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

1000^3 is indeed 1,000,000,000 in my world. I'll let you draw the logical conclusion, then, from your own statement.

And I'll stop feeding the troll....

rekrunner wrote:

So maybe one.

Strange how cyclists died in their sleep, but he died in a race.

Liggett said 100s of cyclists. How many runners? 100s?

fred wrote:

Tarno

Nothing strange about it.

Long turn heavy use of Epo and other drugs leads to damage to the internal walls of the circulatory system, especially in areas where the flow slows. Sitting on a bike x hours a day pumping sludge through a closed sieve.

East German "women" have sued their coaches and managers for damage done to their bodies by drugs.

Other runners will die

larkimm wrote:

I think the IAAF missed a trick by not separating Paula from the wider case.

How do you imagine that playing out? It's an honest question.

I find it amazing that the most outspoken anti drugs campaigning athlete in recent history has been virtually silent during the collapse of the IAAF, the outing by exceptionally brave whistleblowers of cheats and the corruption at the heart of the sport and governing body.

During this period she has made almost no comment on the IAAF, has made no condemnation of Coe or Nike or the testing procedures failings.

Whether she is dirty or not her stance goes to show that money and status mean far more to her than truth and morals.

Can LETSRUN match paulas $1 million so we can make this lie detector test happen?

how much will it cost altogether?

She has decided to align herself with a corrupt organisation run by a small serving group rather than speak out for what is right. She has chosen her side, and it's Seb's/Nike's/IAAF's.

larkimm wrote:

Next week, I'm suffering from dehydration as I've deliberately not drunk anything since Sunday morning, I've just been for a run, and I've also had a stomach complaint over the weekend. I now get an off score which is beyond the 1/1000 threshold.

I find it amusing that Paula had this as a viable reason for hitting her 115 off-score, and yet dumped it in favour of blaming the test equipment.

I think the onus is on anyone who has a 1/100 off-score (IOW, a result which indicates, ceteris paribus, that there is a 99% chance you are a doper) to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they aren't a cheat.

Paula seems to have resorted very lately to facile explanations.

The fact that Paula and her team were monitoring blood values in 2003, and were able to discuss these with testers, would make me incredibly suspicious even if I didn't know about the high off-scores.

To me, that's the smoking gun.

It is worth noting that Paula has a 'get out of jail' card which I believe she could use to emerge from this mucky affair with dignity more or less intact.

She has admitted to visiting 'Healing' Hans Muller-Wohlfahrt every two to three months for a 'tune-up'. Many on here will know that Muller-Wohlfahrt administers Actovegin to most of his visitors as an integral part of their treatment.

Actovegin is not on the IAAF banned list (well, it was once, briefly, but that's another story) but it is known to enhance the uptake of oxygen by tissues in the body.

Surely this could provide a legitimate, or at least semi-plausible, explanation for the weird off-scores? Worth a try?

I\'ve been off this thread a while.

I assume you are trying to bring me into this. First when I reached out and spoke to Paula it was first as a friend and off the record not as an investigative journalist. Since I paced her to her world record and consider her a friend I was fine doing that. If she has said anything I consider to be a lie, I don\'t feel any need to keep private what she told me.

And the first thing I emailed Gary was that Paula should release all her blood values. And I even said she should do this if she had something to hide. I acknowledged and acknowledge now the fact she like any athlete could be cheating. I\'m just see no evidence to convince me that\'s the case because besides in this thread I haven\'t seen any place people argue anything is conclusive. Actually, I haven\'t seen her actually accused of anything specific anywhere in any traditional publication.

We didn\'t sit there and go through every test. She said it was hot (proven to be true), she mentioned altitude, and she mentioned faulty, unstandardized equipment. She showed me info from supposedly indpendent people looking at her scores and saying they were reasonable. She also said she wanted the IAAF or WADA to clear her and that more info would come out. I didn\'t feel the need personally to lead some sort of investigation because a) we spoke off the record b) i was pretty confident more information HAD to come out after talking to her c) I don\'t have the blood database and d) if more info didn\'t come out, she gave me enough info that I could ask around and make things difficult.

When I read the Sunday Mail, I felt that was the level of info I was given but felt there was more out there to come.

I still think we are in the more info coming out phase. I strongly disagree with her not releasing everything. That is something I told Gary guilty people usually do. Doesn\'t mean she\'s guilty. They noted WADA told them not to release the data and he said more info would come out. That is still happening I hope. I still stand by the claim that all of Paula\'s values in the database will be published at some point.

Sorry in today\'s age, I can\'t see an athlete taking a bag of their own blood and saying that\'s not doping. I should follow up with Paula and ask her about the MRI lie detector. I can also ask her if she considers blood transfusions doping.

I think you can\'t just look at one side of the evidence and not the other. I\'m trying to see both sides. If Paula couldn\'t be worried about a blood transfusion in 2003, then why go to this elaborate plan to make stuff up in her biography to have a cover story years later? That is what some of you are saying right?

Either it\'s a) an incredibly elaborate attempt to cover for this (even though she couldn\'t be sanctioned) b) a weird coincidence or b) she was telling the truth. Am I missing something?

If it\'s a) why do it if you thought you had nothing to worry about from Portugal?

I don\'t know much about blood values. But if the 12.0 score pre-Portugal was too low a score does that change some of your views on this? What if the pretest score was just off for some reason?

Also would you all who think she was doping expect there to be a big rise at all of her major races?

I was wondering if the old data would show that but I just thought of something.

If WADA doesn't blood test 2 hours after a race and thus there isn't an immediate test post-race with blood values, how do they catch cheats with the ABP?

You all are saying right that Paula blood doped essentially the day before the race. If that's the case, could every athlete do that these days? WADA guidelines say no blood tests after races as it's not reliable. So if everyone just dropped a bag of blood the day before the race would they be good to go?

How do they catch cheats with the ABP since 2009? They have blood results that look like Paula's results. Testing immediately after or two hours later isn't going to change the values much. The hemoglobin values and reticulocyte scores will still be altered from the transfusion.

Go to this site and read this whole article.

http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

Ross Tucker goes through many of the same points we have here, how to calculate OFF scores, etc., and has the 1974 Dill and David Costill study of 6 subjects, who ran for 2.5-3 hours, becoming dehydrated, losing 4% of their body weight. Their average increase in hemoglobin level is 1.6 g/dl, with a maximum in one subject of 2.2g/dl increase. Paula wants you to believe she went from 12.0 before the race to 14.8 post race in Ross's article, to now with the new numbers from the Sunday Times, a post race hemoglobin level of 15.6g/dl, which is an increase of 3.6g/dl, which is 125% more of an increase than the average increase in the study, and 63.64% more than the maximum increase in the study, and Paula achieved this unprecedented level of dehydration in just 1 hour and seven minutes of running, while simultaneously beating the best women in the world( some of whom were probably doping) by over a minute at the World Champs HalfMarathon. Not only could she dominate the world so severely dehydrated, she did it with a hemoglobin level of 12.0g/dl, which is anemic. Paula is so good she can dominate while severely dehydrated and anemic at the same time....GO Paula...and Paula's hemoglobin level magically goes from 12.0 prerace anemic to 15.6 post race value of above normal ( normal range is 12.0-15.0g/dl for females) so a 30% increase!, when that max 2.2g/dl increase from the study was less than 15% increase.

A blood transfusion explanation for these rapid and large changes in hemoglobin values is more plausible than the dehydration explanation.

Remember, none of these blood tests were supposed to ever be made public, they were leaked. Look at the chart at the bottom of Ross Tucker's article. It shows Paula's OFF scores and several other British runners who released their OFF scores to the press . Paula's scores are all around the 1/100 altitude adjusted score cutoff on 3 separate tests separated in time and space, taken in 2003 Portugal, 2005 Helsinki World Champs, and 2012 off season Monte Carlo (Remember, Paula can always be "at altitude" since she can have an altitude tent no matter where she is located), so she can always use the higher altitude adjusted cutoff number. Even so, NONE of the other athletes show ANY abnormal scores, not even at a 1/10 altitude adjusted score, while Paula has 3 scores at the 1/100 altitude adjusted score, which means 1/100 chance that a clean athlete would produce that score by just random chance, and Paula has done it three times!!! So you can see how Paula is just really UNLUCKY with blood test results!!!.... See how Paula's OFF scores are way above all the others!!!.....See how Paula has 3 separate blood tests from the Sunday Times with hemoglobin scores above 15.0g/dl, which are all above normal!!!!, while at the same time her reticulocyte scores are just below normal range(0.5-1.5%) in 2003 and 2005 postrace tests, which can indicate blood transfusion, which are typically done just once or twice per year for big events... like World Championships... like these 2003 and 2005 races....

Low reticulocytes like Paula's can indicate blood transfusion, while high reticulocytes can indicate EPO use. This is why Paula needs to release complete blood test results, especially prerace and postrace her world record 2:15 and 2:17 marathons, even her whole career, because Paula is all about truth and transparency...Why wouldn't she want to release the results, if they would help prove her case...??? She wouldn't have anything to hide, would she Wejo?? It's hard to be objective with Paula for you, isn't it? She is your friend.... I can understand that.

Don't you think it is strange that Paula keeps changing her explanation for her blood test results from the Half Marathon race in 2003, from "I was sick"(in her biography), to "I was REALLY DEHYDRATED and ANEMIC, but won the World Champs by over a minute(because I am Paula Radcliffe-SUPERWOMAN) anyway"...to "IT MUST BE A LAB ERROR"...Come on now...Really???

In my experience, people that are telling the truth don't change their story; they just stick to the same truthful story. People that have something to hide are the ones who change their stories...and Paula not being transparent and open...which she always boasted about in the past...but when it comes time to really be open and transparent, not just talk the talk but walk the walk...she doesn't do it....which makes me more curious and more suspicious than ever about her bloodtest results that she doesn't want anyone to see....

Also, the MRI lie detector test is junk science. There is no scientific validation for that test. It's a diversion at best. We are not going to fall for that nonsense. Forget the MRI lie detector test Paula...we want to see the bloodtest results!!!

Please read the

http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

..... good article, and her new Sunday Times numbers for 2003 look MORE IMPLAUSIBLE for Paula than the numbers from this September 2015 article...

Coming soon...a look at the past, present, and future of blood manipulation through blood transfusions and erythropoiesis stimulating agents...stay tuned .....It is quite the cast of characters in this story...coming soon to this Lets Run message board...

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

larkimm wrote:

I think the IAAF missed a trick by not separating Paula from the wider case.

How do you imagine that playing out? It's an honest question.

Fair question.

Honestly, I imagine that now it makes the two reputations inextricably linked (erroneously, in my view). If the IAAF loses its reputation significantly (as opposed to a cabal of a few within the IAAF bringing its reputation into doubt) then Paula's will suffer, and if Paula's reputation is evidenced as flawed, that will reflect on the IAAF by using her as an example.

Its a tactic by the IAAF which carries risk. Now, the naive amongst us (myself!) will say that the IAAF are so 100% certain of Paula's innocence that they are prepared to use her as the best example they can find of how they effectively and proportionately respond to difficult OFF scores and blood readings.

The cynical amongst us will say that the IAAF is blind to its own failings and that they've made up a case in favour of Paula because she is a protected athlete.

They could have spun this far better. They could have said "Here's a really good example of how the IAAF pursues concerns raised through OFF score resutls. Paula R, world record holder, had blood test results which fell outside of normal ranges and this raised concerns at the IAAF. Her scores were raised internally with our focussed testing team and they moved her onto a testing regime which was X times higher than normal. The results of that focussed testing showed no positive tests. The cause of the OFF scores was formally investigated by a panel of X doctors approved by WADA. Their report dated XX concluded that the following explanations for Ms Radcliffe's OFF scores met the test of plausibility agreed by the IAAF / WADA. Following XX months of focussed testing, Ms Radcliffe was formally removed from the focussed testing programme as the IAAF concluded that, on the best available evidence, there was no case to answer for any charge of doping. However, the IAAF is mindful that future testing technology will improve retrospective detection of doping and would welcome approaches from doctors, athletes, coaching or support staff connected with any athlete to report historic concerns of doping to our independent panel. No athlete is above suspicion, and whilst the IAAF is happy to confirm Ms Radcliffe as having a clean record in relation to doping offences, and indeed welcomes her as part of our governance arrangements, we would act if new information was brought to our attention."

But they didn't spin it like that, did they, and so that makes some of the more cynically minded individuals here raise what I consider to be tinfoil hat theories. I might be wrong, and I don't disagree that enhanced cynicism may be valid at the moment, but I don't think I am (my prerogative).

1) Hot: she said 85 F, the records show 70 F.

2) Altitude: she said "right after", the records show more than six weeks after.

3) Faulty equipment: you did not report that in that thread, as far as I remember.

To verify points 1 and 2, costs less than 20 minutes on the internet. Note that she doesn't use these excuses anymore, but some people on this thread continue to do so.

4) Dehydration: that obviously can explain raising concentrations, yes, but only linearly with the lost volume. Even if she lost 10% plasma in her one hour race (highly unlikely to downright impossible), her values would have gone up 10%, not 25%. Again, she doesn't use that excuse anymore, but her defenders continue to do so, even here on letsrun.

What other side? Her behavior? To me, it looks like the behavior of a guilty doper. Cover up story? She keeps changing it.

I would be very surprised and extremely impressed, if she only blood-doped, consider her extreme stand-out success (and blood values and varying excuses, and the trivial tests 10 - 12 years ago) surpassing that of Flo-Jo and Junxia.

Then dehydration could indeed explain one test (but not three). But again, she doesn't use the dehydration excuse anymore...

Let's turn this around. What if the next doper claims 'faulty equipment' for either the A or the B test? If it really was faulty, he couldn't get banned, right? Would you believe him/her? What if it was a Russian? What if every doper from now on uses that excuse - with zero evidence for that, like Paula?

I do wish the weather on the day for "heat" wasn't discounted so readily from the Vilamoura account. It makes those who use that "evidence" look really dumb.

The IAAF contemporary report says "But the scorching Algarve weather, with temperatures rising rapidly from 22C after the start, seriously blunted any ambitions Radcliffe may have had in that direction."

"Rising rapidly from 22C after the start." Not 22C throughout the race.

Now, it may not have reached 30degC mid race, I don't know. But it certainly wasn't a balmy 22decC throughout the race according to the IAAF at the time.

Also from the Daily Telegraph -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-baker/2422729/Athletics-Corners-slowed-Radcliffe.html

:-

"The women's race at Vilamoura was run after the men's, and therefore started shortly before noon, with the sun shining in a cloudless sky, no breeze, and a temperature of 23C and rising.")

None of which is to say that the other claims about plasma levels etc aren't accurate etc. I'm not well enough versed in the details or the technical aspects of things to comment. But please stop using the weather angle, it doesn't help your case! Repeatedly saying that it was cool doesn't change the fact that contemporary reports published in the media say it wasn't!

Is larkimm working for NIKE or the FREUD pr firm ???

Disprove anything I've written, please feel free. I just say what I see. And I am a Paula fan, with my kids running for the same club that she did as a youngster, so I have a personal interest.

Are you comfortable with the fact that she is such a 'shoe in' at the IAAF with Coe? I want my kids to take part in a sport with transparency and moral clarity, at the moment athletics is not that sport. As for being a member of Bedford, I don't see the connection, unless they joined the club because of it's association with her rather than for the love of the sport.