Absolutely shocking that on the day our glorious queen becomes the UK's longest serving monarch our second uncrowned queen of the road should have her reputation impugned by Jesse Norman. I am a great fan of Miss Norman and think her renditions of Ave Maria and Amazing Grace are top notch but why a black American opera singer should comment on doping in the London Marathon escapes me. Stick to what you know, I say.
I am absolutely certain that both Paula Radcliffe & Mo Farah are completely innocent of any of the "doping" slurs attached to them but unfortunately mud sticks!!
I got married in September 1991, we went on honeymoon.
On our return we were informed that my wife's sister had leukaemia which was shown in her 'abnormal' blood sample results.
Two weeks later her sister gave birth to a bouncing baby boy. Everyone including all the doctors, nurses and who the hell else had missed the fact that she was eight and a half months pregnant. Her joints were swollen but they totally missed the obvious.
For the record both mother and her now two kids are still healthy. From that day I realised you have to question 'results' with a wider view than simply looking for what you WANT to find.
Similar story, a woman was jailed for murdering her child by making him drink anti-freeze after an autopsy showed high levels of it in the child's blood. It was only when her second child was struggling while she was in jail that the authorities figured that they had a rare genetic disorder which meant they produced their anti-freeze within their own bodies and the mother had been innocent all along.
http://justicedenied.org/patriciastallings.htm
-- Edited by Heman on Thursday 10th of September 2015 06:59:51 AM
-- Edited by Heman on Thursday 10th of September 2015 07:21:19 AM
Paula Radcliffe's vehement denial is very impressive and she has often spoken out against drug cheats.
Her abnormal blood results can be explained by altitude training which has been a regular part of her training regimes prior to major races...
I have no doubt that there are many unexposed drug cheats but to accuse someone by name or implication without a proper challenge to the evidence is wrong.
Her entire reputation has been damaged severely and it was done in a cowardly fashion using parliamentary protection.
Paula Radcliffe's vehement denial is very impressive and she has often spoken out against drug cheats.
Her abnormal blood results can be explained by altitude training which has been a regular part of her training regimes prior to major races...
I have no doubt that there are many unexposed drug cheats but to accuse someone by name or implication without a proper challenge to the evidence is wrong.
Her entire reputation has been damaged severely and it was done in a cowardly fashion using parliamentary protection.
You're right there, K. Unfortunately the whole sport of athletics has become mired in drugs controversy. I still watch the major events including the Diamond league but have to admit every time someone wins or sets a PB I find myself thinking"I wonder..." Every time.
For instance...Many posters will view my avatar and think that to have such a physique I must be taking anabolic steroids and growth hormone but they are wrong...I can confirm that this is all down to training and a little bit of Coenzyme Q 10 to energise my mitochondria!
For instance...Many posters will view my avatar and think that to have such a physique I must be taking anabolic steroids and growth hormone but they are wrong...I can confirm that this is all down to training and a little bit of Coenzyme Q 10 to energise my mitochondria!
I cannot speak for JCH.
Evidence can indeed be deceiving. Here's proof that you are a multi and that you even created your bete noir Geetarman. Shame.
I must disagree with those who have been taken in by the golden girl's carefully spun statement issued yesterday. To be clear at the outset, I obviously have no idea whether she is a drug cheat or not and I am not accusing her of being one. I do however think that a number of posts have skewed the picture somewhat and the interests of balance demand that I address it. Firstly, I doubt that her 1700 word statement was prepared in full yesterday. I suspect that she knew it would be needed soon and had it in hand. I also think that she probably wanted to get the statement out there given the first opportunity to do so. The papers had already stated that a high proportion of recent London Marathon winners had allegedly suspect bloods. The public had already begun to wonder whether she was one of the athletes concerned. All the MP asked was whether the fact that the British public now had doubts about British athletes was a concern. He did not 'implicate' her. She latched onto his fair comment as a platform to get her statement out. The fact that someone publicly takes a position against certain behaviours does not necessarily mean that they are genuine. Lance Armstrong was a standard bearer for the anti-doping lobby. Sadly that tactic used by some cheats means that we all doubt those who are genuine. If this was a Russian athlete protesting her innocence I suspect that we would be less inclined to believe her. Last but not least, and to inject a bit of humour in an otherwise dull post, the use of a masking diuretic might explain one or two roadside visits! She may well be innocent but she has questions to answer and despite her best efforts the statement put out yesterday won't be the end of it.
I must disagree with those who have been taken in by the golden girl's carefully spun statement issued yesterday. To be clear at the outset, I obviously have no idea whether she is a drug cheat or not and I am not accusing her of being one. I do however think that a number of posts have skewed the picture somewhat and the interests of balance demand that I address it. Firstly, I doubt that her 1700 word statement was prepared in full yesterday. I suspect that she knew it would be needed soon and had it in hand. I also think that she probably wanted to get the statement out there given the first opportunity to do so. The papers had already stated that a high proportion of recent London Marathon winners had allegedly suspect bloods. The public had already begun to wonder whether she was one of the athletes concerned. All the MP asked was whether the fact that the British public now had doubts about British athletes was a concern. He did not 'implicate' her. She latched onto his fair comment as a platform to get her statement out. The fact that someone publicly takes a position against certain behaviours does not necessarily mean that they are genuine. Lance Armstrong was a standard bearer for the anti-doping lobby. Sadly that tactic used by some cheats means that we all doubt those who are genuine. If this was a Russian athlete protesting her innocence I suspect that we would be less inclined to believe her. Last but not least, and to inject a bit of humour in an otherwise dull post, the use of a masking diuretic might explain one or two roadside visits! She may well be innocent but she has questions to answer and despite her best efforts the statement put out yesterday won't be the end of it.
Yes, whenever I see PR I remember first and foremost the spending a penny in public incidents. The sport and its administrators have largely brought this on themselves; witness for example the pathetic response to the recent allegations by Coe. The BBC athletics pundits also "see no evil, speak no evil" when a UK athlete is concerned. They wish this would all go away because they have no wish to lose their parasitical and lucrative employment.
