You guys are beating a dead horse. The need for releasing data dried up after the WADA IC failed to take the tabloid troll bait.
Here is a recap of various opinions:
- Letsrun survey 2014: 72% believed 2:15 was possible "clean".
- Drs. Ashenden/Parisotto: Maybe we accused Paula, maybe we didn't. In the spirit of complete non-transparency, they specifically refused to make their opinions on athletes known, even to the IAAF. They made it known to the WADA-IC who found the fundamental premise of their reports was flawed.
- Dr. Saugy: 2-hour rule not respected means increased likelihood of confounders/false positives.
- Dr. Schumacher (and many others): confirms 2-hours is necessary to bring blood values down to pre-exercise baselines.
- Antonio Cabral: 90 minutes.
- My 1st grade math teacher: 90 minutes is less than 2 hours.
- Ross Tucker: Maybe Paula's explanation is plausible, maybe not, but need more data.
- UKAD: it is not even a case of "case closed" -- there was never any case to open/answer.
- IAAF: Ashenden/Parisotto frequently contradicted their own research.
- IAAF: 2003 sample not suspicious in 2003, would not be suspicious today, and has plausible errors introduced by the process.
- IAAF: 2005 sample not suspicious in 2005, would not be suspicious today, and has plausible errors introduced by the process.
- IAAF: 2012 sample reviewed by an expert panel and dismissed noting high altitude was plausible.
- WADA-IC: The IC was provided with no explanation for the differences in approach and cautions expressed by the (scientists Ashenden/Parisotto) .... The differences are quite significant.
- WADA-IC: It was ... improper to group "suspicious" results and "likely doping" into a single category.
- WADA-IC: We can't be bothered with correcting misstatements in the press -- we're working here on the real issues.
- WADA-IC: The IAAF acted properly on the blood samples. The IAAF was pro-active in anti-doping and developing the ABP. The IAAF was by far the most active ADO using the ABP, thus being the poster boy' for other ADOs.
- WADA-IC and WADA IC retained experts: IAAF Rebuttal was scientifically sound.
- Paula's opinion and changing stories: Doesn't matter, because there was never any case to answer. The questions lack proper foundation.
- Paula's changing stance on transparency: Paula once offered to give doping test results to the public, but pre-2009 blood values are not doping tests results, but raw data prone to errors and misinterpretation. The expert opinions (test results, if you will) of the raw data are public. Athletes should not be pressured into making personal private data public, and certainly not under tabloid gossip circumstances lacking proper foundation.