo wrote: »

Well the telegraph are reporting it that he was specifically speaking about her values....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11852423/Paula-Radcliffe-defends-herself-against-claims-of-doping-but-does-it-stand-up-to-scrutiny.html

The post I quoted today was what Ashenden said at the hearing and that was a General comment about the files and was reported as just that.

I hadn't seen that which is why I said I'd wait. I don't know anything about haemotology and the reason for elevated blood values and the mechanisms of the testing procedures so I leave that to the experts.

Itziger · 09-09-2015 06:39AM

menoscemo wrote: »

Well the telegraph are reporting it that he was specifically speaking about her values....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11852423/Paula-Radcliffe-defends-herself-against-claims-of-doping-but-does-it-stand-up-to-scrutiny.html

Ouch on some of the numbers there folks.

Together with how she's responded to this saga in the last few months.......

Not looking good. As to how she got so far ahead of the others..... some dopers, some not one supposes.... I'd go with brilliant preparation and incredible attention to detail. It's all the little things add up at that level.

This story ain't over, that's for sure.

STB. · 09-09-2015 07:47AM

Looks like UK atlethics have been sitting on this for some time, which might explain the leaking of the IAAF report.

Linford Christie all over again.

LuckyLloyd · 09-09-2015 07:48AM

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.

This post is so naive.

Leaked IAAf report on doping

Comments