Is there anything wrong with the IAAF's science? From my point of view, this report looks like it could be a cover job. Was Martial Saugy involved in writing it?
We agree on all the OFF scores, and how they are calculated.
For the 2003 scores, how can they acknowledge that the Hgb and reticulocyte scores are abnormal, but still within their thresholds at the same time..they must have some pretty generous thresholds they use... I don't know what they are..but these scores are abnormal according to biochemistry and lab textbooks I use..
The temperature increase during the race from 23 to 29 degrees during the race would be a 6degree C or 10.8 degreeF in 1 to 2 hours, which seems like a lot, but ok, it doesn"t matter anyway, as the dehydration explanation isn't plausible.
I have already explained in great detail, with references to the 1974 journal article on Ross Tucker's website done by Dill and Costill with runners that ran for 2.5 to 3 hours, got very dehydrated, had their plasma volume decrease, lost over 4% of their bodyweight( that would be 6 pounds for a 150lb person), and their hemoglobin levels only increased by 1.6g/dl average with a maximum increase of 2.2g/dl in one subject. So an increase from 12.0 to 15.6( a 3.6 increase is a 30% increase!) is not plausible. That is why Paula wants that 12.0 Hgb to now be LAB ERROR, since winning the race with an unprecedented level of dehydration while at the same time she was anemic with a hemoglobin level of 12.0 is not very believable, is it....
The most suspicious part, which is what really first caught my eye in this whole episode, is the Hgb increase from 12 to 15.6, with the OFF score going from 82 to 114.87 at the same time frame from prerace( pretty sure Oct. 2, but it doesn't really matter exactly when) to postrace(Oct.4)...yet this most suspicious part is not even mentioned in the IAAF report....very suspicious to not mention the most suspicious part of her blood test results...the massive CHANGES, not just absolute scores in isolation....this is the BEST evidence for blood transfusion...and it's left out!!!....
If Paula was at altitude, and remember Paula can always be at altitude, no matter the time or the place, because she can have her altitude tent with her anywhere on the planet....and her reticulocytes are low because of altitude according to the IAAF, then why hasn't her Hgb score gone up, since that is what altitude training does...it increases Hgb scores (Paula actually uses this explanation of increased Hgb from altitude exposure to explain her Feb.7,2012 suspicious OFF score of 109.35 with a very high Hgb score of 16.2g/dl, which is a very high Hgb value for a female...more on that score later)....but here in 2003 Paula has had altitude exposure and her Hgb level is only up to 12.0g/dl for the World Championships, which is an anemic hemoglobin level...which indicates that Paula didn't respond well to altitude exposure in terms of Hgb increase, did she? ...Then her Hgb level goes up 30% postrace, which is most plausibly explained by blood transfusion......nothing about that in the report, is there?..
None of these 2003 blood results indicate EPO use, which takes a while to work and would have given a higher prerace Hgb value, not a value of 12.0, so of course the EPO urine test is negative...no surprise there...
The IAAF statement about the 2003 postrace sample being invalid because of research showing plasma volume increases close to competition, is, (if you wrote that correctly) not correct for an explanation of these values. While it is true that there can be plasma volume increases during and after the race( Ross Tucker actually has at his site in the same article referenced previously a study of female runners who run for 1 hour and 20 minutes(close to the time Paula is running here) and their Hgb levels stay the same or actually go DOWN slightly due to plasma volume expansion during and after the run, which dilutes the Hgb and thus causes Hgb levels to actually stay the same or DECREASE postrrace. That CANNOT be used as an explanation for Paula's Hgb value INCREASE by a lot(3.6g/dl) postrace! An explanation for increasing Hgb values postrace is signifigant dehydration, like the earlier Dill and Costill study with running for 2.5-3hrs, with 4% bodyweight loss. Under these more severe conditions, there is plasma volume loss due to dehydration, which causes Hgb values to increase(by 1.6g/dl average in the study) due to hemoconcentration. The dehydration explanation however does not explain Paula's huge 3.6g/dl increase postrace....it's too much! The IAAF claim of plasma volume expansion to try to explain an increase of hemoglobin postrace is WRONG!!! It is backwards in terms of basic physiology in terms of explaining why her high Hgb score postrace is invalid.....You can go to Ross Tucker's site and read about how plasma volume can go either up or down, depending on the situation...but this is pretty basic physiology....except for the IAAF?....
The suspicious bloodtest off season in Monte Carlo on Feb.7,2012 gives an OFF score of 109.35(above the altitude cutoff of about 106) and a very high hemoglobin level of 16.2g/dl with a normal reticulocyte score (which can go up with EPO use and down with transfusions). This is offseason, so one wouldn't be doing a blood transfusion. As an aside, one could withdraw blood during the off season to store for in season transfusions...this would give a low hemoglobin level just after the blood withdrawl for a while, and an off season bloodtest would then show a suspiciously low hemoglobin level. Paula's Hgb level here is high at 16.2g/dl, a level that would be quite rare to see in a female (remember all these high OFF scores are 1/100 probabilities for each abnormal OFF score). Use of EPO could also increase the Hgb to this high level, but here her reticulocyte score is 0.77%(normal range is 0.5% to 1.5%), so it is within normal range, which argues against EPO use, which will raise reticulocyte scores to above normal range, typically with scores above 1.5% or even above 2%. Here we also have no other scores before or after to compare it to for large magnitude changes...the most suspicious thing to look for is large sequential changes...but we can't here because there aren't any other scores for comparison....
Remember how I showed above how Paula didn't respond to altitude in 2003, with a hemoglobin level that only got up to 12.0 for the race.....well that's weird,...... because here in 2012 Paula is responding REALLY WELL to altitude, with a high OFF score and really high Hgb level of 16.2!!!. Now, typical increases in Hgb values are about 4-6% increases after altitude exposure, with some outliers increasing by 10%. So I am sure Paula can say that besides being an outlier in how much she can get dehydrated compared to your typical human, she is also an outlier in terms of altitude responders...sometimes she doesn't respond at all and other times she responds a lot....that seems very unusual to me....Somebody who responds to altitude should always respond to altitude....it shouldn't be a look, here I am not responding to altitude.....look again, here I am responding A LOT to altitude!!! That is very strange, isn't it?.....
So we will assume she increases her hemoglobin level by 10%! to get to that high 16.2, so she she would have had a pre-altitude level of about 14.7 (normal range for females for Hgb is 12.0 to 15.0g/dl), which would be in normal range, and then increasing by about 1.5g/dl from altitude exposure, which is a possible and plausible increase, to a very high Hgb level of 16.2g/dl.....so I will agree with the IAAF statement on this isolated 2012 score...it is plausible from altitude exposure...
However, it is also very suspicious that Paula in her biography refers to her bloodtest results and says that her bloodtest results DO NOT VARY MUCH AT ALL OVER TIME OR FROM ALTITUDE EXPOSURE..... huh,.....based on just all these scores released.... we have someone whose hemoglobin scores range from 12.0 (anemic) to 16.2(way above normal) over time....so that statement by Paula is absolutely FALSE!
There are lots of problems with the IAAF statements and lots of problems with Paula's statements......aren't there?
I will respond to the 2005 WC bloodtest results and IAAF statement a bit later.....