From Paula's book " How to run with with a purged system." - "A cul de sac is a great place to empty your bowels while doing a ten miler."
From Paula's book " How to run with with a purged system." - "A cul de sac is a great place to empty your bowels while doing a ten miler."
Well to be fair, many of the outstanding stars of the last 20 years have not only run suspicious performances, but also other reasons to be suspected, such as doped up teammates/doping coaches (El G, M. Johnson, Bolt, Farah, Junxia) or connections to doping doctors (Haile, Bekele, Bolt).
Considering how widespread and easy doping is, and how powerful the PEDs are, this is no surprise.
(The earlier ones have benefited from (partial) lack of testing, and cover ups of their federations (and no internet), so less is known.)
Again, this focus on Paula's past is quite unfair, but someone has to keep bringing her ABP violations up, with outlandish claims that need to be corrected.
rekrunner wrote:
Oh the irony.
Who knows. Maybe she saw 30 C in her car after the race, or from a thermometer in the sun. But more importantly does it even matter?
Since Paula and the IAAF have fundamental problem with facts and transparency, yes.
Rekrunner, this response is not as tight as your others.
Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:
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?
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rio-olympics-2016-almaz-ayana-accused-of-doping-by-sarah-lahti-after-smashing-10000m-world-record-20160813-gqrmtd.htmlIsn't Ethiopia one of those places where you can buy rocket fuel OTC as easy as it is to buy protein powder here? ?✔
My doping is training. My doping is Jesus," she sounds like a televangelist version of Lance Armstrong with the Komen zombie look. Check out the photo of her.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Again, in the early 2000s she came out and defended the use of altitude tents, which were being debated as a form of PED, saying it was the only way for her to compete with the Africans. She said she 'extensively' used one and derived benefit from it. But because she regularly used one, it means the gains of trips to altitude in terms of Hct gains will be significantly less than normal. However, if her blood scores displayed standard sea level responses to altitude it is actually quite suspicious, that she is minutely adding in something else exogenous. As for the experts if it is borderline, do you really think that they would come out and accuse Paula of doping? They could at worst be sued for deformation or more likely, as pop_pop would attest, they would be black-listed by the IAAF from future work. The fact that one 'expert' was willing to put their neck on the line might be the only thing to take from this. Perhaps a Dick Feynman or Warren Buffett of elite sport blood values wasn't fooled by Paula's shenanigans. I think it is that DurianRider vegan guy on youtube that points out how preposterous 2:15 is, virtually every 2:18 woman is doped to the gills, yet Paula would drop them in the first km.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Since Paula and the IAAF have fundamental problem with facts and transparency, yes.
^This.
The irony is that the IAAF considered the suspect's words as facts in their "investigation". E.g., it was "29C", and she was tested "right after". It's no wonder that they catch almost no one with that attitude.
But then - why testing the athletes at all? They could just ask them whether or nor they doped, and take their word for it. Problem solved.
11 out of 12, according to Paula. Any other source for this?
rekrunner wrote:
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.
"Apparently 11 out of 12 experts did not find this to be a problem." Where did that come from . Is this public knowledge?
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.
RIP Ayana's record prospects because you just got the old kiss of death from Banana Bread.
El Keniano wrote:
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.
RIP Ayana's record prospects because you just got the old kiss of death from Banana Bread.
I sure hope Ayana is the one to break Radcliffes record especially since she casts her own doubts on Ayanas performances.
Ayana did state after her Delhi HM debut that she could have gone much faster but there was a language barrier issue with the pacers.
Does anyone know if Ayana and Dibaba are running the 3000m at the Doha DL meet this week??
casual obsever wrote:
11 out of 12, according to Paula. Any other source for this?
Nope, we'll have to ask Rekrunner for that one, he was pushing the '11 out of 12 think it was altitude' line and everything is alright here, nothing to see here. Perhaps we need to see some evidence.
El Keniano wrote:
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.
RIP Ayana's record prospects because you just got the old kiss of death from Banana Bread.
What the heck is so special about "Banana Bread?" ?
I admit that I am special. I am central to letsrun, and this place literally needs me. But I don't understand how I am a bad influence on Ayana. I would make a great couch. I can't wait to see her flush Paula's record down the toilet(this is a witty pun because her record involved avoiding the toilet).
My wife frequently uses the terms "always" and "never" to characterize once-in-a-while events. I'm not surprised two non-experts agree with each other, which makes for excellent gossip at a bar, but what weight should that carry out in the real world? I completely agree with the WADA experts. In the WADA IC report #2: "The WADA experts have declared the rebuttal to be scientifically sound." I'm sure I'd make a terrible trial attorney, because an important part of their job is to appeal to the emotions of a jury. I didn't provide a citation, because 1) I already have in the past, and 2) it is clearly obvious by any plain and honest reading of the response. Did you read it? Honestly? Much of the first 4 sections of the response describe the history of the development of the ABP, and the many issues with obtaining reliable measures for the purpose of comparing two different samples collected under different conditions. If you search on the word "compare" you can find at least 14 citations for yourself. Here are several: "The values from the blood samples collected prior to 2009 could not be considered scientifically accurate, and could not be fairly compared from one sample to the next," "Dr Ashenden has himself noted, ‘a quality control system to ensure that results are comparable when analyzed in separate locations is ... essential" "the parameters recorded in the database examined by Dr Ashenden and Mr Parisotto were measured using several different machines (Sysmex, Bayer-Siemens, Coulter, Abbott, Advia), with different calibration standards and varying internal and external quality control standards." "They (Ashenden and Parisott) knew it meant that the values in the profiles could not properly be compared with each other, and so no evidentiary weight could be placed on any apparent deviations in those values." "These are not technical points; they are crucial to the ‘scientific accuracy’ of the values recorded in respect of each sample, and to the fairness of comparing the values of different samples in the same profile." "the experts reviewing the profile first have to consider whether the abnormality is due to measurement error" "any competent expert ... would certainly have refused to compare the values from one sample in a profile to other samples in the same profile" Any attempt to consider as evidence "A) Hct jump" while "B) ret% went down" combined with "C) normal ret-%" is clearly an attempt to compare two values known to be unsuitable for comparison -- something the IAAF clearly addressed and something that would only be attempted by someone who is not competent, and/or not an expert, i.e. The Sunday Times, the Daily Mail, casual obsever and rjm33. It should be noted that Ashenden and Parisotto, to their credit as competent experts, did not attempt to compare two samples, but only looked for samples that exceeded population thresholds.
What's up with this? wrote:
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.
"ABP violation" is an outlandish claim -- one of your many exaggerations. But recently were talking about how your often repeated characterizations of a "first expert" or "hung jury" appear to be unsupported, in light of my citing the ABP Guidelines v2.1 which did not always require a first expert review, and that we do not know the individual decisions of the experts. Please feel free to correct these claims with external citations that apparently you are known for.
casual obsever wrote:
Again, this focus on Paula's past is quite unfair, but someone has to keep bringing her ABP violations up, with outlandish claims that need to be corrected.
When confounding effects are observed at 23 C, any discussion of where 29 or 30 C comes from is completely beside the point. Temperature matters much less than intensity and is a red herring. To discard this effect, you need to wait 2 hours. The IAAF doesn't actually have a fundamental problem with the facts, and a guarantee of non-transparency for athletes not found guilty is necessary to protect innocent athletes, and is the right of all athletes.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Oh the irony.
Who knows. Maybe she saw 30 C in her car after the race, or from a thermometer in the sun. But more importantly does it even matter?
Since Paula and the IAAF have fundamental problem with facts and transparency, yes.
Rekrunner, this response is not as tight as your others.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
11 out of 12, according to Paula. Any other source for this?
Nope, we'll have to ask Rekrunner for that one, he was pushing the '11 out of 12 think it was altitude' line and everything is alright here, nothing to see here. Perhaps we need to see some evidence.
Really the case against Paula is growing and disturbing:
➡ the outright suspicious blood values that we all know, basically Parliament believes that she is dodgy.
➡ while in New Mexico, she just happened to stumble upon a garbage dump full of used ped needles.
➡ use of Actovegin, goat's blood and whatever else.
➡ the fact Dr Wolffarter-or-whatever-his-name-is claimed Paula could tolerate more pain then anyone else he had met, he was referring of course to the number of needles she can have in her at anyone time. She obviously has a cavalier attitude to putting needles into her body.
➡threatens to sue people who raise allegations against her but never follows through or taking a lie detector test.
➡a 2:15 marathon, and numerous other sub 2:20s
"sued for deformation"? And again, the 2012 value was not highlighted for any relative variation, but for its absolute magnitude of Hgb, and the off-score, near, but below, the population altitude threshold of suspicion. Putting 11 out of 12 experts aside for one second, it is highly credible and well documented that 23 days at 2400m will produce a significant increase in Hgb, even moreso in women, and a measurement around 10 days after returning to sea-level would reach its nadir, as RET-% drops, while Hgb is high, your speculation, or pop-pop's speculation, or DurianRider vegan guy's speculation notwithstanding.
DHT123 provided the source on page 5. I noted that it was "apparent": "Apparently 11 out of 12 experts did not find this to be a problem."
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
11 out of 12, according to Paula. Any other source for this?
Nope, we'll have to ask Rekrunner for that one, he was pushing the '11 out of 12 think it was altitude' line and everything is alright here, nothing to see here. Perhaps we need to see some evidence.
rekrunner wrote:
Any attempt to consider as evidence "A) Hct jump" while "B) ret% went down" combined with "C) normal ret-%" is clearly an attempt to compare two values known to be unsuitable for comparison -- something the IAAF clearly addressed and something that would only be attempted by someone who is not competent, and/or not an expert, i.e. The Sunday Times, the Daily Mail, casual obsever and rjm33.
You do realise that you have just claimed that the entire structure of the ABP OFF-score is a waste of time for analysis purposes?