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

Lots of research in this thread (or some of the greatest trolling of all time).I still think the most likely path to broad disclosure is the corruption investigation into Diack. If they can get discovery into communications and records from his early tenure then we could really learn something about all name, not just PR.

As a fan of a few of the sports in Europe, I am glad to hear Operation Puerto names could still be revealed.

I have never heard of race radio. What has that person revealed before?

casual obsever wrote:

We already had two credible experts point out how suspicious her values were. Further, they weren't exactly convinced by the IAAFs counter arguments.

I don't think this is an accurate statement.

Ashenden and Parisotto reported that there were many, many athletes that they could see from the data had suspicious values, and moreover they were concerned that some of the readings were so off the scale that they were concerned that the IAAF was putting the health of athletes at risk, nevermind missing potential opportunities to identify doping.

But as far as I have read (and feel free to point me to something more specific, despite everything I am open-minded!) A&P have never accused Paula specifically and they have never said "how suspicious her values were". And in their rebuttal of the IAAF document, again I don't believe they referred to Paula, they again focussed on the wider issues.

It would be incredibly helpful if they did deal with Paula's case (no matter what the outcome), but I can't see that they have taken that opportunity.

larkimm wrote:

It would be incredibly helpful if they did deal with Paula's case (no matter what the outcome), but I can't see that they have taken that opportunity.

Ok, good point. As I said, I'd love to see a tribunal of three experts explicitly dealing with this case.

But in the meantime, their rejection of the various IAAF arguments (which dealt almost exclusively with Paula's case) is very strong:

In particular, see point 9, as Paula was placed into one of the two categories (and yes, again I'd love to see the details, not just for Paula):

- "When potential medical and physiological factors that can affect the key blood profiles could confidently be excluded, the athlete was flagged as ‘likely blood doping’"

- "Results that were flagged as ‘suspicious’ represented genuine evidence of potential doping, but other factors such as medical or physiological conditions could not be confidently ruled out. Such profiles required further investigation, such as targeted testing, to determine whether blood doping had indeed taken place."

In this thread, we have been discussing the "medical and physiological factors". Frankly, I don't see the case for either of the two. Altitude is irrelevant, once above 111; faulty equipment is a laugh without a shred of evidence; and again, she withdrew her dehydration argument (as well as altitude for two cases).

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

Haha. I love this. Whoever RaceRadio is turns out to be right about 90% of the time, eventually after all the nonsense dies down.

I was somewhat cynical about him when he first "outed" PR as being the British athlete with 3 suspicious blood tests when the IAAF coverup scandal first broke out just over a year ago. Since then he has indeed been proven right. I wonder whether he does have inside information? - he seems to have a decent reputation in the cycling community.

Thanks for a rational participation and response! I'll respond in kind:-

- my take on this is that in Paula's case that the IAAF, has offered a mixed response to both of the bullet points you make - firstly, they have said that in Paula's case some of the medical and physiological factors [could not be] confidently excluded, so that would not put her in the category of "likely doping", and secondly that in fact they actually did do targetted testing of her to determine if blood doping took place.

I accept that to take the IAAF's report as a piece of evidence then you have to be placing some faith in the IAAF. On balance, I still do, and I know that that's not the view of many on this thread and elsewhere.

Whilst the cabal including Diack clearly has brought the IAAF into disrepute, I take the view (others may differ) that the subsequent report into A&Ps claims as well as the elements dealing with Paula in particular are authoritative and viable. There are some elements which I agree with posters on here require more verification and challenge in both those elements of the IAAF report, but on balance I am comfortable with taking them as probably the best available evidence of both the IAAF's approach to testing for EPO and other blood doping, and also as evidence of sufficiency of their investigations into Paula's circumstances.

Actually, just for clarity I've re-read the IAAF's justification for considering that the three instances of Paula's higher OFF scores did not raise further concerns and thought I'd summarise them here so that we can be specific about what we are debating.

Vilamoura - 4th October 2003

HGB 15.6

Ret 0.47

OFF 114.87

- Neither HGB or Ret outside of the IAAF's thresholds used at the time

- High HGB acknowledged

- Sample collected just after competition in 29degC heat (IAAF assertion, not mine)

- IAAF disregards this sample as it was collected outside of the protocol currently in force (i.e. too close to the competition time) because "research" shows this causes increase in plasma volumes

- Low Ret acknowledged

- low ret scores common amongst endurance athletes (refers to two academic papers to back this up)

- PR was at Font Romeu three weeks before the event, and ret can fall for 3-4 weeks after periods at altitude

- Urine sample taken - negative for rEPO

Helsinki - 6th August 2005

HGB - 15.1

Ret - 0.47

OFF - 109.87

- Well below threshold of 123 in use at the time for OFF scores

- Sample collected just after competition, so same issues as Vilamoura

- Ret score also explained by altitude, at Font Romeu until 26th July 2005

- Urine tested negative for rEPO

- blood also tested for transfusion, negative result

- also tested 8 days later at world champs after marathon and urine and blood tests both proved negative (they don't disclose the blood readings)

- urine tests post marathon also tested 7 years later for rEPO and returned negative result

Monte Carlo - 7 Feb 2012

HGB 16.2

Ret 0.77

OFF 109.35

- Bio passport protocol now in force

- Altitude factored in as had been in Kenya throughout January 2012

- Also notes she says she used a hypoxic chamber after altitude training

- When her anonymised profile was reviewed by a panel the experts concluded this was plausible and therefore no further action required

So what factual observations from this can be genuinely disputed?

- 29degC at Vilamoura? I doubt the IAAF have just taken Paula's word for it, but it would be helpful to see the evidence they use for that. However, they do seem to be basing most of their reasoning behind the HGB score on proximity to competition rather than heat

- altitude 3 weeks before? Powerof10 website shows she competed in London on 7th September which is 4 weeks before, not 3. Unclear if she flew into London and returned to Font Romeu (reasonably likely) for another week at altitude, but certainly something which is apparently inconsistent with the IAAF report (this Guardian article references her altitude training prior to that race -

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/sep/08/athletics1

- but I couldn't find any more contemporary reports)

Is there anything wrong with the IAAF's science? I'm not in a position to answer this, but they do seem to be referring to scientific papers, some of which are authored by Ashenden and Parisotto on these specific issues.

No, there is nothing wrong with the figures and there is no case to answer. Just like most runners, she gets dehydrated and then rehydrated.

It's not my problem....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34948287

larkimm wrote:

Vilamoura - 4th October 2003

HGB 15.6

Ret 0.47

OFF 114.87

How do you explain the variation in HGB from 12 to 15.6 in a matter of days?

Larkimm : please explains this to me!

larkimm is a joke! wrote:

Larkimm : please explains this to me!

[Snipped]

I can't even attempt to as I am a self confessed physiology idiot.

But fair enough, is that the critical question that needs answering? In which case, how does this get answered?

(Remind me where the 12.0 figure comes from? Is that the figure quoted in Paula's book (ISTR that it is?)?)

Edit: found the reference to the 12.0 -

https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664

in her book.

I've no idea about HGB levels and how they can vary. From reading her text though I would note that "they did blood tests before the race" could be either immediately before (unusual, I'd have thought?) or as part of the diagnosis / treatment for the food poisoning which could be a day / couple of days / few more days earlier. Though I'd agree that a plain reading would probably tend you towards thinking at least on the day of the race.

So now we've established that there are three things which require further explanation:-

- where the IAAF gets its figure about the 29degC temperature (though recognising that this could be a blind alley in any event)

- there are inconsistencies between the IAAF's account of being down at sea level 3 weeks before, compared with races done in the UK 4 weeks before

- what the circumstances are around the two blood readings - 12.0 prior to the race (when prior, we don't know) and 15.6 within 2 hours of the race finishing

So we're getting somewhere. This is the sort of thing that a journo might be able to focus on and get some answers to to put the issue to bed.

larkimm is a joke! wrote:

larkimm wrote:

Vilamoura - 4th October 2003

HGB 15.6

Ret 0.47

OFF 114.87

How do you explain the variation in HGB from 12 to 15.6 in a matter of days?

12.8 to 15.6 in one hour is normal on a warm and humid day, running a half marathon. It's called dehydration.

troll much? wrote:

larkimm is a joke! wrote:

How do you explain the variation in HGB from 12 to 15.6 in a matter of days?

12.8 to 15.6 in one hour is normal on a warm and humid day, running a half marathon. It's called dehydration.

I'm happy to accept that if that is the opinion of someone with some credible standing in these sorts of things. Remember, I'm the one who is trying to advocate the case for Paula being clean!!

troll much? wrote:

larkimm is a joke! wrote:

How do you explain the variation in HGB from 12 to 15.6 in a matter of days?

12.8 to 15.6 in one hour is normal on a warm and humid day, running a half marathon. It's called dehydration.

I left this thread a while ago, for this reason. You've skipped the posts that show that the level of dehydration to move HGB from 12.0 to 15.6 is not compatable with the level of performance Paula put out that day. She would have had to lose a massive (I forget the number I posted, 17%?) of her plasma volume for dehydration to be the cause in the shift.

Everything seems to be a repeat.

from 12.8 to 15.6 hemoglobin is a reduction in plasma volume of 15.7%

How can you consider that to be massive? It's not, it's normal.

I have lost 7 pounds in fluid in 9 miles on a fast training run. How much plasma did I lose?

Clerk, what the real proble is, is people like Ross Tucker making a name for himself by making unfounded accusations about people. I would like to have a few words with him face to face and put him straight about a few aspect of ex phys he doesn't understand and his attitude of self promotion.

Any sane person will rely on Ross tucker's expertise and knowledge more than you, no?

troll much wrote:

from 12.8 to 15.6 hemoglobin is a reduction in plasma volume of 15.7%

How can you consider that to be massive? It's not, it's normal.

I have lost 7 pounds in fluid in 9 miles on a fast training run. How much plasma did I lose?

Can you clarify why you've picked on 12.8 as a figure? Paula's book reports 12.0, so let's make sure we're being consistent.

Also, can you clarify how you are calculating the plasma volume changes there? If you are asserting that the only change to the physiology is the change in plasma volume, don't you need to know the plasma / hemoglobin ratios for both measurements, or are you assuming volumes split in the 45/55 ratio? (I like learning stuff!)