 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
When I take my morning 20 or so minutes out to empty my bowels I get chance to flick through the news feed on my phone.
The whole thing seems to be getting blown out of proportion by said runner.
It did make me wonder, that surely if it's such a big issue?
Then why not just prove it rather than fall on your sort in some kind of pseudo divine protestation. Once the egg is firmly on said politicians faces the need to chase other athletes by such vexatious mean's might not happen?
Thanks for a great mental image there....
Mike I'm sure I'm not the only one, I read ipad use in the bathroom is rife
The British legal sysyem was meant to be Innocent until proven guilty...It would seem its back to front now
slow one this morning....
on topic once your name is dropped into the doping world it's hard to get it back.
The legal system is innocent until proven
The press and MP's however....
and from the BBC article/interview
Asked if freeing data would clear her, she said: "I don't need to. I'm clean.
"I'm not being forced and almost abused into giving a knee-jerk reaction to something that goes against other people, who I trust."
The stance by the marathon world record holder is in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), who believe that releasing data for athletes can be misinterpreted.
But she claimed that the analysis of every athlete lacked "relevant context". Radcliffe claimed: "They have applied a sweeping generalisation of ranges to all of them as if everybody was at sea level. And they don't know when these tests were carried out post-race."
On her own tests she added: "Two of those are invalid because they were taken immediately post-race and they would not be looked at for that reason.
"But if they are looked at by qualified experts with the full context, they would say that is totally explainable, that's not even suspicious."
Listened to a very good radio interview on this when it broke, the context is incredibly important and making judgement without it is very bad. Considering all this data is with WADA who are happy with it why should it be given to a bunch of journalists?
[i]I read ipad use in the bathroom is rife[/i]
DW?
I am just not getting the problem, innocent till guilty, guilty till innocent, if someone had accused my little old self and I knew 100 percent I was untouchable I'd be sticking two fingers up, rolling out the evidence, then living off the money from the defamation or slander case, and the money I'd make from quern sausage endorsements, that would pay for my Ferrari
I think the point she was making was that she has already proved she was innocent to the people who look at all the evidence.
If all the data is released we will end up with the Chris Froome type situation where they look at one thing in isolation and extrapolate the world from it.
As she says some of the tests were after races and the results could look bad if the correct context isn't applied. It's not black and white stuff. It also sets a precedent that any athlete must divulge all their private data to satisfy media.
As above, there needs to be trust in the testing regime and governing body. It shouldn't be that individual athletes are put through trial by media.
Cycling has worked that out now and is trying to put it's house in order.
Athletics has a long way to go to have a robust testing process that's seen as fit for purpose.
The real story here is taking 20 minutes to clear out your bowels. You need to look at your diet...
Even the MP wasn't quite enough of a dimwit to name her, even under parliamentary privilege. The newspaper pieces also didn't name names.living off the money from the defamation or slander case
The phrases he used would make anyone think of her, maybe uncle mo (and just possibly one or two wheelchair athletes - he'd better not piss off Tanni Grey as well !)
You can't prove absence of doping, so she's under suspicion for "ever" regardless of what she does.
He could maybe stump up the cash to pay for a formal WADA review to "clear her name" - and he may have to if she goes on the attack
The real story here is [s]taking 20 minutes to clear out your bowels. You need to look at your diet... [/s] your / you're
Thanks, Scaredy.
you welcome
DW?
Doctor Who?
Digi****
Dump****?
The real story here is taking 20 minutes to clear out your bowels. You need to look at your diet...
Nah, if he's like me the movement takes about 30 seconds, the other 19.5 minutes is enjoying the solitude that a family man can only find on the bog early in the morning.
I think the comparison with the actual story and philxx's bowels is apt, we all think he was up to all sorts in there the dirty bugger, the only way for him to prove his innocence is to upload a video of his morning routine to the internet every day, easy if you are innocent whats the problem.
aye, at least paula does her shitting in public 😀
DW?
[url= 
]Link to a rude picture. Not totally NSFW, but......[/url]
I watched her performance on the Beeb this morning and thought how very much her insistence on being clean sounded a lot like Lance's.
And since she hasn't been named directly in Parliament it's all rumour. They might have meant someone else entirely.
I'd have thought if she just went along to the House of Commons and said 'it's not me, here's my evidence' it would go away.
I don't understand her reason not to.
When I take my morning 20 or so minutes out to empty my bowels I get chance to flick through the news feed on my phone.
http://newsthump.com/2015/04/27/paula-radcliffe-an-inspiration-to-all-who-have-shat-themselves-at-work/
I watched her performance on the Beeb this morning and thought how very much her insistence on being clean sounded a lot like Lance's.
So denying that you cheated is proof of cheating?
here's my evidence
What evidence would that be? How could she prove her innocence?
I'd have thought if she just went along to the House of Commons and said 'it's not me, here's my evidence' it would go away.I don't understand her reason not to.
Do the MP's have any experience in reading and interpreting the data?
So denying that you cheated is proof of cheating?
Nope, but it struck me as an odd thing to deny if you haven't been accused in the first place.
The evidence is with the appropriate body, not parliament or the press.
Anyway, I spent 20 mins on the bog with my iPhone and couldn't give a shit.
Post Lance I'm a bit cynical about someone producing world beatimg times / performances, if someone currently knocked 3 minutes off a marathon record I would have my doubts about the performance.
Jesse Norman MP, who suggested London Marathon winners and medallists and "potentially British athletes" were under suspicion.
Norman did not mention Radcliffe by name but she responded: "Maybe he didn't understand that to all intents and purposes he may as well have mentioned my name.
Not by name but some strong hints and what would silence look like?
I watched her performance on the Beeb this morning and thought how very much her insistence on being clean sounded a lot like Lance's.
Maybe taken in isolation. Unlike Lance though she's always been very vocal in her anti-doping stance. I remember her (and I think Jo Pavey) controversially holding up an anti-doping banner at a race in a major championships to protest at a runners return from a doping ban.
This is the thing that I can see reasonable winds her up. If you drew a venn diagram of Jesse Norman's suggestions with athlete names in the circles under each suggestion, Paula's would jump out as being in the wrong intersection. That suggests either he's making a specific allegation or is an idiot who doesn't understand what he's talking about. She's left unable to ignore it and can't win no matter what she says.Norman did not mention Radcliffe by name but she responded: "Maybe he didn't understand that to all intents and purposes he may as well have mentioned my name.
The public have lost confidence in athletes and the organisations who should be testing / policing them.
Anyone who wins by a large margin will be looked at with suspicion - which is not surprising.
If you are allowed to train at high altitude you will probably end up with odd blood results. Are these odd results similar to results enhanced by doping ?
If so, its not surprising that they don't want them made public.
an idiot who doesn't understand what he's talking about.
Have a read of his bio before deciding whether his opinion is that of an expert...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Norman
it struck me as an odd thing to deny if you haven't been accused in the first place.
Out of interest if she had said nothing at all and refused to answer any questions would you interpret that as
1) Proof she was innocent
2) suspicious
Basically whatever she did she will look like 2 to you
If someone hinted i was a drugs cheat I may well be pissed off and object to this publicly
thanks aracer and toys it works great
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Out of interest if she had said nothing at all and refused to answer any questions would you interpret that as1) Proof she was innocent
2) suspicious
3) I probably wouldn't have interpreted it as anything.
I wasn't aware that she was being implicated until she produced a 1700 word press release saying that she's innocent.
Then saying 'I don't really care what committee thinks', when clearly she does.
If there's three abnormal readings that can be explained away quite reasonably, then get an expert to publish their explanation, don't just say I could, but I don't have to because I'm innocent. Put up or shut up.
It would never of crossed my mind that she doped before that press release, but she appears to be digging a massive hole for herself imo.
She was called a drugs cheat and it pissed her off
That is hardly proof she cheats.
One of those we have reached a point where any behaviour, denial or silence, will be proof, for some, of drug cheating
thanks aracer and toys it works great and annoys wwaswas
She has retired.
Does it mater?
Should the mob not be going after existing competitors who are doping.
Can you prove you are innocent?
The point is, she doesn't have to prove anything> nor , for example does Froome.
Until someone can produce 100% perfect proof she and anyone else is clear.
Sadly the scum we call press think its fine to get sales by picking up on anything going. Equally the jokers we call a government. Bet wotisname is wishing he had been a bit more careful with his speech now.
I would have the utmost respect if she just said eff of and prove it. Sadly we all like to defend ourselves.
She was called a drugs cheat and it pissed her off
No she wasn't, she drew a link between the comments made and herself that didn't exist in anybody elses mind.
The whole reaction to the recent revelations has been exactly like the cycling omerta, attack the message, hide and deny the problem.
And it wasn't journalists who reviewed the data, it was world renowned anti doping experts, athletics attack on them as amateurs was laughable and pathetic
[quote=IanMunro ]I wasn't aware that she was being implicated until she produced a 1700 word press release saying that she's innocent.
[quote=MSP ]No she wasn't, she drew a link between the comments made and herself that didn't exist in anybody elses mind.
Proof that she can't win. You would have eventually become aware that she had been implicated (if you were paying any attention at all) because as always happens with these things, eventually somebody would have named her, and then with that out of the bag everybody would. At which point you lot would be complaining that "she must be guilty because she's not denied it before being named". In fact I read an article yesterday suggesting she should have commented earlier.
i was accused at an nhs hospital by a consultant of been a drugs cheat.. back in 91 i was a competing cyclist wwas refered by gp to hospital with heart murmer.. he and his sidekicks took one look at me and said what drugs are you using all cyclists do it is it steroids your using?
eventually i had another fella review my medical notes and there when i was aged 2 till 11.. i was heavily taking steroids in a skin cream popular at the time to treat excema... guilty as charged.
Somehow we have to draw a line under this. Until the doling bodies indicate an athlete has a dodgy result, the press and MPs should butt out.
The press made her a hero at her Peak, now they are playing fast and loose with her reputation and livelihood. No wonder she is annoyed.
Until the doling bodies indicate an athlete has a dodgy result, the press and MPs should butt out.
Which is kind of the issue the Sunday Times highlighted; that there were dodgy results and the IAAF knew about them and did nothing.
Now Seb Coe is Prez and has a completely open mind about things
"The fightback has to start here. It is a declaration of war on my sport. "
That's alright then
she drew a link between the comments made and herself that didn't exist in anybody elses mind.
Wrong an what aracer said
There is a cynical group who will use whatever she does as proof of her guilt whilst arguing anyone who wins [ Bolt, Froome etc] must be a cheat. they dont need evidence and everything is suspicious [denying it or not commenting both insinuate guilt for example]
Her name as a drugs cheat has been doing the rounds in journalist circles for ages, in fact I understand she was going to take an injunction out against the Times I think it was. Problem is for her and all athletics is we know they has been heavy doping and we know a fair amount was swept under the carpet by the IAAF. Was she dodgy make your own mind up, but her heavy protesting makes me lean towards yes.
Yet another iffy Nike athlete 👿
Yet another iffy Nike athlete
Ah another bit of evidence, nike pays for the drugs
And then up pops dragon with the smear to prove the point
Her name as a drugs cheat has been doing the rounds in journalist circles
Well if that bunch of high probity individual thinks it well then it must be true.
Heavy protesting suggest guilt.....you read it here and you cannot argue with scientific fact 🙄
I worry that so many folk are this lazy with their thinking
All this trouble I feel I have caused and all I did was take a morning glory and read the Google news.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=morning+glory
Taking a morning glory???
Mike I'm just rising to the earlier DW? remarks 😉
Taking a morning glory???
😯
I thought you'd just gone in for a crap.
Sadly the scum we call press think its fine to get sales by picking up on anything going.
The press in this country is completely out of control. It needs proper regulation to stamp this kind of behaviour out.
Problem is for her and all athletics is we know they has been heavy doping and we know a fair amount was swept under the carpet by the IAAF. Was she dodgy make your own mind up, but her heavy protesting makes me lean towards yes.
You don't pilot drones for a living and have a judge, jury and executioner complex? Just wondering.
Well apparently saint Paula thinks the IAAF have been at the 'forefront of the anti-doping movement' 😆
Yes what we need is a press that cover these things up and doesn't make a fuss. Why worry about our taxpayers money being used for athletes to buy drugs and then get rich off cheating?
I'm more concerned with the grammar in the first post.