Coe to face new questions in British parliament

They also did extortion of athletes from other countries.

It was not just extortion of Russian athletes to cover up positive Russian doping tests.

It was also extortion of the Gold medalist in the women's 1500m at the 2012 Olympics that were held in London, England.

Earlier this year, Aslı Çakır Alptekin was stripped of the Olympic gold medal she had won in the 1500m at London 2012 because of inconsistencies in her athlete biological passport (ABP).

Last month it was reported that Gamze Bulut, Alptekin's training partner and the silver medallist, had also failed a test following analysis of her ABP.At the time, IAAF President Lamine Diack had warned Turkey that its poor record on doping threatened to undermine Istanbul's bid to host the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics.

It emerged last year, however, that two of Diack's sons had tried to bribe Alptekin so the IAAF would help cover-up her positive dope test and allow her to keep her Olympic gold medal.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1036024/abeylegesse-banned-for-two-years-but-manager-claims-eight-inconsistencies-in-iaaf-analysis

No worries.

Then use your own standard and call Paula's recollection of temperature an "erroneous statement", rather than applying a double standard.Did you re-read what I wrote in *THIS* thread? In another thread I said something else using different words with different meaning. In this thread I wrote "the best physical evidence we have: -samples collected after her two world records". Wrote you wrote in the other thread says "we don't have any knowledge about the samples for her two world records". What I say in this thread is the complementary "we only have knowledge about suspicious samples after her two world records". This is what I called "best evidence" we have, showing where and when we do have knowledge. We are both saying the same thing -- there is no public knowledge, either of "suspicious samples", or "normal samples", before Oct. 2001. For you "no knowledge" is something you think argues in your favor, as if ignorance makes you stronger.In their response, indeed the IAAF acknowledged that Paula claimed a high temperature. Yet, in the very next sentence, how did the IAAF use the high temperature in their response? Hint: They didn't. That's why it doesn't matter. They identified "strenuous exercise" as the cause, pointing to studies looking at intense exercise in ambient temperatures. The whole "29 C or 30 C are both lies -- why do they lie?" is a red herring. We can safely ignore both Paula's and the IAAF's "erroneous statements", assume an ambient 21 C or 23 C, and still draw the same conclusions as the studies co-authored by Ashenden and Parisotto.60-90 minutes is another red herring. 1) We actually don't know know how soon the blood was collected -- 60-90 minutes is the word of Antonio Cabral, and 2) in any case, we need 120 minutes to return to pre-race values. Both 60 and 90 are significantly less then 120. Your wishful claim "i.e. the dehydration effect was already partially gone" is 1) something you made up, and 2) ignores other significant causes of hemoconcentration due to high intensity exercise.Ross Tucker's referenced studies lack the intensity of a half-marathon race. Other studies show that running 70% of VO2max compared to 90% of VO2max is significantly different, not relying on effects due to heat or dehydration.22% or 30% is unarguably ambiguous. This is what I said you rely on -- data which is at best ambiguous. I also note here, when given a choice, you use 30% exclusively, not hiding your tendency to argue the extreme. I also note again, that both 22% and 30% rely on values subject to many of the pitfalls identified by papers written by Ashenden. Both 22% and 30% are far from fact.Altitude was not ruled out as a factor for the two points, but as the "prime" factor. Altitude is always there. In any case, correcting for hemoconcentration alone can still bring both of her values down to the population sea-level threshold.

rekrunner wrote:

Altitude was not ruled out as a factor for the two points, but as the "prime" factor. Altitude is always there. In any case, correcting for hemoconcentration alone can still bring both of her values down to the population sea-level threshold.

Even when corrected for altitude the other 2 points were on the 1 in 100 threshold possibility of not doping. If you take out the altitude correction they would be on the 1 in 1000 threshold. Doesn't look good when combined with the refusal to release any other data - why would you withhold data if it was not further incriminating?

Armstrong used the high temperatures and extreme dehydration excuse to explain his hemoglobin increases in the 2009 Tour de France. His excuse was not accepted so obviously the rules are not applied equally and depend on the influence one has on the powers that be.

whitewashed wrote:

Even when corrected for altitude the other 2 points were on the 1 in 100 threshold possibility of not doping. If you take out the altitude correction they would be on the 1 in 1000 threshold. Doesn't look good when combined with the refusal to release any other data - why would you withhold data if it was not further incriminating?

Exactly. But one shouldn't use altitude for those data, because the post-altitude but pre-race values in the 2003 and 2005 were actually normal (82 and 92, respectively).

Regardless, Paula claimed boldly:

"‘They were all conducted following prolonged periods of altitude training, which is today recognised as significantly impacting blood figures, and is therefore taken into account when interpreting blood data. "

Oh well. She argues vaguely like the IAAF. While being correct, both she and the IAAF failed to admit that her values were actually normal after the two altitude stays.

Those values in turn then indicate how ludicrously high her values in 2012 were in comparison to what we know from her baseline, as there neither strenuous exercise nor hemoconcentration could have been the cause:

2003: 82 after altitude with low ret-%

2005: 92 after altitude with low ret-%

2012: 109 after altitude with normal ret-%

And one should also remember that an Hb raise caused by alitude comes along with a decline of the ret-%. Even the IAAF admitted that.

Well, I let others do the math. But I do recall that Paula retired after that incidence in 2012.

rekrunner wrote:

Did Coe "refuse to testify"?

Lol.

I re-read this thread (so when you said you never wrote something, you meant never in this thread?), and found:

rekrunner wrote:

Coe is right to refuse.

and in the Independent (as discussed in this thread)

"Coe declared through the IAAF that he will not present himself for an examination, as he can legally reject the invitation as he is a member of the House of Lords."

And in the Guardian (as discussed in this thread):

"Sebastian Coe will defy a summons from parliament to answer further questions"

Memory loss again, rekrunner?

twist and spin...

casual obsever wrote:

Those values in turn then indicate how ludicrously high her values in 2012 were in comparison to what we know from her baseline, as there neither strenuous exercise nor hemoconcentration could have been the cause:

2003: 82 after altitude with low ret-%

2005: 92 after altitude with low ret-%

2012: 109 after altitude with normal ret-%

And one should also remember that an Hb raise caused by alitude comes along with a decline of the ret-%. Even the IAAF admitted that.

Well, I let others do the math. But I do recall that Paula retired after that incidence in 2012.

To be precise, the reticulocytes were over 50% higher in 2012, along with the increase in hemoglobin a classical EPO effect.

Did I say "never wrote"? You said my claim in *THIS* thread was incorrect, and quoted it. The claim, as I wrote it, about data points we "know", was absolutely correct, and the discussion in the other thread, about data points we "don't know", is not really applicable.Regarding Coe's reported refusal, I remember what the papers said a few days ago. Now, I wonder if the previous reports, such as the ones you link from the Guardian, and Independent, were in fact accurate. When I see Coe write in a letter to MPs "I would like to make it very clear that I have not said anywhere that I would not be prepared to answer further questions, nor have I said I am too busy.", this causes me to doubt the accuracy of the previous reports, and wonder, what exactly was requested of Coe, and what was his response. It wouldn't be the first time in this saga, that UK newspapers traded accuracy for sensationalism.If Coe actually refused, then I stand by "he is right to refuse". The Select Committee Inquiry is a complete waste of time -- it is the wrong body with little authority to conduct this kind of investigation, or compel witnesses outside of the UK, or actually compel any changes.If Coe actually did not refuse, then I was fooled, like everyone else, by sensational tabloid journalism.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Did Coe "refuse to testify"?

Lol.

I re-read this thread (so when you said you never wrote something, you meant never in this thread?), and found:

rekrunner wrote:

Coe is right to refuse.

and in the Independent (as discussed in this thread)

"Coe declared through the IAAF that he will not present himself for an examination, as he can legally reject the invitation as he is a member of the House of Lords."

And in the Guardian (as discussed in this thread):

"Sebastian Coe will defy a summons from parliament to answer further questions"

Memory loss again, rekrunner?

rekrunner wrote:

If Coe actually did not refuse, then I was fooled, like everyone else, by sensational tabloid journalism.

Coe should just go and tell them not to worry, because the drugs don't work anyway.

Coe and Jon Orange and Rekrunner.

The 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 thresholds are not "possibility of not doping" of a single sample, but "probability of false positives" from a population of clean athletes (where the "possibility of not doping" was known to be 1). Points around the 1 in 100 threshold do not "look bad", because that is not a threshold of "doping".There are many reasons not to make medically private data public. WADA, IAAF, and UKAD, have seen the non-released "complete" data set available, while Ashenden and Parisotto, have seen the non-released "leaked" data, and all of them have the expertise to determine if any of the non-public data is further incriminating. They all said "let it go".Armstrong was convicted by witness testimony from his teammates, employees, and friends, not by the ABP.

whitewashed wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Altitude was not ruled out as a factor for the two points, but as the "prime" factor. Altitude is always there. In any case, correcting for hemoconcentration alone can still bring both of her values down to the population sea-level threshold.

Even when corrected for altitude the other 2 points were on the 1 in 100 threshold possibility of not doping. If you take out the altitude correction they would be on the 1 in 1000 threshold. Doesn't look good when combined with the refusal to release any other data - why would you withhold data if it was not further incriminating?

Armstrong used the high temperatures and extreme dehydration excuse to explain his hemoglobin increases in the 2009 Tour de France. His excuse was not accepted so obviously the rules are not applied equally and depend on the influence one has on the powers that be.

rekrunner wrote:

Did I say "never wrote"?

Well... you wrote "never said":

rekrunner wrote:

I never said we had Paula's WR blood test values.

Keep it coming, rekrunner, this is fun.

rekrunner wrote:

If Coe actually did not refuse, then I was fooled, like everyone else, by sensational tabloid journalism.

Like the Guardian for example. Or the Independent.

To address your question what I mean by "never":"so when you said you never wrote something, you meant never in this thread?"In the case of "I never said we had Paula's WR blood test values", never safely means *ALL* threads. The values have not been made public. In the other thread, I never said *WE* had Paula's WR blood test values. The Sunday Times did, and I commented on what they reported, and what they did not.But when I asked you to "Go re-read what I wrote", I mean in this thread, where I wrote:"And yet the best physical evidence we have:- samples collected after her two world records"and you responded "The first point is incorrect, as you had to admit before."This is because what I say now (all of the reported suspicious samples we know about occurring much later) is not what we discussed before (lack of knowledge of the values at the time of her world records), and it was clear from your response, you did not capture the difference. Contrary to your response, the first point is CORRECT, as I wrote it, and I NEVER admitted otherwise before, in this thread, or any other.Hope this helps. I also hope you will "admit (your) error on the same day. And apologize for it. As soon it was pointed out. (And) Never repeat it." so we can classify your response as an "erroneous statement" rather than a "repeated lie".

rekrunner wrote:

Did I say "never wrote"?

Well... you wrote "never said":

rekrunner wrote:

I never said we had Paula's WR blood test values.

Keep it coming, rekrunner, this is fun.

rekrunner wrote:

If Coe actually did not refuse, then I was fooled, like everyone else, by sensational tabloid journalism.

Like the Guardian for example. Or the Independent.[/quote]

You still pretend to not remember that you cannot know whether or not the Sunday Times had seen "Paula's WR blood test values", because they had only access to incomplete data.

It doesn't help. I remember. You simply made this up to be a fact:

Then you should have said so explicitly instead of, as per usual, try to blame me.

I understood the statement about "samples collected after her two world records" to mirror your previous statement "Paula set two world records 2:17 and 2:15, with normal blood levels". Now, it seems, you say you didn't mean the samples directly after her two world records, but samples months and years after her two world records. Not sure why you said "after her two world records" instead of "in 2003 and later", but fine.

To conclude, if you really meant

- samples collected after her two world records

to not mean

A - samples collected directly after her two world records

but to mean

B - samples collected months/years after her two world records

then yes, I am sorry for the misunderstanding, and will not repeat that you claimed in this thread that Paula was clean during her WRs, which you however claimed in another thread.

Naturally, we all know that dates of these three suspicious off scores, so if you really meant version B, I have no idea what you were trying to imply with it. Do you want to explain your point, or was it just a random remark?

Anyway. I also don't know why you put the Guardian and the Independent into the tabloid corner. You are just having your fun here, right? We are indeed not playing by the same rules...

What I say is that that conversation belongs in the other thread, and we had it. I remember the discussion -- if you want to continue it, post something back in the other thread, but like Coe, I think there is nothing more I can add to that discusssion, that I haven't already said.Yes B. The 3 suspicious points occurred months and years after the 2002 and 2003 records.Apology accepted -- sorry if it wasn't clear for you. I agree it would have been more clear if I had said months/years after.What did I want to imply with "B"? It was not a random remark, but a direct response to "pop-pop". "pop-pop" said "Paula was a doper.", and I replied "and yet the best evidence we have ...". I think it was clear, as I quoted "pop-pop" in my reply, that I was talking about "best evidence we have" that "she's a doper", and not about evidence we don't have that she is not a doper. Again, sorry if that wasn't clear.Perhaps the Guardian and Independent were also duped -- and maybe this time you are right and it was not tabloids, but the British MPs directly. Did we actually see somewhere Coe's "refusal" to appear? I haven't.

casual obsever wrote:

...

You still pretend to not remember that you cannot know whether or not the Sunday Times had seen "Paula's WR blood test values", because they had only access to incomplete data.

...

B - samples collected months/years after her two world records

then yes, I am sorry for the misunderstanding,

Naturally, we all know that dates of these three suspicious off scores, so if you really meant version B, I have no idea what you were trying to imply with it. Do you want to explain your point, or was it just a random remark?

Anyway. I also don't know why you put the Guardian and the Independent into the tabloid corner. You are just having your fun here, right? We are indeed not playing by the same rules...

The Press release seems curiously missing from the IAAF site.

Don't worry, Im sure they have nothing to hide...

I don't find anything at the UK Parliament website either...

Mr. Obvious wrote:

The Press release seems curiously missing from the IAAF site.

Don't worry, Im sure they have nothing to hide...

Can't find any update on Coe actually going to provide testimony. The original statements indicated that they wanted Coe to testify before the end of January. That is quickly approaching.