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

Coach.. wrote:

“Nonetheless, he brought joy to the world – to win the Tour de France seven years in-a-row was a wonderful achievement. Think of the time, dedication and training he had to put in.

“From a moral and ethical point of view, I deplore athletes who take drugs.

“However, it is well documented that his Tour de France competitors also took drugs. Lance stuck to his guns when the accusations were flying around about him…the fact is, he never tested positive.

http://www.limerickpost.ie/2012/08/30/hartmann-stands-by-armstrong/

The Limerickpost uses the term "Limerickman" in reference to Gerard Hartmann.

I will guess that Hartmann received his training at the Irish University of Leprechaun Physical Therapy.

On the link there is also a photo of a person "Meet Macheath" who has the initials M.M.

Who do you think that is in the photo?

I think it might be…

And more actual headlines from the Limerick Post:Appeal for Limerick man missing in UK 2,557 viewsLimerick gunman thanks judge for eight year sentence 2,314 viewsLimerick pensioner robbed and woman punched in face 1,421 viewsLimerick man fired rifle out bedroom window for ‘target practice’ 861 viewsAdare’s 1826 is Munster’s best restaurant 773 viewsLimerick BoI headquarters sold for €10.5m 745 viewsDoras Luimní retracts statements over Limerick Post’s asylum article 

 689 viewsStar Wars treat for Limerick visitors 347 viewsThis is just a typical Wednesday for Irish people.Oh boy.

Coach.. wrote:

“Nonetheless, he brought joy to the world – to win the Tour de France seven years in-a-row was a wonderful achievement. Think of the time, dedication and training he had to put in.

“From a moral and ethical point of view, I deplore athletes who take drugs.

“However, it is well documented that his Tour de France competitors also took drugs. Lance stuck to his guns when the accusations were flying around about him…the fact is, he never tested positive.

http://www.limerickpost.ie/2012/08/30/hartmann-stands-by-armstrong/

Autologous Madness wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/apr/20/paula-radcliffe-london-marathon-record

That part is very interesting! It can't get better than this...

Also good, for those who still pretend she had the talent of the century, though her progression says otherwise, directly from Paula herself:

"I don't think I'm someone who has way more talent than everyone else in the marathon."

As for Hartmann, he is obviously a liar: he stated that Paula always stayed perfectly hydrated, while Paula and Seb say her high off scores were caused by "severe dehydration".

"Sebastian Coe has welcomed the announcement that 23 athletes from the London Olympics have failed drugs tests after their defrosted urine and blood samples were reanalysed..... (which) followed the intelligence-led retesting of 265 samples of athletes who could take part at the Rio Games this summer"

Wonder what 'intelligence-led retesting' means? Perhaps people who have had suspicious off-scores but not quite enough to warrant an ABP violation? You would think so. Especially when these were in the same year as the Olympics.

"The Guardian understands that of the track and field athletes who had their London 2012 samples retested, all came from either Russia or Belarus"

Oh. That'll be a no then.

DHT123 wrote:

"The Guardian understands that of the track and field athletes who had their London 2012 samples retested, all came from either Russia or Belarus"

Oh. That'll be a no then.

UK got five more golds than state-doped Russia, but absolutely nothing to see there. Probably 'wanted it more'.

rjm33 wrote:

Paula would check everything, in restaurants if she got up to go to the loo she would make sure Gary sat by her drinks in case anyone spiked anything, it was one of her big worries where would the bottles be stored the night before a race – could they be contaminated? .

She was so driven she thoroughly sought every possible opportunity/pitfall. Of course that means that she would never dope because she would never seek an opportunity that was widely available and condoned by the federation....

Yup. It makes perfect sense.

Operation Porto bags are being released. Any thoughts?

Roelants wrote:

Operation Porto bags are being released. Any thoughts?

They are released to anti-doing authorities, but not yet identified. Because the violations are outside the statute of limitations, there is little incentive for an anti-doping authority to pay for DNA testing. We will probably get a list of the code names, but many of those have already revealled: Luigi, Piti, Birillo, Amigo de Birillo.

These were the non-cyclist code names:

Rosa, Ana, CFA, Mari/Mary, Sofa, Tonante, Tor, Falla, Bruno,

(Those names are speculation, from this old thread:http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=1783.0 )

They waited until the statute of limitations ran out a few weeks ago. I would be happy with just the names released, as their reputations would be ruined. Dr. Fuentes has said that he had a "medical relationship with winners of the London marathon." This article even has comments from Paula Radcliffe that she is happy that the names may be revealed.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/14/sport/operation-puerto-blood-bags-spain/index.html

That is just a coincidence. Here is another coincidence:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/2530698/Paula-Radcliffe-on-a-mission-for-glory-or-tears-at-Beijing-2008-Olympics-Olympics.html

Paula Radcliffe was one of the first British runners to come to Flagstaff, Arizona to train back in 2004.

The situation with British runners in Flagstaff today is completely out of control.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TeamNBMCR/status/719599678539591680/photo/1

Do you know how I can tell if a runner is British?

They always run on the wrong side of the trail.

Please stop it Brits.

pop pop

You know I am a conspiracy theorist.

I now believe a British invasion is happening in Flagstaff, Arizona:

https://www.facebook.com/hypo2/photos/a.181731141864880.32731.154386924599302/999936883377631/?type=3&theater

https://mobile.twitter.com/MattCentrowitz/media/grid?idx=12

https://mobile.twitter.com/MattCentrowitz/media/grid?idx=9

Oh boy. The British runner situation here just keeps getting worse.

Please stop it Brits.

Hey Clerk.

Since the topic is blood tests:

http://www.hypo2sport.com/total-hemoglobin-mass-testing-the-gold-standard/

http://www.hypo2sport.com/high-performance-services/biomarkerslab-testing/

http://www.hypo2sport.com/high-performance-services/physiologicalperformance-testing/

That is just a coincidence.

Just a coincidence in Flagstaff:

Sven Hackmann

Graham Aldredge

Mo Trafeh

Martin Fagan

Ezkyas Sisay

WADA is coming for me! I didn't hear the doorbell, I was too busy bumping this thread!

Ending Paula's failed off-scores explanation once and for all.

Martial Saugy is one of the authors of this interesting paper about athletics and the prevalence of doping:

http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762.long

We're going to keep this specific to Paula. In this paper is a brief illustration/explanation of what a clean athlete's off-scores look like over time. See figure 2.

www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762/F2.large.jpg

Figure A is bio-passport data of a very likely clean athlete.

Figure B is bio-passport data of a very likely doping athlete.

We all know Paula's off-scores, right? 115, 110 & 109

What does Saugy's clean athlete report for off-scores?

Look at Group A, OFFS chart. A range from 55 to 79. If I'm not mistaken (and I could be) the steady ramp suggests fatigue/training.

What does Saugy's doping (100% probability) report for off-scores?

Look at Group B, OFFS chart. Whoa!!!!! that's some roller coaster that goes into the hundreds for a reason. Doping.

Paula's official response includes a statement by Saugy.

Another senior independent expert who WADA recommended and who is head of the WADA accredited laboratory in Lausanne was asked at my request to review the data following the Sunday Times articles (without being told my identity). He concluded that:

"Furthermore, any interpretation of these data implemented in an individual and longitudinal blood profile between 2001 and 2008 can be considered to my eyes as intellectually dishonest and scientifically biased.”

He's an author on a paper from 2011 using the data? Once again, simple facts blow up Paula's manufactured excuses. Kaboooom!!!

Good find to see this in full. I read the summary from the recent NY Times article

which was a good read

Yep, the paper doesn't exactly back up Saugy's later stance on pre-2006 data being used. The charts for both athletes A & B relate to pre-2006 data and as he says......

"although strict standardization was applied for the collection, transport, and analysis of the blood samples, standardization of methods can be checked from the data itself....All these considerations suggest that the validity of the period prevalence estimates M1 and M2 are not affected by a lack of standardization in blood data acquisition."

If only someone would leak Paula's individual blood profile over the years (like in the diagrams referenced in the article), then everything would be a bit clearer. I'd also love to know blood results from other athletes when they've been taken within the 2 hour window of training/competing to see how these compare.

DHT123 wrote:

I'd also love to know blood results from other athletes when they've been taken within the 2 hour window of training/competing to see how these compare.

If (big if) WADA and the IAAF's published metrics on testing are valid, they mostly stopped doing in-competition blood tests some years ago.

There could be additional testing going like Paula got that runs outside WADA procedure. The most expensive part is collection and transport. But, I kind of doubt that's happening. That's pretty expensive for the IAAF to do themselves.

There is no contradiction between using the data to determine the "prevelance" of doping (e.g. by country) (a VALID use of the data, in line with other prevalence estimates), and interpreting it "in an individual" (an intellectually dishonest and biased use of the data).

It should be telling that none of the experts used it to attempt to evaluate individuals, but only to offer "aggregated" conclusions about groups. This is not for "legal threat" reasons, but for intellectually honesty reasons.

If you want to look at the data of selected individuals (something not proper, and not without risk of misinterpretations), note that the "doped" athlete B has much higher off-scores, not only "into the hundreds", but ranging from 124 to 149.

It is better to use "personal thresholds", but comparing scores of 110-115, and 124-149, to the "population" thresholds of 103 and 111, should give non-experts a rough reference point and guide of the likelihood of doping, with larger differences from the thresholds being more likely. After all, suspicion is ultimately based on probabilities.

Experts would have more complete data and context, and be able to look at "personal thresholds", but also would know how to recognize and consider confounding factors, because these have been well studied by many of the same experts. This is why experts might all agree with each other, but not with non-experts.

It's Rekrunner again! Do you have a google alert set up for anybody who dates question Paula's integrity?? It's clear that micro dosing and blood transfusions are the major issues these days.

That's right, and the real experts don't agree with non experts like you. a PR hack that spins out the BS to muddy the waters of public perception.