She's all over the press in the UK at the moment calling out the Russians for lacking transparency. Pot Kettle.
She's all over the press in the UK at the moment calling out the Russians for lacking transparency. Pot Kettle.
PR disaster wrote:
She's all over the press in the UK at the moment calling out the Russians for lacking transparency. Pot Kettle.
With tongue in cheek, obviously. I like that kind of humor.
Now that Saugy has been discredited, demoted and highly criticised....
can Paula come back with some explanation from a 'truly independent' scientist from another lab other than the 'dodgy' one in Lausanne please, thanks....
3...2...1.....
and rekrunner is on the case!
You don't know the meaning of the word independent or conflicted interests. Saugy is as impeccable as independent! This is evidenced by IAAF and Wada.
Back by popular request.The final judgement was that there was never any case to answer.Looks like Saugy got a promotion -- good for him.You might question his independence, but Ashenden wrote a lot of papers explaining the confounding factors Saugy referenced -- maybe he's a good candidate to eliminate the false suspicions.
Mr Saugy wrote:
Now that Saugy has been discredited, demoted and highly criticised....
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/mclaren-report-implicates-russian-state-and-others-in-systemic-doping/can Paula come back with some explanation from a 'truly independent' scientist from another lab other than the 'dodgy' one in Lausanne please, thanks....
3...2...1.....
and rekrunner is on the case!
Promotion? You are clearly mental, totally corrupt.
Rekrunnners wrote:
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/links-between-moscow-lausanne-labs-need-investigating/Promotion? You are clearly mental, totally corrupt.
I already pointed out last year, that WADA still keeps Saugy as head of its "flagship Lausanne laboratory" tells you that WADA is not really interested in fighting doping.
This was in November 2015:
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/the-destruction-of-samples-and-martial-saugy/"Perhaps more surprising was the finding of the Independent Commission that WADA’s flagship Lausanne laboratory had ‘acted contrary to specific instructions’ by destroying 67 Russian samples transferred from the Moscow laboratory, and that WADA had requested it to retain. ‘The IC is not satisfied with the explanations given for the destruction of the samples transferred from the Moscow laboratory’, reads the Commission’s 323-page report. “We got an explanation from the Lausanne Laboratory but we did not believe the explanationâ€, said Commission President Richard Pound when announcing the Commission’s findings on 9 November."
Paula of course had no other choice than to go to Saugy...
He went from director of an analysis lab to director of a newly formed center of Research, Expertise, and Education.https://www.unil.ch/reds/en/home/menuinst/what-is-the-reds.htmlHe is no stranger to research:https://applicationspub.unil.ch/sylviamigr/interpub/noauth/php/Un/UnPers.php?PerNum=730234&LanCode=37&menu=pub
Rekrunnners wrote:
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/links-between-moscow-lausanne-labs-need-investigating/Promotion? You are clearly mental, totally corrupt.
Ashenden:
"Lets look at the figures. In its 2011 publication (and reiterated in its press release on 4th August), the IAAF estimated that 14% of your elite endurance athletes had blood doped during the 2001-09 era. Thats 700 blood dopers. Since 2011, just 63 Passport cases have been pursued by the IAAF. Publicly available documents list 72 positive cases for EPO (including CERA, admissions) in athletics between 2001 and now. To be ultra-conservative, lets add around 50% to those totals, and assume 200 sanctions for blood doping have or will be issued against athletes who raced through 2009. Based on the IAAFs own publication, there are likely to be 500 athletes who cheated, competed, and got away."
Dirty Athletes wrote:
Ashenden:
"Lets look at the figures. In its 2011 publication (and reiterated in its press release on 4th August), the IAAF estimated that 14% of your elite endurance athletes had blood doped during the 2001-09 era. Thats 700 blood dopers. Since 2011, just 63 Passport cases have been pursued by the IAAF. Publicly available documents list 72 positive cases for EPO (including CERA, admissions) in athletics between 2001 and now. To be ultra-conservative, lets add around 50% to those totals, and assume 200 sanctions for blood doping have or will be issued against athletes who raced through 2009. Based on the IAAFs own publication, there are likely to be 500 athletes who cheated, competed, and got away."
And Radcliffe was one of them!
Autologous Madness wrote:
And Radcliffe was one of them!
That goes without saying. With reasonable thresholds, she would have been out of the picture since at least 2003.
Also note that of course Ashenden was way too "ultra-conservative" in his assumption of 200 investigated cases.
These numbers are further support for the thresholds being too low, as only 10% of the blood dopers (according to IAAFs own numbers) were caught.
As in other sports (see UCI) or with other doping means, there should be a hard threshold, such as > 100 for women and you become automatically a convicted drug cheat, rather than the current above 110, and Saugy will look at your case. (Note that one dissenting voice of the 3-person panel suffices to let the athlete go free - ridiculo.)
Very interesting quote from our renowned blood expert. But does Ashenden's non-peer reviewed analysis stand up to basic fact checks? Or is it melodrama from sour grapes.Yes, let's look at the figures. Let's try to answer two basic questions:From the IAAF publication, is 700 a good estimate of the number of endurance athlete dopers?Did the IAAF tell us "blood dopers"?Working backwards 700 "blood dopers" being 14% means 5000 endurance athletes total.Indeed, from the mentioned publication, Table 2 shows us 4999, but 4999 what? Not "endurance athletes" but the number of blood samples from them.The same publication explicitly tells us that the IAAF collected data from 2737 athletes -- endurance, non-endurance, and others.So the number of "endurance athletes" must be some number not more than 2737, and clearly significantly less than 5000.What's a good estimate of the number of "endurance athletes" out of these 2737? That's hard to derive from the details in the study.From details in the study, we might guess 79%, or 2162 athletes, but this is probably an over-estimation.How many could be "blood doping". From the study, it is 18% (not 14% -- Did Ashenden even read the study?) of the blood samples.18% is also likely an over-estimation, but just the same, we might guess 18% of 2162 is 389.Using Ashenden's ultra-conservative 200 dopers caught, then this means the IAAF caught, or will catch more than 50% of an estimated 389 "blood dopers". Not great, but not as bad as the 28.5% that Ashenden ultra-conservatively estimated.But, is "blood dopers" even the right term? From the study, the IAAF estimated the prevalence of abnormal blood samples, from an ABPS score. What is that? An abnormal blood profile score. Something like the Off-hr score we've talked about, but a different method of calculating what is abnormal, based on many more blood parameters.Since ABPS is also based on blood parameters, like hemoglobin, it is not immune to the artificially high red blood cell counts caused by altitude training, and by any hemoconcentration from withdrawing blood within two hours of an intense activity.How many athletes trained at altitude? From the study, the IAAF tells us 5%, or about 137 athletes. Now some of these training at altitude go there to "mask EPO micro-dosing", but some athletes go to altitude training, hoping to get EPO-like benefits without resorting to EPO.How many were withdrawn before the two-hour time limit? That's hard to say, but we know at least two, and also likely very many before the two-hour delay standard was put into place.So why do I think that 79% over-estimates the number of endurance athletes, and 18% prevalence is an over-estimate?From the study, we know that the blood sample collection was not a random distribution, but the IAAF used feedback to intelligently target athletes from athletes with high values, or athletes they suspected might be doping. From the study, the "non-random" approach favors doping, that is it should over-estimate the prevalence of dopers among the athletes tested. Also from the study, the IAAF told us that endurance athletes were targeted more than non-endurance athletes, as they were more likely to benefit from blood doping. This means:- as a percentage, endurance athletes are over-represented in the number of blood samples- the prevalence of abnormal samples over-estimates the prevalance of athletes with abnormal samplesFor example, if we have normal samples from 90 athletes, and abnormal samples from 10 athletes, the IAAF might have requested 10 more samples from the abnormal athletes, from intelligent target testing, while not requesting any for the 90 athletes, mainly for cost reasons. This means that a 10% "abnormal athlete" prevalence would produce an 18% (20/110) "abnormal blood sample" prevalence.Maybe the WADA IC was right to conclude that the IAAF anti-doping was not that bad.
Dirty Athletes wrote:
Ashenden:
"Lets look at the figures. In its 2011 publication (and reiterated in its press release on 4th August), the IAAF estimated that 14% of your elite endurance athletes had blood doped during the 2001-09 era. Thats 700 blood dopers. Since 2011, just 63 Passport cases have been pursued by the IAAF. Publicly available documents list 72 positive cases for EPO (including CERA, admissions) in athletics between 2001 and now. To be ultra-conservative, lets add around 50% to those totals, and assume 200 sanctions for blood doping have or will be issued against athletes who raced through 2009. Based on the IAAFs own publication, there are likely to be 500 athletes who cheated, competed, and got away."
P.S. I earned $100 for writing that. So suck it, losers.
rekrunner wrote:
Very interesting quote from our renowned blood expert. But does Ashenden's non-peer reviewed analysis stand up to basic fact checks? Or is it melodrama from sour grapes.
Yes, let's look at the figures. Let's try to answer two basic questions:
From the IAAF publication, is 700 a good estimate of the number of endurance athlete dopers?
Did the IAAF tell us "blood dopers"?
Working backwards 700 "blood dopers" being 14% means 5000 endurance athletes total.
Indeed, from the mentioned publication, Table 2 shows us 4999, but 4999 what? Not "endurance athletes" but the number of blood samples from them.
The same publication explicitly tells us that the IAAF collected data from 2737 athletes -- endurance, non-endurance, and others.
So the number of "endurance athletes" must be some number not more than 2737, and clearly significantly less than 5000.
What's a good estimate of the number of "endurance athletes" out of these 2737? That's hard to derive from the details in the study.
From details in the study, we might guess 79%, or 2162 athletes, but this is probably an over-estimation.
How many could be "blood doping". From the study, it is 18% (not 14% -- Did Ashenden even read the study?) of the blood samples.
18% is also likely an over-estimation, but just the same, we might guess 18% of 2162 is 389.
Using Ashenden's ultra-conservative 200 dopers caught, then this means the IAAF caught, or will catch more than 50% of an estimated 389 "blood dopers". Not great, but not as bad as the 28.5% that Ashenden ultra-conservatively estimated.
But, is "blood dopers" even the right term? From the study, the IAAF estimated the prevalence of abnormal blood samples, from an ABPS score. What is that? An abnormal blood profile score. Something like the Off-hr score we've talked about, but a different method of calculating what is abnormal, based on many more blood parameters.
Since ABPS is also based on blood parameters, like hemoglobin, it is not immune to the artificially high red blood cell counts caused by altitude training, and by any hemoconcentration from withdrawing blood within two hours of an intense activity.
How many athletes trained at altitude? From the study, the IAAF tells us 5%, or about 137 athletes. Now some of these training at altitude go there to "mask EPO micro-dosing", but some athletes go to altitude training, hoping to get EPO-like benefits without resorting to EPO.
How many were withdrawn before the two-hour time limit? That's hard to say, but we know at least two, and also likely very many before the two-hour delay standard was put into place.
So why do I think that 79% over-estimates the number of endurance athletes, and 18% prevalence is an over-estimate?
From the study, we know that the blood sample collection was not a random distribution, but the IAAF used feedback to intelligently target athletes from athletes with high values, or athletes they suspected might be doping. From the study, the "non-random" approach favors doping, that is it should over-estimate the prevalence of dopers among the athletes tested. Also from the study, the IAAF told us that endurance athletes were targeted more than non-endurance athletes, as they were more likely to benefit from blood doping. This means:
- as a percentage, endurance athletes are over-represented in the number of blood samples
- the prevalence of abnormal samples over-estimates the prevalance of athletes with abnormal samples
For example, if we have normal samples from 90 athletes, and abnormal samples from 10 athletes, the IAAF might have requested 10 more samples from the abnormal athletes, from intelligent target testing, while not requesting any for the 90 athletes, mainly for cost reasons. This means that a 10% "abnormal athlete" prevalence would produce an 18% (20/110) "abnormal blood sample" prevalence.
Maybe the WADA IC was right to conclude that the IAAF anti-doping was not that bad.
rekrunnner wrote:
P.S. I earned $100 for writing that. So suck it, losers.
rekrunner wrote:But, is "blood dopers" even the right term? From the study, the IAAF estimated the prevalence of abnormal blood samples, from an ABPS score. What is that? An abnormal blood profile score. Something like the Off-hr score we've talked about, but a different method of calculating what is abnormal, based on many more blood parameters.
not that bad.
"But is " blood dopers " the right term?"
Well, an abnormal blood profile score is when you dump the chemicals in, and the jelly in the skin-bag starts vibrating. All the millions of little chemical changes vibrate off in different directions, and they never return to their original state.
"Well gee, I never thought of that, you see. I'll have to give you the $1000 answer."
Paula uses tactics practiced by notorious pathological liars, such as blaming others vehemently for using EPO and depicting drug use as terrible. Also saying she'll get a lie detector in a desperate attempt to appear clean. A manipulator is all talk. They'll say anything to please someone. And I believe many pathological liars can actually pass a lie detector, because if they feel no guilt about the lie (they are so used to lying that it's natural to them), it won't register as a lie on the detector. She'll continue her predictable strategy, condoning drug use and users, to make the gullible and naively ignorant supporters think she is an angel who would never cheat. If a liar can't appeal to the intelligent and critical thinking mass, they'll still be satisfied in duping the ignorant and naive. She's 3-4 minutes up on the most egregious dopers, use your ducking head people. EPO works wonders, sorry Renato.
EPO and autologous blood transfusions! That was Paula's magic regimen throughout her career! Plus don't forget Heanling Hans' magic touch!Autologous blodd transfusion madness = 2:15!Autologous blood transfusions cheats out!
juliusandthemantis wrote:
She's 3-4 minutes up on the most egregious dopers, use your ducking head people. EPO works wonders, sorry Renato.
Have you figured out what plasma shift is yet?
"In all of these three cases referred to by the Sunday Times (as well as on many more occasions) I was EPO urine tested at the time, and also in follow up. All of these three cases followed periods of altitude training. Only one of my blood test scores is marginally above the 1 in 100 accepted threshold, and this is invalid given that it was collected immediately following a half marathon race run around midday in temperatures of approximately 30C. None of my blood test scores are anywhere near the 1 in 1000 threshold as was claimed by the Sunday Times and that which is seen as suspicion of doping. No abnormalities were ultimately found and any allegation that the IAAF did not follow up on blood data results in my case is false."
Seeing as this thread is back on Page 1, might I ask (again) that someone explain to me what the '1 in 100' and '1 in a 1000' thresholds are, and why the latter is seen as suspicion of doping and the former is not.
The terms in themselves seem to be extremely misleading, in the sense that the average reader would interpret '1 in 100 threshold' as meaning that the chances are 1 in 100 of the athlete getting an off-score in this range without doping. But clearly this is not what is meant?
juliusandthemantis wrote:
Paula uses tactics practiced by notorious pathological liars, such as blaming others vehemently for using EPO and depicting drug use as terrible. Also saying she'll get a lie detector in a desperate attempt to appear clean. A manipulator is all talk. They'll say anything to please someone. And I believe many pathological liars can actually pass a lie detector, because if they feel no guilt about the lie (they are so used to lying that it's natural to them), it won't register as a lie on the detector. She'll continue her predictable strategy, condoning drug use and users, to make the gullible and naively ignorant supporters think she is an angel who would never cheat. If a liar can't appeal to the intelligent and critical thinking mass, they'll still be satisfied in duping the ignorant and naive. She's 3-4 minutes up on the most egregious dopers, use your ducking head people. EPO works wonders, sorry Renato.
Lie detectors are not reliable. Paula also never did the unreliable lie detector test that she talked about doing. That is not surprising to me.
From Wiki:
Since the 1999 European Cup, Radcliffe wears a red ribbon when competing to show her support for blood testing as a method of catching drugs cheats.[108][111]
She has previously asked for the results of a blood test taken at the London Marathon to be made public, saying that she had "absolutely no objection to my test being released".[115]
In 2015, in the wake of revelations of widespread doping in athletics,[116] Radcliffe said that, unlike some other prominent British athletes, she would not be releasing her blood-test history, and discouraged other athletes from doing so.[117] She was later indirectly identified as a suspected doper by MP Jesse Norman during a parliamentary inquiry into blood doping.[118][119] In response, Radcliffe issued a statement in which she "categorically denied" cheating in any form and said she has "nothing to hide".[120] Shortly afterwards, her three suspect test results were leaked, though Radcliffe still refused to release her complete blood-test history.[121] In late November 2015, the IAAF declared that the accusation were "based on the gross misinterpretation of incomplete data". The UK Anti Doping Agency, having received Radcliffe's blood test history via the IAAF, stated that "Ukad has come to the same conclusion as the IAAF review that there is no case to answer".[122]
For further reading on hemoglobin mass:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874847/Oh yea.