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

Wow!...... Incredible!......Your part that goes...."...there are some people like me who don't know the science. I just knew i had a high HERMATOCRIT and that was good. I did well in chemistry in school and probably could learn the science but now I don't so when you all throw these numbers out I need more of a point of reference."......You must be kidding me!.....I have given out many points of reference.......Your post is just so typical..... hilarious in an unintentional way..... You must enjoy making yourself open to ridicule......It is HEMATOCRIT not HERMATOCRIT.... hey, close enough....right???......Go back and read all the posts, and journal references, and Ross Tucker articles at his website, and how to calculate an OFF score = Hemoglobin score X 10 - 60 x (square root of the reticulocyte% score), learn the difference between hermatocrit and hematocrit, learn how to spell, learn how to do math, learn about physiology and science....it's not too late!...and learn reading comprehension as well, since all of your new questions have already been answered here on previous posts not long ago .......if you could just learn how to understand what you are reading.....I have tried to make it simple to understand....but you just can't get it......oh well.... We aren't going to go back over everything again for you....We are moving on....and tell Paula we are still waiting to see those very complex, very hard to understand bloodtest results from before and after that MAGIC RACE...the 2:15.....Go Paula!!!......and now again..... at last!!!...............Go Lance!!!!.........................

This is the company that can perform the test

Paula has the $1 million ready

Thanks for all of the information. It does seem like people keep asking the same question. I suggest you put together s list of questions that you want Wejo to ask Paula. Make it very straightforward. These can be asked at the next event. The first, of course, is when she will release the scores. My sense is that, if you are correct, there has been official cover for this and she is not the only one. However, she is probably the biggest name to the public. Perhaps they are hoping to keep the spotlight off of her while they clear up messes.

Look, I know you all think that I have some sort of crush on Paula, that my house is adorned with posters of her, that my first born is called Radcliffe and that I've moved house so that my address is 2:15 Acacia Avenue.

I am as interested in a conclusion as to Paula's compliance with rules as everyone else here, which is why I took time out yesterday to look at the three instances which have brought her back under scrutiny.

There are lazy arguments here which are just not going to wash. "She is too quick to be clean" is lazy. She trained in Albuquerque doesn't cut it either.

Dealing with the three physiological test results is entirely valid, and there are some really good points being made here which do need further clarification. But pulling Wejo up because he adds a surplus "r" into a word gets us nowhere fast.

Ross Tucker himself is on the fence on the basis of the information that is out there (http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/ - "So, to wrap up – is Radcliffe lying? I don’t know. Her explanations are all plausible, but she hasn’t helped the situation or the credibility of her own explanations by playing this the way she has.", "I will say that I’d be open minded enough to accept those explanations if they were offered with maximum transparency. I’m not so cynical that I think she’s doped, but I’m also not as trusting as some of you (on Twitter and Facebook) who are already convinced of her innocence because a couple of experts have apparently looked at the data and agreed with her explanations.") so its disingenuous to use his analysis as "proof".

For example, he admits he doesn't deal with osmolality, is missing facts about timing of tests ("So herein lies the crux – there are other variables, associated with dehydration, that would lend credence to the position of dehydration. You could look at osmolality, body weight changes (though I’m not sure these are routinely measured). Even confirming the weather conditions on the day, and the timing of the test relative to finishing the race, and disclosing these values alongside the off-score, the hemoglobin concentration and the reticulocyte % would help turn a possible into a plausible into a credible explanation!). He doesn't deal with some of the factors that are now taken into account when taking bloods, including posture.

No-one other than rjm33 on this thread appears to be dealing with the 12.0 to 15.6 Hgb change. It seems to me that it is important that this is followed up in the real world, and perhaps Wejo is the best option for trying to put this specifically to Paula.

But I remain of the opinion that for me to change my view about Paula's cleanliness is that I need to see evidence of doping, not just evidence of some things raising potential suspicions. It seems to me that many on this thread need to see evidence of cleanliness, and that seems to me to be a higher standard than is being asked of any other athlete competing today, or who has competed in the past. Perhaps that is where athletics needs to go to avoid these debates continuing ad infinitum, but I'm not sure that that is the right approach.

Anti doping agencies readily admit that some dopers will be ahead of the anti doping, that their efforts will always be limited by resources, and that they have to accept that some dopers will slip through the net. We live in an imperfect world.

Larkimm, what in your mind would count as 'evidence of doping'?

To Wejo and others. I am not sure that this will help to get rjm33's message across regarding the increase in hemoglobin values for the Portugal tests:

Very basically, when the body starts to lose water such as when running under warm temparatures, the body will try to preferentially conserve plasma volume. So you will have to lose a lot of water from other parts of body before you start to see the reduction in blood plasma volume that will cause a big increase in hemoglobin concentration. So you would expect to see things like major cramping (due to loss of water from the muscles) before you start to see big increases in hemoglobin concentration.

It's obvious why the media hasn't followed up on this: Paula's bulldog husband has been threatening them with lawsuits. British law makes it easy to find someone guilty of libel, and it very much silences investigative journalism.

Paula's husband is very clearly playing the Lance Armstrong role here and badgering anyone who asks inconvenient questions. Which leaves Paula to play the innocent doe, woe is me, think-of-my-children victim.

They complain about the investigation's effects on their family, but ignore the behaviors they themselves are modeling for their children: Dad is an arrogant bully, mom is a hypocrite and a liar.

Who knows, maybe she's a cheat as well. But bullying, hypocritical, lying parents are already enough to cause decades of problems for children.

Joke Larkim wrote:

Larkimm, what in your mind would count as 'evidence of doping'?

A failed test (obviously)

A whistleblower from within her camp with credible information

An absence of plausible (not necessarily proven beyond reasonable doubt) explanations for physiological data

An admission from an athlete (obviously)

A report by a competent body concluding doping as the most likely scenario

I would also say that if a reputable publication (thinking major daily UK or US newspaper) went on the record with a specific accusation which appeared at face value to be well researched and well founded, that could also be strong evidence, though it might fall a little short for me as evidence as I am naturally cynical of the press.

I would say that I would hold all athletes to these same standards, so whilst there are current and previous athletes for whom I have far more suspicion of than I do of PR (for whatever reason), the absence of any evidence of the sort identified above has to means that I have to consider them to be clean.

[quote]larkimm wrote:

No-one other than rjm33 on this thread appears to be dealing with the 12.0 to 15.6 Hgb change. It seems to me that it is important that this is followed up in the real world, and perhaps Wejo is the best option for trying to put this specifically to Paula.

quote]

Larkimm, re-read my post from earlier today, and the link to Ross Tucker's blog. The values pre and post race in Vilamoura in 2003 scream out (autologous) blood transfusions (low HGB (12) in the first test, high HGB (15.6) and low ret (0.47?) in the second test). They are not easily explained by other physiological factors - exactly why Paula has now gone to the last resort of 'faulty equipment' (after having gone through illness (what happened to that?), dehydration (implausible) and altitude (demonstrated to be incorrect - how the IAAF can get their facts wrong in their recent document is beyond me). I cannot believe that these blood values did not raise a red flag around Paula and increased testing. But of course as it was pre-ABP there was not much that could be done about it. I would imagine A&P would have come to a similar conclusion.....

I would say that Paula doesn't just have one person acting like a bully in her corner given the stories coming out of the BBC.

Larkimm, I envy your optimism. I could enjoy this sport so much more if I could believe in clean record holders from Flo-Jo to Junxia to Paula and from Bolt to Bekele to Kimetto.

Somehow I don't. The more I learn, the more cynical I become, in particular during recent months. And of the list above, Paula is the only one with reported suspicious blood values (on at least three occasions).

I really should stop reading and writing here...

DHT123 wrote:

Larkimm, re-read my post from earlier today, and the link to Ross Tucker's blog. The values pre and post race in Vilamoura in 2003 scream out (autologous) blood transfusions (low HGB (12) in the first test, high HGB (15.6) and low ret (0.47?) in the second test). They are not easily explained by other physiological factors - exactly why Paula has now gone to the last resort of 'faulty equipment' (after having gone through illness (what happened to that?), dehydration (implausible) and altitude (demonstrated to be incorrect - how the IAAF can get their facts wrong in their recent document is beyond me). I cannot believe that these blood values did not raise a red flag around Paula and increased testing. But of course as it was pre-ABP there was not much that could be done about it. I would imagine A&P would have come to a similar conclusion.....

Yebbut....

You have every right to view the information in that way, and as I've repeatedly said I am no physiologist.

I agree with you that the 12.0-15.6 requires explanation / challenge. Tucker does refer to the 12 to 14.8(?) gap and says that whilst it is reasonably extreme, it is not impossible.

(He says "Could a 2.8 g/dL increase in [Hb], from 12 g/dL to 14.8, occur as a result of significant dehydration? The study above took 2.5 to 3 hours, she ran for 67:35. She says it was 30 C, the historical reports for the day suggest 24C. So we don’t know, but it’s not impossible, and that’s the point.")

I agree with you that the date of altitude exposure needs validating in relation to Vilamoura, and the IAAF needs to factor that into its review.

And you can "imagine" all you want about what Ashenden and Parisotto might have concluded, but until they publicly conclude that I think its fair to say that I'd prefer to take their absence of comment as having more validity than your assertion about something that they might think. With due respect, etc etc etc.

This is where a lot of people go wrong. There is evidence. There is a lot of evidence that she doped.

First off, evidence vs. proof, from another forum.

Regarding Paula, here is the evidence that lead people to believe she doped:

- She has the fastest Marathon time, by several minutes.

- The next-fastest athletes have been caught using EPO or violating the ABP

- She has dodgy off scores, that don't hold up to the defense offered.

- She is the fastest in an event and sport dominated by a doping culture.

- The controls in place to identify doping are ineffective, infrequent, and shown to be outright ignored in the corrupt IAAF orgnaization

- She is rumored to have bought EPO from Schvetsov (sp?) in Albuquerque

- She associates with Hans-Muller Wolfhart, a shady doctor linked to doped athletes.

- Her transition from 1500m runner to Marathoner has never been seen before, to that level (Imagine if Hall ran 2:01 instead of 2:06).

During the Lance Armstrong reasoned decision, Chris Horner said Armstrong couldn't be accused unless there was video evidence of him doping.

Just because he decided that burden of proof didn't mean that was correct. The evidence stood on its own, and truth was established, regardless of that expectation of video evidence.

Just because you decide that the burden of proof is what you listed above, doesn't mean that is correct. The truth can be established regardless of whatever expectation you set.

The IAAF need to start changing their ways, the other day they were wishing Heike Dreschler a happy birthday.... unbelievable.

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

wejo wrote:

There was a urine test for EPO. Paula wouldn't need to go to Albuquerque to get EPO.

Wejo,

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Albuquerque+new+mexico+altitude

It's not just EPO administration. Running a cycle in London or Monaco is a TERRIBLE idea. There's no altitude effect to spike test scores. What do I repeatedly post about "altitude camps?" They hide doping. Because they hide doping.

The entire reason there is a bio-passport is because the urine test for EPO is a joke.

There are also tremendous benefits to training at altitude on its own. Paula has a hosue at altitude in France as well. Saying an athlete is doping because they are at altitude pretty much says every athlete is doping as nearly every top athlete in the world now train at altitude at some reason.

There's a reason I quit my job and move to train at altitude in 2000.

rjm33 wrote:

Another runner you may not remember..... who was also managed by Frederico Rosa,.... was 2007 Philadelphia half marathon winner in 1:08:45, and 2:25:36 marathon runner Pamela Chepchumba......Pamela tested positive for EPO at the 2003 World Cross Country Championships, and was banned for two years...another top level Kenyan managed by Frederico Rosa that tested positive for EPO....just a coincidental pattern developing....right???.........

There is always more stuff coming out......the more one looks....the more one finds.......

Interesting you found this. I'm investigating something related to Kenya and found this interview with Rosa where he says the athletes he managed who were positive for drugs are Jeptoo, Kisorio, and Monstho.

"Have you ever had any other athletes fail a drug test?

No… Well, I had the sprinter, Amantle Montsho from Botswana, and she has a stimulant. It was a warning. They’re deciding what they’re going to do, three months or a warning but she’s lives in Botswana, training. They haven’t come to any decision."

You internet trolls can complain all you want. I read your accusations and I laugh. You've got nothing on Paula.

Since you've started your witch hunt her career has only improved--she's now an advisor to to the IAAF. And what are you? Still a 3:05 marathoner if you're lucky.

You can't touch her. Tucker and Ashenden are fools and they'll be buried in lawsuits if they make any more accusations.

You want the rest of her blood values? Go cry in your Gatorade, because I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Clerk wrote:

Regarding Paula, here is the evidence that lead people to believe she doped:

- She has the fastest Marathon time, by several minutes.

- The next-fastest athletes have been caught using EPO or violating the ABP

- She has dodgy off scores, that don't hold up to the defense offered.

- She is the fastest in an event and sport dominated by a doping culture.

- The controls in place to identify doping are ineffective, infrequent, and shown to be outright ignored in the corrupt IAAF orgnaization

- She is rumored to have bought EPO from Schvetsov (sp?) in Albuquerque

- She associates with Hans-Muller Wolfhart, a shady doctor linked to doped athletes.

- Her transition from 1500m runner to Marathoner has never been seen before, to that level (Imagine if Hall ran 2:01 instead of 2:06).

I don't accept fastest marathon time, even by a margin, represents evidence. It represents a cause for potential suspicion. (Is being a slow runner therefore a defensive argument against a doping charge? "I can't be doping because I only came 10th in the World Champs" doesn't really hold water does it!!)

The drug status of other athletes doesn't constitute evidence at all against an athlete ("Gatlin doped, therefore that is evidence that Bolt dopes makes no sense). Again, it might be a cause for potential suspicion, but nothing more. After all, that's why they do focussed drug testing on the medalists at major events, rather than routinely testing everyone in every position.

The "dodgy" off scores are again a factor for suspicion, and I'd offer Ross Tucker as an opinion that says that Paula's explanations are "plausible". But I do agree that in this area there is more scope for actual evidence.

You cannot say there is a doping culture in a whole sport without evidence of that (I disagree with the premise). You can certainly say that there is some doping in distance running, I agree, but just because some (even many) dope, doesn't mean that everyone does. So again, suspicion, not evidence.

Doping controls are ineffective. I agree, but again, that is not evidence that she dopes. There are no speed cameras on my road to work, but is that evidence that I exceed the speed limit? No.

Any evidence which starts with "she is rumoured" is not evidence. It is rumour.

Guilt by association again is not evidence. It could be another factor in suspicion, I'll grant you, but I know nothing of this relationship. Perhaps I should.

She was never an elite 1500m runner, so I don't know where that nonsense comes from. She was no slouch over that distance, but I'm fairly sure you could put Dennis Kimetto in a 1500m race in the European Cup and he might make the podium.

You are right of course - 20+ consistently suspicious factors can be consolidated towards painting a picture of guilt. The old "circumstantial evidence" line from crime dramas etc. But some of those pieces of evidence that you are trying to use would be laughed out of CAS as being utter nonsense if any lawyer tried them.

Trust in the Lord Coe wrote:

It's obvious why the media hasn't followed up on this: Paula's bulldog husband has been threatening them with lawsuits. British law makes it easy to find someone guilty of libel, and it very much silences investigative journalism.

Paula's husband is very clearly playing the Lance Armstrong role here and badgering anyone who asks inconvenient questions. Which leaves Paula to play the innocent doe, woe is me, think-of-my-children victim.

They complain about the investigation's effects on their family, but ignore the behaviors they themselves are modeling for their children: Dad is an arrogant bully, mom is a hypocrite and a liar.

Who knows, maybe she's a cheat as well. But bullying, hypocritical, lying parents are already enough to cause decades of problems for children.

Can we at least stick to facts? People just throwing stuff out there will not help the situation.

Paula has stated publicly that there was no super injunction for her blood scores. The only threat of a lawsuit I have seen credibly mentioned was by Paula herself to the Sunday Times, not from her husband.