Sunday Mail Has More Details on Paula's Blood Values and Off Scores + News She'll Put up £1m for an MRI lie detector

Fred, since you like science... I thought you might like to see how I determined with my own personal LTP (Letsrun.com Truth Passport) that Steve Jones had a "not suspicious at all" SOLID GOLD score on my LTP.

I still have a VHS tape from the 1985 Chicago marathon when Steve ran his 2:07:13, with a first half in around 1:01:45. We know that nobody was using EPO before 1986, so any times from before then have ruled out EPO use (also Dave Moorcroft at 13:00 5k is definitely clean).

Steve Jones also ran the 1986 European championships marathon, but did not drink enough fluids and became severely dehydrated... and like a normal, regular human being...he slowed to a shuffle...but he refused to quit...and he came in 20th in 2:22:12.

Steve Jones coached himself. He did not use computer training systems, or VO2 max treadmill testing, or economy testing, or lactate threshold testing, or a lactate reader, or a heart rate monitor, or a GPS system, or headphones, or "special" doctors, or lots of other fancy "technical support" that everybody seems to need today.

When Steve Jones won the 1984 Chicago marathon, beating the Olympic champion Carlos Lopes and World Champion and then current world record holder Rob DeCastella... in a new world record time of 2:08:05....

...Steve Jones did not even know what the world record time for the marathon even was!... when he broke the world record!...

....and this was the first marathon Steve Jones had even completed in his life!...

...and he did not even wear a watch!!!...

...The most important factors in determining a personal LTP score are not able to be measured by science...but are actually determined by inner "feeling"...

...And that is how I determined that Steve Jones is the REAL DEAL!!!...

............................Go Steve Jones!!!..............

...and ...

....Go Shalane Flanagan!...the REAL 2008 10k Olympic Silver Medalist!!!...

...Go Kara Goucher!...the REAL 2007 10k World Championship Silver Medalist!!!...

...Go Jo Pavey!...the REAL 2007 10k World Championship Bronze Medalist!!!...

preciously jaded wrote:

If this happened my guess is that there would have been at least a trained medical professional involved. As you say the transfusion procedure does carry a risk and when things go wrong

Bro, a certified phlebotomist takes a whole 6 weeks to get training. So.... not much needed, a task that is not special in any way.

A "you mad bro" analyst certification is much harder to accomplish.

I watched that 85 marathon and I have his 2:10 marathon in Toronto at 37? on VHS. Dave Reid the guy that Bad Wigins raced in highschool at 1500, was the rabbit. Steve is the REAL DEAL.

Thanks to those who replied. I asked this here because I thought b lead to insights on how this is done logistically, particularly when travel is involved. I suspected that refrigeration is key. Plus, I assume anyone doing a transfusion would not want to risk death and would take precautions (maybe not) I was not asking for exact directions but for an opinion on logistics. Tour riders have a huge staff with trucks, gear, etc. that they travel with. Runners don't really have that so I am wondering how they pull it off, especially if they have to do it close to the time of the race. Also, I have followed track and cycling for a long time and remember all of the races, records, doping stories and deaths described by RJM33. I don't mind your tone in general. It is amusing. But you are not the only one who cares about the sport or people who get hurt. In fact, you may be addressing a small group that really does care.

Description of transfusions wrote:

RJM 33 - I am not sure if you answered this before. Could you please describe what it takes to do the transfusions that you think occurred? I want to understand the competence and logistics (preparation, location, etc.). The more people who are involved, the greater likelihood there is that someone would talk one day. Thanks.

If I remember correctly, Jo Pavey had some very normal looking blood test results on a chart at Ross Tucker's website.

Why isn't the ban of Elvan Abeylegesse and upgrade of medals for Shalane, Kara and Jo Pavey for 2007 and 2008 a huge story at the top of the homepage here at LRC?

Is it still not official yet?

Here is more evidence for Jo Pavey...check out the photo.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1029364/abeylegesse-confirmed-as-one-of-iaaf-28-as-pavey-stands-by-for-10000m-world-medal

So, apart from not having technical devices that weren't actually available to him (e.g. GPS watches) or widely used at the time, and because he coached himself (unlike Paula, who heaven forbid works with her husband, which apparently makes her suspicious!!), someone who pulls out a remarkable stand out performance in his first marathon gets the thumbs up despite running in a period where drug testing was significantly weaker than it is today. (And don't misunderstand me, Steve Jones is clean in my book too).And yet Paula (before you'd carried through all of the research about blood numbers etc on this thread, which I accept you believe gives you evidence for her doping) you instinctively believed to be dirty?I get why you believe in Steve. Before this thread started, why didn't you "get why many people believe in Paula?

Check the year of the earliest possible use that we know of for EPO use by any endurance athletes in any endurance sports. Then check the years that Steve Jones won the Chicago marathons, running 2:08 in 1984 and 2:07 in 1985.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html

Yes, obviously EPO couldn't have been an issue, sorry - I assumed that was taken as read, and you referred to that specifically, I just didn't quote it back.

But that doesn't mean that plenty of other options weren't potentially open to him, even if in today's world they'd probably be down the pecking order of "best" (using the word advisedly) PEDs to use for a marathoner.

It's like the other contextual arguments you and others made about Paula *before* starting on the blood details. If you take the view that any pre-EPO athlete is clean (because, prima facie, they couldn't have taken a PED that didn't exist), then your Venn diagram of athletes that could use EPO becomes everyone since the use of EPO began.

But then, if you use non-use of HRM, GPS, V02 max, lactate threshold testing as being evidence for Steve being clean, I can't see how you manage to turn the use of that stuff into evidence of doping - its the stuff that just about every other runner uses. Yes, there are exceptions to some who want to stick to the old ways of doing things (and there may be merits in that), and some fans find that aspect to be appealing and helps to generate fans for athletes who otherwise might not have a USP.

But if your whole argument about Steve being clean (apart from the absence of possibilyt of EPO) is:-

- no use of technology

- he didn't know what the world record was

- he paced races really badly

- he once had a bad race and stumbled to the finish

- he didn't wear a watch (I presume there was no lead car with a clock on it? If there was, why wear a watch anyway!)

- he coached himself

then I really don't see how that is substantially different than Paula. Yes, she uses tech - but so do all elites. Knowing / not knowing what the WR was isn't really much evidence of anything other than someone who isn't WR obsessive. There are enough cases of Paula running badly (and yet still finishing - e.g. Athens).

If its gut feel, fine - I can buy that, I'm in the same boat about him and Paula. I just don't see how you get a different gut feel about the two of them, other than for some unknown reason you don't "like" Paula!

I was never suspicious of Paula Radcliffe until I saw her blood test results.

Then...about 8 seconds later (with an error factor of + or - about 1 second)... after I saw the blood test results... I became suspicious of Paula Radcliffe.

...Jo Pavey looks like the Real Deal!...

.............Go Jo Pavey!!!..........

rjm33 wrote:

I was never suspicious of Paula Radcliffe until I saw her blood test results.

OK, I'll take that as an honest reply, I've no reason to doubt that (I think I presumed you were part of the clamour on here way before any of Paula's blood details were out in the open which made doping allegations based on just about zero evidence at all - my mistake).

rjm33 wrote:

Check the year of the earliest possible use that we know of for EPO use by any endurance athletes in any endurance sports. Then check the years that Steve Jones won the Chicago marathons, running 2:08 in 1984 and 2:07 in 1985.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html

I'm quite shocked that you think he is clean, he was winning in an era where blood transfusions were rampant and yet to be banned. I'm sure if we had his blood values they would be quite disturbing.

For those interested, cyclingnews did a good 3-part series on the history of blood doping. Don't read it unless you're prepared to tear down your heroes of sport.

preciously jaded wrote:

If this happened my guess is that there would have been at least a trained medical professional involved. As you say the transfusion procedure does carry a risk and when things go wrong they can be quite serious as happened to the Italian cyclist Ricardo Ricco in 2011:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riccardo_Ricc%C3%B2

Not necessarily, by long-term I mean over a month. You can get away with storing it in the fridge for just over a month and transport it around in a cooler.

Cyclists were storing long term because they were racing for 3 weeks. Over that time frame they could transfuse up to 6 bags of blood (I think Hamilton mentioned this in his biography). To get so much blood they needed to withdraw it months earlier so that they can recover in time, therefore it needed to be stored longer and that is where Fuentes came into play for many of them.

In the case of a marathoner they only need to perform for one day so logistically it is very simple.

As I have mentioned previously, I believe she was doing everything she could get her hands on, I don't think she limited herself to transfusions. The OFF-score triggering is a clear indication of EPO use. The negative tests are largely irrelevant when you look at the history of anti-doping and corrupt organisations.

I see what you mean but I was thinking that an athlete of her status would have probably hired a medical professional to perform the procedure just in case of any safety issues that might arise. It would still not be as big an operation as with a cycling team on a grand tour as you say. Also with a lot of cycling teams the whole team was expected to (blood) dope as the performance of the supporting riders would have been critical to the lead rider. Hence all the witnesses in the Armstrong case - in distance running things could be operating at basically an individual level.

As discussed a few pages back the EPO test was not very sensitive, especially in the early 2000s, Armstrong has described how easy it was for him to beat the EPO test once there was news about the test being introduced in 2000. So in addition to corruption the chances of getting an EPO positive would have been very small so I agree that the negative test results are just irrelevant in terms of proof of being "clean".

We're still in the realms of a non-consolidated picture of the case against Paula, I fear. If anything is to come of the debate on this thread (which I suspect it won't), surely that case needs to be put more clearly.

Rekrunner has made a succinct defence already, but the opposing side has, I feel, been a little complacent.

Can I suggest a structure for this which might be usable to give to someone who is prepared to put their necks on the line and make accusations against Paula more public please? It needs to stick to facts and science (as known and understood by the author), and ignore any "2:15 is a clear indication of doping" type pointless propositions.

How about:-

Race - XXXXXX

Blood values known - XXXXXXX

Blood values represent direct / indirect evidence of - (EPO / transfusion)

Scientific papers which support this view -

Additional commentary (succinct)

I fear all of the "evidence" and accusations have been lost in the to-ing and fro-ing. I'll freely admit to skipping reading much of the info in here, mainly because the posts come out as claim and counter claim which gets very tiresome. I'd like to see the case against Paula clearly stated in one post by one poster (probably rjm33 I would trust most, provided he drops the ..... every paragraph and writes more like he did at the start of this thread - i.e. professionally, without sensationalism).

Will this call fall on deaf ears?

You are having a laugh, the pro posts on here for Paula are based on emotion and looking for holes in the SCIENCE presented which makes her look highly suspicious. There has been no solid SCIENCE on the pro Paula front just confusion and the repetition of an argument that 'just can't believe she'd do it'

I'm not asking for the pro-Paula case, I'm asking for the anti-Paula case, scientifically put in one clear post. Then I'll happily try to get this under the nose of individuals like Tucker via Twitter who might be able to run with it a little more if it holds water.

There is a clear limitation on this thread which is that no-one here knows whether anyone's scientific and medical knowledge is actually genuine. For all I know, the posts of rjm33 and others could be complete and utter nonsense - we've only got anonymous statements of "I'm a doctor", "I've seen hundreds of blood test results in my time" etc etc. I'm perfectly happy to believe these on this thread, but I doubt that WADA or a reputable newspaper would.

I still believe in Paula, despite the case being made here. In many ways that belief is based simply on the fact that a panel of accredited experts have publicly given their view on the very samples which are being discussed here anonymously. If those experts were indeed either misled, misdirected or mistaken, or alternatively if their expert opinions were corrupted, then that would be a massive story.

I want to see the case against Paula tried properly rather than anonymously whilst there is still interest in the outside world in the subject.

Just imagine if (assuming the case against her is scientifically safe) on the eve of the marathon in the Olympics the Sunday Times published a damning indictment of Paula which was true, evidence based and scientifically valid - Paula wouldn't be able to benefit from libel laws, and the Sunday Times would have the athletics scoop of the decade.

Topically, I'm the doubting Thomas of the Easter tale here - I won't believe until I've seen it tested in that way, and nothing will convince me of her "guilt" until that is achieved.

Great find. You couldn't make this stuff up. Or maybe you could.

cleans wrote:

Great find. You couldn't make this stuff up. Or maybe you could.

Sorry, that was in response to the poster who found the following Guardian article on the knee injury.

Great idea BTW Larkimm, it would be good to create a potted list of why one or two of us have suspicions about Paula (and not, say, Jo Pavey).

I agree that it should essentially be a scientific list, but I think it doesn't hurt to present any circumstantial evidence, like changing stories. If this were a court of law, it would not only be the scientific evidence that was used to convict someone. Not that we are going to 'convict' her, we are just going to collate information and present a balanced case. For instance, we should not forget that she has never tested positive for PEDs, and has never missed a test as far as I am aware (which is commendable and puts her above a few other notable British athletes).