Nobody talking about Ross Tucker v Paula radcliffe on twitter.... spat central!

casual obsever wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Yes exactly, give clean samples one day, then shoot up on the hot sauce the very next day.

My guess: those were in-competition samples, which she entered off the sauce like most runners, but popped up with blood transfusions. Supposedly she felt save back then, but now learned the hard way how telling her jumps in Hct and RET-% are.

So now all of sudden she turned into an anti-transparency fighter, and Coe and the rest of the IAAF have to support that anti-transparency stance to save face.

I thought that pre-2005 records were going to be wiped anyway? Then nothing happened, why? Because Paula cried to the UK press that she was losing her record, boohoo. That entire push has suddenly gone quiet. She is unbelievably persuasive, unbelievably.

Who is "being accused" here?

All this talk of transparency displays a lack of trust, not only in individuals like Paula, Coe, Saugy, and Pound, but collectively all of the organizations (e.g. IAAF, UKAD, and WADA) that are responsible for enforcing anti-doping, and double checking that it was done properly and fairly and consistently, even in the aftermath of the leaked IAAF blood values widely discussed in the newspapers and here, putting this in the spotlight of the fans, and also the British Parliament. In the specific case of Paula, for context, around 2003 and 2005, WADA was a new organization trying to establish itself as a major authority in anti-doping. The aggressive hunt for Lance Armstrong was an important milestone in order to establish the credibility of WADA as a respected anti-doping organization. Is it credible that a young WADA, under Dick Pound, would be so aggressive with a popular cycling hero, while turning a blind eye to a popular running hero.

Who are the "accusers"?

Ashenden and Parisotto only accused the IAAF of inaction. They made it clear, by contract before undertaking their analysis, that they did not want their opinions of individual athletes made public. The British newspapers made this about Paula, and they stepped back after the WADA IC reports, long after the damage was done. So who remains? Ross, with a sports scientists/sports marketing background, advocating transparency, and a few "armchair" contributors in this forum.

What does Ross want/mean by transparency?

Is he asking that Paula, and other athletes, make her raw values public?

Should this be for all athletes, all the time, or just when you are accused in the press?

Giving out raw blood test results to the general public for interpretation is not the kind of transparency that will help anti-doping, without inflicting a lot of casualties, particularly in the case of blood results, from the "early years" of IAAF blood testing, which:

- had no real value in determining doping

- could vary a lot before certain rules and controls were established to ensure accurate results

- can vary a lot for other external reasons, like illness, altitude, blood loss, training, etc.

Publishing the raw values to the general public leaves it subject to interpretation by a public unable to correctly interpret the raw values, and unable to give proper weight to the context, and often lacking objectivity.

As we have seen, this will generate a lot of uncontrolled and uninformed discussion, backed up by arm-chair pseudo-analysis and conclusions, that will largely serve to tarnish the reputations of many innocent athletes.

Transparency should be limited to describing the process, how it ensures independence, and the results of independent conclusions.

It should not include giving raw results before an independent expert determination ruling out a likelihood of a false positive.

Would publishing blood values work?

Mo Farah released his blood values in the Sunday Times. Show of hands: who here changed their mind about Mo's innocence on that basis?

Who is independent?

Part of this spat, Ross says to make Paula's values available, not necessarily to him, but for independent review. So far, they have been already been reviewed, by IAAF, UKAD, and WADA, and Ross says these organizations all have strikes against them. Paula got another "independent" review, outside the IAAF, UKAD, and WADA, and still the reflexive response was to find reasons to demonstrate lack of "independence".

So -- who is independent?

Who would be the "sponsor" of an independent investigation?

Clearly Paula had a major incentive to untarnish her reputation, but if she initiates yet another investigation, the independence will immediately be called into question -- she did this already, and it has. The main organizations responsible are satisfied that there is not sufficient doubt to "open a case".

So, speaking pragmatically, how could a re-analysis of Paula's data play out to convince her accusers? Assuming Paula gave permission, who would be responsible for initiating and ensuring an independant investigation.

It's a shame that Ashenden/Parisotto lacked the courage to clear up the mess they helped cause, and that the WADA IC didn't give a clear and specific statement. But for Ashenden/Parisotto and the WADA-IC, the story was never about Paula, but about the IAAF's response to suspicious blood values.

Some questions... wrote:

Who is "being accused" here?

All this talk of transparency displays a lack of trust, not only in individuals like Paula, Coe, Saugy, and Pound, but collectively all of the organizations (e.g. IAAF, UKAD, and WADA) that are responsible for enforcing anti-doping

Naturally. Because of their history including turning blind eyes and accepting briberies and getting away with it for years.

Some questions... wrote:

In the specific case of Paula, for context, around 2003 and 2005, WADA was a new organization trying to establish itself as a major authority in anti-doping. The aggressive hunt for Lance Armstrong was an important milestone in order to establish the credibility of WADA as a respected anti-doping organization.

Sarcasm?

WADA did nothing about Armstrong in 2003 and 2005. On the contrary, it supported UCI in doing nothing about Armstrong in 2003 and 2005 - except for accepting his money. And it supported Plan B Saugy in explaining Armstrong how the EPO test works...

Moreover, WADA never did anything about Armstrong. That was USADA, which also turned a blind eye to Armstrong during all his TdF wins.

It was the feds who finally started to investigate in 2010, and only then USADA followed suit.

Hi rekrunner!

Did Paula really get an independent review? Have you seen its results?

Or do you mean IAAFs and Wada go-to person Saucy, who wrote two sentences on Paula's behalf?

Some questions... wrote:

Would publishing blood values work?

Mo Farah released his blood values in the Sunday Times. Show of hands: who here changed their mind about Mo's innocence on that basis?

I never saw Mo's data, did he actually release it? Anyone got a copy?

Hello. Yeah -- I'm not touching this. My opinions about Ashenden/Parisotto/Paula/Coe/Saugy/IAAF/IAAF Ethics Commission/Dick Pound/WADA/WADA IC/British Parliament can be found in other lengthy threads.

Independent? wrote:

Hi rekrunner!

Did Paula really get an independent review? Have you seen its results?

Or do you mean IAAFs and Wada go-to person Saucy, who wrote two sentences on Paula's behalf?

dsfasdsadfasf wrote:

I'm 34. I honestly have no idea how to read Twitter conversations in a way that makes them intelligible. I don't know if that's because they aren't intelligible or because I don't know how to Twitter.

If I scroll down on your post, I don't see anything that Paula says.

If I click the link and scroll through various comments on Tucker's Twitter, I see that Paula Radcliffe says something about asking questions creating noise (I don't understand the context) and that she hasn't made her values public because it would help cheaters evade detection.

If I scroll through Paula's Twitter I don't see her comments on others' posts?

Please summarize.

I feel you man. Never figured out twitter.

It was published here -- I'm not seeing any data now though:http://features.thesundaytimes.co.uk/web/public/2015/the-doping-scandal/index.html#/data-transparency

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Some questions... wrote:

Would publishing blood values work?

Mo Farah released his blood values in the Sunday Times. Show of hands: who here changed their mind about Mo's innocence on that basis?

I never saw Mo's data, did he actually release it? Anyone got a copy?

The difference between Paula's and Mo's data is that Mo's is much later when everybody knew about the process, at least that it was being monitored and tracked. Paula's is more of a "gotcha" since it was from before the implementation of the ABP.

The bottom line is that if Paula's other data was exonerating, she would have released it long ago.

jus' sayin' wrote:

The difference between Paula's and Mo's data is that Mo's is much later when everybody knew about the process, at least that it was being monitored and tracked. Paula's is more of a "gotcha" since it was from before the implementation of the ABP.

The bottom line is that if Paula's other data was exonerating, she would have released it long ago.

Yes. I wonder if Paula believes her team mates who released all data are helping others cheat. Did she call any of them out?

jus' sayin' wrote:

The difference between Paula's and Mo's data is that Mo's is much later when everybody knew about the process, at least that it was being monitored and tracked. Paula's is more of a "gotcha" since it was from before the implementation of the ABP.

The bottom line is that if Paula's other data was exonerating, she would have released it long ago.

+1 to the bottom line.

That "gotcha" is true for her earlier cases, but she was also caught right after the training camp in Iten in 2012, post-ABP introduction, where the first IAAF consulted expert noted that her high Hct can't have natural causes (including altitude!). That case then went to the famous 3-person panel, which couldn't agree on a verdict - she got off because an unanimous guilty verdict is required for a ban. I'd love to see that write-up and who voted what, but all of that also falls under the anti-transparency attitude of both Paula and the IAAF.

Incidentally, that was at the same camp at the same time as Mo, who did not report such weird values - so much for altitude had to cause them.

casual obsever wrote:

Source:

https://www.runnersworld.co.uk/training/motivation/paula-radcliffe-mind-games

Here from Feb 2012, she is quite happy with her stay in Iten:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/16850262

Mo Farah was there too - would love to see his blood values from that time.

There is more... google finds all of that within seconds. Funny though, that the IAAF went with her claim instead of verifying. Oh well. Probably just a coincidence.

Yes, I've read this, but these interviews (seems like there were pool interviews with the British media) were done a week or so before she left Iten, so in theory she could have been 'injured' in the final week of her training trip. There's this reference to her on January 28th (day before she travelled home I think)

which is a bit ambiguous - sounds like she is in the training group but then further down there is a mention of her 'pushing on from the van' which suggests she wasn't doing the interval part of the session at least.

My view on all this is that although the test results are at the very least suspicious, they are never going to be used to be able to prove anything against Paula, because i) she has already been cleared by the authorities on them ii) the tests in 2003 and 2005 are pre-ABP and therefore 'prove' nothing. That's why I'm more interested in looking at contradictions in her accounts of events leading up to her tests. And so for 2012, I think it is very likely that when the test result came back, even though Paula said she was at altitude, the panel still thought that it was 'likely doping' and it was only then that she said that she was also 'injured and not running' whilst she was at the training camp.......and therefore being able to show that this was not the case (if indeed, it wasn't the case) would be very significant.

There are 25 blood test results for Sondre Moen posted on another thread by Renato Canova.

If the numbers for Sondre Men can be backed up with copies of the actual lab reports (which are in his medical file) and some more blood test results closer to just before and just after (to rule out an autologous blood transfusion) his 59:48 half-marathon on Oct. 22 2017 and his 2:05:48 marathon on Dec. 3 2017, then the blood test results for Sondre Moen are very good evidence that he is a CLEAN runner training at altitude.

For example:

*26 Oct 2014 (Blood only - Lab in Utah in USA) : Hb 15.1 - Hct 45.1 - OFF Score 92.2 (Altitude)

*8 Aug 2017 (Blood only - Lab in Dresden (GER)) : Hb 15.3 - Hct 45.5 - OFF Score 103

15 Dec 2017 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.8 - Hct 45 - OFF Score 84.2 (12 days after 2:05:48 marathon)

Normal range for hemoglobin is 12.0 to 15.0 g/dL for women and 13.0 to 16.0 g/dL for men, respectively. Normal range for men is 1.0 g/dL higher than women.

ALL 25 of the hemoglobin values and ALL 25 of the Hct values for Sondre Moen are within normal range for a male. NONE of his hematocrit values are near the 50% cutoff level for males used in cycling. NONE of his values are outside normal range for a male...even WITH altitude training. There is also no dramatic variation of the values which are seen in the values for Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe...which have massive variation in the values.

Moen's highest hemoglobin values were 15.1 g/dL (=14.1 g/dL in a female) at altitude on Oct. 26 2014 and 15.3 g/dL (=14.3 g/dL in a female) on Aug. 8 2017... AFTER increasing his hemoglobin levels WITH ALTITUDE TRAINING.

The hemoglobin value (from the leaked blood test results) after altitude training looks very different for Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe:

It turned out that Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe had a hemoglobin value of 16.2 g/dL (= 17.2 g/dL in a male, and a Hct of 51.6% in a male) after altitude training.

Paula's hemoglobin value after altitude training turned out to be ABOVE NORMAL RANGE FOR A MALE HUMAN!... AND WAY... WAY... WAY... ABOVE NORMAL RANGE FOR A FEMALE HUMAN.

It is not a big surprise for Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe...that...

...NONE OF THE HEMOGLOBIN VALUES ON THE LEAKED BLOOD TEST RESULTS FOR MS. PAULA "PANTANI" RADCLIFFE ARE WITHIN NORMAL RANGE FOR A FEMALE HUMAN.

IT TURNS OUT THAT ALL OF THE HEMOGLOBIN VALUES FOR MS. PAULA "PANTANI" RADCLIFFE FROM THE LEAKED BLOOD TEST RESULTS ARE ABOVE NORMAL RANGE FOR A FEMALE HUMAN.

(Whoops.)

It also turns out that:

1) PAULA "PANTANI" RADCLIFFE'S LEAKED BLOOD TEST RESULTS ALSO SHOW A MASSIVE HEMOGLOBIN VALUE INCREASE OF 21.88% IN ONLY 48 HOURS (from an autologous blood transfusion) TO AN ABOVE NORMAL RANGE VALUE OF 15.6 g/dL AT THE 2003 WORLD HALF-MARATHON CHAMPIONSHIPS WHERE SHE WON THE GOLD MEDAL...and DESTROYED A FIELD OF RUSSIAN DOPERS TO WIN THE RACE BY 1:27...and had a lot of dehydration at the same time.

...and...

2) PAULA "PANTANI" RADCLIFFE'S LEAKED BLOOD TEST RESULTS ALSO SHOW A MASSIVE HEMOGLOBIN VALUE INCREASE OF 19.4% IN ONLY 24 HOURS (from an autologous blood transfusion) TO AN ABOVE NORMAL RANGE VALUE OF 15.1 g/dL AT THE 2005 WORLD TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS WHERE SHE FINALLY WON HER GOLD MEDAL IN THE MARATHON...which was just after setting her seasonal best in the 10000m with a time of 30:42.75. Paula was not fast enough in the 10000m to deal with Tirunesh Dibaba or Ejegayehu Dibaba or Xing Huina (famous Chinese 10000m Olympic Gold medalist from 2004, beating all of the Kenyans and all of the Ethiopians, including the older sister of Tirunesh Dibaba = Ejegayehu Dibaba and her cousin Derartu Tulu...hmmmm...), or Sun Yingjie from China (banned for doping)...or the famous Russian runner Galina "Bogo" Bogomolova.

Oh well.

(Whoops again...and Whoops again...and Whoops again.)

It is just a Coincidental Synchronicity™.

MS. PAULA "PANTANI" RADCLIFFE DOES IT AGAIN!...AND AGAIN!....AND AGAIN!!!

It is too late for WADA and the UCI to go for actual doping sanctions against all of the Operation Puerto Dopers with the 211 bags of blood that they now have in their possession.

It is likely that DNA from the samples can be checked against athlete’s DNA profiles already held by WADA and the UCI to identify the owners of the samples.

WADA and UCI could still release the names on the blood bags to let everyone know about all of the doper-cheater-liars who were involved in Operation Puerto. They are all dopers.

They are not doing it because releasing the names will be DEVASTATING. They need to keep the names secret.

There is ZERO transparency:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/uci-wada-obtain-samples-operacion-puerto-blood-bags-255864

WADA Statement on “Operation Puerto” Athlete Blood Bags

Following the recent decision by the Madrid Court of Appeal to provide access to the stored Operation Puerto blood and plasma bags of athletes from cycling and other sports, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) can confirm that, alongside the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), it is now in possession of samples of the blood and plasma bags; and that, the samples are stored in a WADA-accredited laboratory outside of Spain.

WADA and the UCI will continue their joint investigation into Operation Puerto, and will consider all possible legal options.

Operation Puerto is a Spanish Police investigation into a doping ring led by Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes. In 2006, 211 blood and plasma bags were seized from the offices of Dr. Fuentes who was then handed a one-year suspended sentence for endangering public health. The investigation also resulted in anti-doping rule violations for five cyclists; and, led to suspicion of numerous as yet unnamed athletes from other sports that had been treated by Dr. Fuentes. For years, WADA asked Spanish authorities to provide the Agency and partner anti-doping organisations with access to the blood and plasma bags so that any anti-doping rule violations could be pursued. In April 2013, the Criminal Court of Madrid ordered the destruction of the blood and plasma bags -- a decision that WADA appealed in May 2013.

WADA will make no further comment at this time.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-07/wada-statement-on-operation-puerto-athlete-blood-bags

(It is not a big surprise.)

rekrunner wrote:

It was published here -- I'm not seeing any data now though:

http://features.thesundaytimes.co.uk/web/public/2015/the-doping-scandal/index.html#/data-transparency

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

I never saw Mo's data, did he actually release it? Anyone got a copy?

This is was what I saw earlier in the day, no data on the page. Just wondering what his off score was.

Dr.SkyRunner.Shiva.at.11333ft.com wrote:

There are 25 blood test results for Sondre Moen posted on another thread by Renato Canova.

For example:

*26 Oct 2014 (Blood only - Lab in Utah in USA) : Hb 15.1 - Hct 45.1 - OFF Score 92.2 (Altitude)

*8 Aug 2017 (Blood only - Lab in Dresden (GER)) : Hb 15.3 - Hct 45.5 - OFF Score 103

15 Dec 2017 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.8 - Hct 45 - OFF Score 84.2 (12 days after 2:05:48 marathon)

Not long after this he ran 27:55 and 59 on road, far faster than ever before, but I'm not sure if altitude added 10 pts to his OFF score or something else is at play. But it is a convenient score.

There is nothing "convenient) about the score.

OFF score = Hb value x 10 - 60 x (square root of reticulocyte score).

He was training at altitude before the Aug. 8 2017 blood test.

He is well below the altitude cutoff for OFF scores.

Since you are a real math whiz... like Soggy Corn Flakes MATHEMATICIAN WHIZ Johnny Kellogg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsmrY3zPXSE

From the OFF score you can figure out the reticulocyte %, which is 0.69% (It turns out that this is normal reticulocyte value within normal range because the normal range for reticulocytes is 0.5% to 1.5%).

His reticulocyte% was 0.97% on Oct. 26 2014 and 1.14% on Dec. 15 2017 which are also normal scores within normal range.

All of the 25 hemoglobin values for Moen are within normal range for a male human.

All of the 25 reticulocyte values for Moen are within normal range for a male human.

All of the 25 hematocrit values for Moen are within normal range for a male human.

All of the 25 OFF scores for Men are within normal range for a male human who has been training at altitude.

It's all pretty conclusive really; many of us have come to this conclusion a long time ago but unfortunately nothing will ever happen about it.

From her data, the reticulocytes imply a change in blood volume of 1.25x

Change in haemoglobin closely matches this - 1.22x (some of the RBCs and haemoglobin degrade in storage)

Based on the old rule of thumb that a unit of blood is worth about 3% hct and 1 g/dL Hb, it looks like she was taking two units, which I'm sure I read was the going rate for cyclists of the day (possibly the Tyler Hamilton book).

Two units is about 900ml; based on an average blood volume of 4500ml for females (likely to be less in a 50kg endurance athlete), those two units bring the volume up by 20%, or roughly what you would expect from the reticulocytes.

The numbers are too tidy for me to ignore.

Forget the numbers though, the performances themselves are too hard to ignore. Similar to Mo Farah, good world class runner suddenly becomes undefeatable, bullet proof, able to train like a demon, all at an age mere mortals start to break down.

Last year during Giro d'Italia Eurosport commentator said that operation Puerto ended when investigators started closing on Real Madrid and Barcelona soccer teams, and Rafael Nadal. Any information regarding this?

Ha, I like a good ribbing but didn't Renato himself say that as his athletes got fitter their Hemoglobin fell, yet his values went up as his performance improved. Lance Armstrong’s Off Scores on his TdF comeback.

Wiggins claims in 2009 his was 89 during the TdF

Diarrhoea is a new excuse for hematocrit variance.