Paula Radcliffe's WR could go down this weekend, what questions would you like us to ask her this weekend?

rekrunner wrote:

With all due respect, it looks like your interpretation that one finding "is a much more likelihood" is the result of you guessing what these terms could mean. This is the beauty of the Fancy Bears leak: a substantial lack of real knowledge, combined with some fantasy, and the leak can mean as much or as little as you want. My guess is that "likely doping" is a classification of one sample, while "passport suspicious" is a classification of a passport profile (i.e. a set of several samples), and that "further data" means more samples are required to be sure. We've also seen that, rather than "aggressive target testing", it is better and more cost effective, to do "intelligent target testing", which attempts to predict when the athlete will be "glowing" next, without tipping the athlete off with many tests.

Quit obfuscating rekrunner...it's getting damn annoying! Lets try it this way ☝️ (I thought you were on top of WADA's ABP protocols?...could have fooled me. Lol):

Here's the definition of "likely doping" per WADA's Athlete Biological Passport Operating Guidelines (Page 53):

? "Likely doping: Considering the information within

the Athlete’s Passport, it is likely that the Passport is

the result the Use of a Prohibited Substance or

Prohibited Method and it is highly unlikely that it may

be the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition."

? LIKELY that the result is the "USE of prohibited substance or prohibited method" AND "HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it may be the result of normal physiological or pathological condition."

? Notice the language here: Likely that it's doping vs HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it's something else.

Got it? ?

Now that wasn't so hard...was it?

Passport Era Doping wrote:

Quit obfuscating rekrunner...it's getting damn annoying! Lets try it this way ☝️ (I thought you were on top of WADA's ABP protocols?...could have fooled me. Lol):

....

? LIKELY that the result is the "USE of prohibited substance or prohibited method" AND "HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it may be the result of normal physiological or pathological condition."

? Notice the language here: Likely that it's doping vs HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it's something else.

Got it? ?

Of course - part of his trolling is to deny the facts two weeks after admitting to them (and declaring them for irrelevant). See above where he wants me to link to the Portugal weather, and journalists', reports, again.

Rekrunner, stop trolling me, I am not playing anymore. And don't ever pretend to trust Paula's statements - they are even more contradicting than yours.

Not so easy either. The quoted term "likely doping" actually doesn't appear in v5.0, v4.0, v3.1, and v2.1 of the ABP Guidelines, and appears to have been included as a quoted term only in v6.0 dated Jan. 2017. Thanks for the update, and sorry for any confusion I have may caused, or for any personal offense. Yet you are still looking at half the picture. The ABP Guidelines clearly define a series of steps starting with a review using the Adaptive Model, then several rounds of subjective human reviews by a 1-person, then 3-person expert panel, each time with an increasing amount of information, which may overturn the previous finding of "likely doping" at an earlier stage. Note also that "Normal physiological or pathological condition" does not include other non-physiological or non-pathological factors, e.g. altitude or hypoxic device or sample documentation (see section L.4 for a description of 22 factors included in the ABP documentation package, and L.6 which finally asks for the athlete's explanation). When you look at the Fancy Bears leaked IAAF spreadsheet, it is important to understand that "likely doping" may be an early interpretation based on an incomplete set of facts, not considering other relevant factors -- it is precisely this confusion that is the intended effect. You can fall for this if you want, and it looks like many of you really want to, but it is not my fault for lack of trying.

Passport Era Doping wrote:

Quit obfuscating rekrunner...it's getting damn annoying! Lets try it this way ☝️ (I thought you were on top of WADA's ABP protocols?...could have fooled me. Lol):

Here's the definition of "likely doping" per WADA's Athlete Biological Passport Operating Guidelines (Page 53):

? "Likely doping: Considering the information within the Athlete’s Passport, it is likely that the Passport is the result the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and it is highly unlikely that it may be the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition."

? LIKELY that the result is the "USE of prohibited substance or prohibited method" AND "HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it may be the result of normal physiological or pathological condition."

? Notice the language here: Likely that it's doping vs HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it's something else.

Got it? ?

Now that wasn't so hard...was it?

Classic that you accuse me and others of doing what you do routinely. Completely oblivious of the irony, you accuse Paula of exaggeration, yet have a pattern of taking the most extreme interpretations you can, despite them being repeatedly debunked. You never needed to consult Paula's statements, since the facts never added up to enough to ask for any kind of explanation in the first place. Looking for lies in irrelevant details is a waste of time. And like you don't trust Paula's statements to explain anything, I'm way past expecting you to defend all of your exaggerated and fabricated conclusions with facts -- I already know you can't. Actually the best you can do is to keep quiet. It should be completely clear now that you only ever considered half the facts, embellished them with fantasy, and then resort to calling me a troll when I highlight relevant facts you repeatedly ignore.

casual obsever wrote:

Of course - part of his trolling is to deny the facts two weeks after admitting to them (and declaring them for irrelevant). See above where he wants me to link to the Portugal weather, and journalists', reports, again.

Rekrunner, stop trolling me, I am not playing anymore. And don't ever pretend to trust Paula's statements - they are even more contradicting than yours.

Is someone paying you to post rekrunner?

You seem suspiciously dedicated for an interested bystander

Not taking sides either way

Boots. wrote:

Is someone paying you to post rekrunner?

You seem suspiciously dedicated for an interested bystander

+1

rekrunner wrote:

In this case, it was only a yellow flag, and required no deep pockets, to state that altitude of 2400m for 23 days was credible.

But at least we agree that it would be ridiculous to suggest that the "hung jury" was ever split 2-1 against altitude, with no evidence, in light of the still standing claim, that 11 out of 12 were in favor of altitude.

off scores wrote:

i.e. someone raised a red flag, so the IAAF, with very deep pockets, brought in some hired guns to resolve the situation. Business as usual really.

The problem with this is that Paula is on record saying that she slept in an altitude tent, like the NOP crowd does. She was virtually ALWAYS at altitude. Any variances (actually standard deviations) are from some other source and dehydration has been ruled out.

Boots. wrote:

Is someone paying you to post rekrunner?

You seem suspiciously dedicated for an interested bystander

Not taking sides either way

Yes the IAAF.

I do this for free. I'm all for attacking cheating and corruption in sport, but you have to point the finger in the right directions, and then you need the data, and correct interpretations of the data, to support it, and not just sensational allegations of what people want to believe.

Boots. wrote:

Is someone paying you to post rekrunner?

You seem suspiciously dedicated for an interested bystander

Not taking sides either way

Apparently 11 out of 12 experts did not find this to be a problem. This point wasn't raised as "suspicious" because of variance, but because of the high Hgb, and high off-score, both plausible outcomes of an extended 23 day stay at 2400m, and a test taken eight days after returning to sea-level.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

The problem with this is that Paula is on record saying that she slept in an altitude tent, like the NOP crowd does. She was virtually ALWAYS at altitude. Any variances (actually standard deviations) are from some other source and dehydration has been ruled out.

rekrunner wrote:

I do this for free.

I'm all for attacking cheating and corruption in sport, but you have to point the finger in the right directions, and then you need the data, and correct interpretations of the data, to support it, and not just sensational allegations of what people want to believe.

Nice summation ?....you're beginning to sound like a politician. ?

I think Almaz Ayana will be the one to break the marathon WR. She is literally like Bekele. She also has the 10,000m world record, and will soon have the 5,000m world record. She is better at winding up the pace, so will do well by going 68 minutes for the first have and possibly sub 67 after that. It might be a few years away, so Paula can enjoy her record while it lasts.

Banana Bread wrote:

I think Almaz Ayana will be the one to break the marathon WR. She is literally like Bekele. She also has the 10,000m world record, and will soon have the 5,000m world record. She is better at winding up the pace, so will do well by going 68 minutes for the first have and possibly sub 67 after that. It might be a few years away, so Paula can enjoy her record while it lasts.

That's nice but isn't she under some suspicion from that amazing WR record performance a few years back?

Isn't Ethiopia one of those places where you can buy rocket fuel OTC as easy as it is to buy protein powder here? ?

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

The problem with this is that Paula is on record saying that she slept in an altitude tent, like the NOP crowd does. She was virtually ALWAYS at altitude. Any variances (actually standard deviations) are from some other source and dehydration has been ruled out.

She is also on record saying that her Hct is always around 35 - 40% or so. These 3 ABP violations stick out like a sore thumb or two or three. The first two in addition to their high values especially because (A) Hct jumped up within a few days, while (B) ret-% went down (typical for transfusions, not dehydration), and the third because that Hct was the highest of them all (C) combined with a normal ret-% (typical for EPO + altitude combined, while altitude alone would lower RET-%). Hb of 16.2, Paula is still laughing.

Not coincidentally, the IAAF ignored A, B, and C in their "reasoned response" or however they labeled their propaganda piece.

Very upsetting to hear that Paula cheated, too.

Actually they addressed A, B, and C, in their response.

casual obsever wrote:

She is also on record saying that her Hct is always around 35 - 40% or so. These 3 ABP violations stick out like a sore thumb or two or three. The first two in addition to their high values especially because (A) Hct jumped up within a few days, while (B) ret-% went down (typical for transfusions, not dehydration), and the third because that Hct was the highest of them all (C) combined with a normal ret-% (typical for EPO + altitude combined, while altitude alone would lower RET-%). Hb of 16.2, Paula is still laughing.

Not coincidentally, the IAAF ignored A, B, and C in their "reasoned response" or however they labeled their propaganda piece.

rekrunner wrote:

Actually they addressed A, B, and C, in their response.

Citation? I agree with casual observer - it was a "propaganda piece."

Why do you always contradict casual observer but yet never provide any citations or references to back up your claims? You'd make a terrible trial attorney.

Off topic but interesting nonetheless. I would imagine this same strategy to some degree might be occurring in athletics. When you look at the tougher drug controls of the first world nations and improved sensitivity of the tests, TUE doping seems to be wave of future. And some TUE pharmaceuticals can pack a punch.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/westra-admits-using-tues-for-performance-enhancement/

The road is her toilet.