Leaked IAAf report on doping

walshb · 09-09-2015 11:41AM

I don't think the LJ record is the best example to use. Maybe there have been many long long jumps around the 60s and 70s, or even before that were never measured due to the athlete fouling by a cm or less here or there.

Chivito550 · 09-09-2015 11:50AM

walshb wrote: »

I don't think the LJ record is the best example to use. Maybe there have been many long long jumps around the 60s and 70s, or even before that were never measured due to the athlete fouling by a cm or less here or there.

Ah will ya get out of it. Some 8:10 jumper, went 8:70 back in the 70s, but stepped over by 1cm, yet would never be able to replicate it when 5cm behind the board. Sure.

I'm generally on your side in this current discussion regarding Radcliffe. Stop making it hard for me with such ridiculous comments like the above.

walshb · 09-09-2015 11:54AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Ah will ya get out of it. Some 8:10 jumper, went 8:70 back in the 70s, but stepped over by 1cm, yet would never be able to replicate it when 5cm behind the board. Sure.

I'm generally on your side in this current discussion regarding Radcliffe. Stop making it hard for me with such ridiculous comments like the above.

I was simply meaning that with the skill element of timing and hitting the board I don't think Bob's example is the best to use when comparing to Paula's marathon record. That's all. Sorry to highlight this....Otherwise you are fighting the cause, friend!:)

Chivito550 · 09-09-2015 11:56AM

walshb wrote: »

I was simply meaning that with the skill element of timing and hitting the board I don't think Bob's example is thre best to use when comparing to Paula's marathon record. That's all. Sorry to highlight this....Otherwise you are fighting the cause, friend!:)

Beamon in Mexico City is an enormous outlier, not only in his event, but also within himself. His second longest jump was 55cm shorter. Imagine Greg Rutherford's second longest jump being 7.96m. That's the type of outlier we are talking about here.

Clearlier · 09-09-2015 11:58AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

How far was Bob Beamon ahead of the rest for so long? Even now he is second of all time, 47 years on, and ahead of Carl Lewis, who is considered dodgy at the least. That's the biggest outlier we've probably ever seen. It's easy to write off an outlier as doping. Looking closer can make things more plausible. In Beamons case the altitude was an enormous factor.

I'm not saying Radcliffe was clean or dirty, merely that being an outlier is not evidence of doping.

Obviously you're correct that there aren't any circumstances where the fact of being an outlier is direct evidence of doping. It is a reason to have suspicions though.

I've always bought Radcliffe's story, good to very good at a young age followed by a lifetime of fairly slow and steady progress to reach the elite levels allied to her outspoken opposition to Yegerova and her support for freezing samples to be tested at a later date all lead me to a place where I don't think that she doped.

This is a big mess though and I'd be stupid not to have additional doubts. When you don't understand everything there's a tendency to focus on what you do understand and make a judgement call based on that which I'm trying to resist at the moment. I'd be a lot more comfortable if she did make all of her blood values available and did practice the openness and transparency advocated by Magness.

shels4ever · 09-09-2015 12:43PM

robinph wrote: »

You'd probably find that he'd been paced by cyclists on a down hill tail wind course like Boston in a very good year.

Is Ryan Halls time from Boston 2011 evidence of doping, or is it evidence of perfect conditions enabling him to run 2 minutes quicker than he had previously?
Paula Radcliffes 2:15 is evidence of perfect conditions and pacing. Her 2:17 times are only 40 seconds ahead of the next fastest time, or a minute ahead of the next fastest non-doped* time.

*allegedly

For Hall its clear evidences for the reason that Boston is not a legal course for records. Totally agree with her next best time are not as far a head, I always wonders that when Mary kitney went out at WR pace is she had men around her at the time would she have paced it better.

demfad · 09-09-2015 03:40PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

If you consider Radcliffe a 1:59 runner then you must also consider Deena Kastor a 2:03 runner. If you think Radcliffe's time is worth 2:01, then you need to accept Kastor was a 2:05 standard athlete. Do you believe Kastor was this calibre of athlete?

The next best "clean" time is Mary Keitany's, followed by N'dereba, Jeptoo etc. They are of that calibre. Many men have ran sub 2:05, then yes, at least Keitany is of that standard and the other two at least. Thats assuming that chasing group are equivalent of 2 mins on the equivalent mens group puts Radcliffe's time as equiv 2:01.xx at the very slowest.

(if Hall is sub 2:04.xx then Kastor is sub 2:05.xx, sure)

Chivito550 · 09-09-2015 03:47PM

demfad wrote: »

The next best "clean" time is Mary Keitany's, followed by N'dereba, Jeptoo etc. They are of that calibre. Many men have ran sub 2:05, then yes, at least Keitany is of that standard and the other two at least.

(if Hall is sub 2:04.xx then Kastor is sub 2:05.xx, sure)

I personally don't consider Kastor at that level, and for me, the fact she is so high up the all time list, says that the standard of women's marathon running is not as high as it could be. I guess in 10 years time once the Dibabas, Ayana and Defar among others have fully tackled the marathon, we will get a better feel for it.

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 08:16AM

http://m.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34204775

Hmmmm..... For me, you can't talk about transparency on one hand and obfuscate on the other hand...

average_runner · 10-09-2015 09:04AM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

http://m.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34204775

Hmmmm..... For me, you can't talk about transparency on one hand and obfuscate on the other hand...

Well if we are going down the route of asking her to show her blood results, why don't we go down the route and ensure all blood results from all athletes be made public from here in. I am not saying this is something I like to see, just saying

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 09:39AM

average_runner wrote: »

Well if we are going down the route of asking her to show her blood results, why don't we go down the route and ensure all blood results from all athletes be made public from here in. I am not saying this is something I like to see, just saying

I agree, I'm not saying they should necessarily be public and she is under no obligation to make them so BUT if somebody continually talks about issues like transparency and makes a point of talking about freezing samples etc then decides act in a contrary way to her previous protestations I'd be inclined to reason that the person only wants to be seen to be transparent etc...

robinph · 10-09-2015 09:40AM

Video of the MP asking the question that kicked of the current round:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/09/paula-radcliffe-doping-allegations-jesse-norman-media-blame

He's clearly an idiot if he thought that question was not directly referencing Radcliffe.

pconn062 · 10-09-2015 09:45AM

NIMAN wrote: »

Doping is now so common place in athletics, maybe we should just stop testing and let them all dope as much as they want?

The reputation of the sport is now in tatters, with every single athlete now being a suspect, no matter how strongly they proclaim their innocence.

Take the biggest event in athletics, the men's 100m. Of the ten fastest athletes ever, 9 have failed drugs tests. And many have doubts about the guy who has never failed one.

It's getting hard now for anyone to take any time or distance achieved with no questioning. It's gone too far and all these efforts to try to curb doping aren't working. Lifetime bans are the only way I can see an improvement, caught doping? You're out!

You can replace the word athletics in your first line there with any sport or maybe just "sport". Sport has a doping issue and not even just sports that are full of money, look at that GAA lad that was banned for doping earlier this year, he's hardly a once off is he??

menoscemo · 10-09-2015 09:46AM

robinph wrote: »

Video of the MP asking the question that kicked of the current round:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/09/paula-radcliffe-doping-allegations-jesse-norman-media-blame

He's clearly an idiot if he thought that question was not directly referencing Radcliffe.

I don't get it. It was going to come out anyway. Every person who had any interest in who the mystery Athlete was knew it was her.

PR's Statement had clearly been prepared in advance. It's not like she rushed into putting it together after his question; yer man is just a scapegoat.

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 09:50AM

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't get it. It was going to come out anyway. Every person who had any interest in who the mystery Athlete was knew it was her.

PR's Statement had clearly been prepared in advance. It's not like she rushed into putting it together after his question; yer man is just a scapegoat.

But you can try and wrestle back control of the story by claiming victim status and trying to discredit the messengers

robinph · 10-09-2015 10:10AM

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't get it. It was going to come out anyway. Every person who had any interest in who the mystery Athlete was knew it was her.

PR's Statement had clearly been prepared in advance. It's not like she rushed into putting it together after his question; yer man is just a scapegoat.

Yep, it was going to come out eventually. The politician is hiding behind the parliamentary privilege thing, nobody has come out publicly to suggest that Radcliffe may have been doping (except for anonymous people on the interweb). The politician cannot be sued for liable though due to where he said what he said, he is an idiot that he claims to have been speaking in vague terms and should not be on the sport committee if he doesn't know that what he said can only be taken to mean Radcliffe.

The strange bit for me is that the Sunday Times are not even confident over their analysis, if they were sure that the 1 in 1000 numbers were accurate then they would have published her name. They were not confident on that so made the original story about that the IAAF may not have followed up on odd results sufficiently.

The story then got picked up about the "prominent British athlete" and the rumour mill started churning. There was a Times journalist doing a segment on NewsNight last night about the reports. He said he believed Radcliffe. The papers lawyers obviously are not convinced there is anything to answer by her or they would have printed. No athlete or anyone else involved in the sport has come out suggesting any queries over Radcliffe.

Yes there are results that are out of expected current ranges, nobody is denying that. That data was looked at and dealt with back in the day. Nothing was found to be out of order. The current testing systems have been changed and would not be done in the same manner as in 2003.

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 10:23AM

robinph wrote: »

Yep, it was going to come out eventually. The politician is hiding behind the parliamentary privilege thing, nobody has come out publicly to suggest that Radcliffe may have been doping (except for anonymous people on the interweb). The politician cannot be sued for liable though due to where he said what he said, he is an idiot that he claims to have been speaking in vague terms and should not be on the sport committee if he doesn't know that what he said can only be taken to mean Radcliffe.

The strange bit for me is that the Sunday Times are not even confident over their analysis, if they were sure that the 1 in 1000 numbers were accurate then they would have published her name. They were not confident on that so made the original story about that the IAAF may not have followed up on odd results sufficiently.

The story then got picked up about the "prominent British athlete" and the rumour mill started churning. There was a Times journalist doing a segment on NewsNight last night about the reports. He said he believed Radcliffe. The papers lawyers obviously are not convinced there is anything to answer by her or they would have printed. No athlete or anyone else involved in the sport has come out suggesting any queries over Radcliffe.

Yes there are results that are out of expected current ranges, nobody is denying that. That data was looked at and dealt with back in the day. Nothing was found to be out of order. The current testing systems have been changed and would not be done in the same manner as in 2003.

But didn't UKAD look for the data and say they'd investigate after the hearing the other day? If so they should get to the bottom of it. Governing bodies are a joke when it comes to anti doping.

menoscemo · 10-09-2015 10:32AM

robinph wrote: »

Yep, it was going to come out eventually. The politician is hiding behind the parliamentary privilege thing, nobody has come out publicly to suggest that Radcliffe may have been doping (except for anonymous people on the interweb). The politician cannot be sued for liable though due to where he said what he said, he is an idiot that he claims to have been speaking in vague terms and should not be on the sport committee if he doesn't know that what he said can only be taken to mean Radcliffe.

The strange bit for me is that the Sunday Times are not even confident over their analysis, if they were sure that the 1 in 1000 numbers were accurate then they would have published her name. They were not confident on that so made the original story about that the IAAF may not have followed up on odd results sufficiently.

The story then got picked up about the "prominent British athlete" and the rumour mill started churning. There was a Times journalist doing a segment on NewsNight last night about the reports. He said he believed Radcliffe. The papers lawyers obviously are not convinced there is anything to answer by her or they would have printed. No athlete or anyone else involved in the sport has come out suggesting any queries over Radcliffe.

Yes there are results that are out of expected current ranges, nobody is denying that. That data was looked at and dealt with back in the day. Nothing was found to be out of order. The current testing systems have been changed and would not be done in the same manner as in 2003.

I don't buy that at all. The IAAF guy who leaked the info specifically asked that nobody be named. PR threatened to sue if her name was linked to the story. They couldn't just come out and say she was doping as that would likely not stand up due to technicalities. However now that she has named herself and took a swipe at the ST I fully expect them to come back with a lot more info this weekend.

Myles Splitz · 10-09-2015 10:42AM

The aforementioned committee discussion with Ashenden

robinph · 10-09-2015 10:48AM

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't buy that at all. The IAAF guy who leaked the info specifically asked that nobody be named. PR threatened to sue if her name was linked to the story. They couldn't just come out and say she was doping as that would likely not stand up due to technicalities. However now that she has named herself and took a swipe at the ST I fully expect them to come back with a lot more info this weekend.

They are going to need to have more than just quoting "leading anti-doping scientists" credentials/ opinions back and forth which is really all there has been so far between the Sunday Times and the IAAF.

If they have more data then we obviously want to see that now. I don't get the impression that there is anything more out there other than arguing over "my scientist is better than your scientist" type carry on.

NIMAN · 10-09-2015 10:52AM

I have no doubt there is doping in all sport at the top-level. My own favoured sport, soccer, is probably rife with it, the testing is awful.

There are plenty of stories aroind European soccer over the years that certainly point to doping at the top of the game.

Chivito550 · 10-09-2015 10:56AM

pconn062 wrote: »

You can replace the word athletics in your first line there with any sport or maybe just "sport". Sport has a doping issue and not even just sports that are full of money, look at that GAA lad that was banned for doping earlier this year, he's hardly a once off is he??

+1. While I don't believe doping is widespread in GAA, there's a certain big sporting event taking place in England starting soon which will have no journalists asking difficult questions, and all spectators assuming what they see is 100% pure, despite the fact that 75% of all current banned sportspeople in the UK being from rugby (union and league).

ThisRegard · 10-09-2015 11:07AM

You mean the rugby world cup. And no, not all spectators assume it's 100% pure. Even the guys on the rugby forum here don't believe that, and there's a recent thread on it.

Chivito550 · 10-09-2015 11:12AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

You mean the rugby world cup. And no, not all spectators assume it's 100% pure. Even the guys on the rugby forum here don't believe that, and there's a recent thread on it.

The general public I mean. The guys involved in the sport would be more clued in to what goes on alright.

But you won't see threads descending into doping speculation on their forum during the RWC, despite it being clear that doping is just as rife, if not more so.

Sure remember the response Kimmage got when he dared to question the sport.

At least rugby is not too big to not be able to go after. Football on the other hand will always be protected. Operation Puerto showed us that. The biggest frauds in the history of sport arguably are being hailed as the greatest of all teams.

ThisRegard · 10-09-2015 11:46AM

I'm not so sure. One of the French clubs, Toulon, was implicated in a pharmaceutical scandal only this week, although it's argued that it's not doping but rather a financial scam, with the paper sticking to their story that is it's not just a financial issue.

There's also an active and big thread over there along the lines of Doping in rugby is as bad a cycling, this seems to be where all doping posts end up.

But I agree on the soccer thing, it's pretty much hush hush when it comes to that sport when it comes to the authorities, but again a lot of fans aren't blind to the fact these days.

mikedoherty99 · 10-09-2015 01:10PM

David Walsh is apparently doing a piece on Sunday so maybe that will clarify matters
My own view on recent events is that she is a phoney and she won't publicize the data because it is highly irregular
I had always assumed she was a clean athlete

youngrun · 10-09-2015 01:14PM

mikedoherty99 wrote: »

David Walsh is apparently doing a piece on Sunday so maybe that will clarify matters
My own view on recent events is that she is a phoney and she won't publicize the data because it is highly irregular
I had always assumed she was a clean athlete

So much speculation and no evidence ?

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 01:35PM

youngrun wrote: »

So much speculation and no evidence ?

Well in the absence of the data being released people will have to weigh up what is in the public domain and form their own opinion.

Personally I feel radcliffes behaviour is not consistent with a genuinely innocent party. Super injunction or not we know she threatened to sue if her name was mentioned, why would somebody do that if they had nothing to hide? All it did was allow a swirl of conjecture and maybe buy some time....

average_runner · 10-09-2015 01:42PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Well in the absence of the data being released people will have to weigh up what is in the public domain and form their own opinion.

Personally I feel radcliffes behaviour is not consistent with a genuinely innocent party. Super injunction or not we know she threatened to sue if her name was mentioned, why would somebody do that if they had nothing to hide? All it did was allow a swirl of conjecture and maybe buy some time....

But based on the evidence, there is nothing there to prove she is guilty.
Now she is innocent till someone shows evidence stating otherwise, and this evidence does not exist.

Chivito550 · 10-09-2015 01:46PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Well in the absence of the data being released people will have to weigh up what is in the public domain and form their own opinion.

Personally I feel radcliffes behaviour is not consistent with a genuinely innocent party. Super injunction or not we know she threatened to sue if her name was mentioned, why would somebody do that if they had nothing to hide? All it did was allow a swirl of conjecture and maybe buy some time....

If somebody was innocent, and knew he/she had done nothing wrong, why wouldn't you threaten to sue somebody who could potentially defame your character?

Leaked IAAf report on doping

Comments