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

wejo wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

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.

It wasn't because the science on altitude training says it's universally beneficial.

I'd call you elite in your day.

At best, right now, there appears to be some effect to "live high, train low." It definitely helps performance at altitude. But, it's not a silver bullet.

Also, don't take my argument to an extreme. If an athlete is doping, then, for sure, altitude effects are used to hide doping.

RJM88 You've had some very informative posts but ridiculing me doesn't serve any purpose. When this whole thing broke, I went and contacted Ross Tucker and gave his thoughts press:

Who cares if I can calculate an off score? As Ross notes himself off-scores in themselves mean nothing. Paula has shown her off-scores on their own pass the sniff test of an altitude trained athlete.

The Times of London didn't say her off-scores were conclusive of doping. We must go beyond off-scores. If it was as simple as calculating an off-score then the ABP would be very simple. We wouldn't need panels of scientists to conclude whether someone was a doper, etc. The point I was trying to make is the science behind this is complicated and someone like me who knew I wanted a higher HEMATOCRIT - sorry no R - isn't the person who ultimately is going to decide what the science says. Scientists will do that.

I didn't see Ross Tucker say her Hemoglobin rose too much she has to be a doper. If that was the case, then we wouldn't have needed to develop the test to detect blood transfusions of athlete's own blood.

When you're dealing with an athlete's career you have to have strong, strong evidence. That is why the ABP usually takes time. Also, how much variance is in the equipment? If the initial reading was 5% low and the subsequent 5% high would that change things? I don't know.

No one has answered this basic question? How is the ABP supposed to catch dopers if they don't withdraw blood after competition now?

For argument, let's say Paula was doping in Portugal. She comes in, takes her initial test a day before the meet. It doesn't show high blood values. She then gets a transfusion that night, but they don't withdraw blood now immediately after the race. I think that is how things are done now? Can athlete's blood dope with impunity now? Or should they then follow up with athlete's the next day (after they've gone home)? Or in the next week? If it's a week later then how come Paula's score after the marathon in Helsinki wasn't abnormally high?

It seems like a huge loophole that exists (by not taking blood after races now), but if it exists it exists because they want the state the athlete is tested in (not after exercise) to be constant.

Back to Helsinki,is the drop in Paula's blood from the test after the 10k to the marathon what you would expect from someone who had a transfusion? Her test after the marathon is much more normal. Would a transfusion still help an athlete a lot 9 days later? If so, then how come her value then isn't high?

There are a ton of unanswered questions and that is why I'd like to see all the values out there and what the WADA report says. The IAAF sadly is not credible at this point on these issues.

wejo wrote:

No one has answered this basic question? How is the ABP supposed to catch dopers if they don't withdraw blood after competition now?

Because that amounts to in-competition testing and that's ineffective. Out-of competition blood testing over time is the only way to identify dopers.

Good thing the IAAF did 20 blood tests for all of 2014.

wejo wrote:

It seems like a huge loophole that exists (by not taking blood after races now), but if it exists it exists because they want the state the athlete is tested in (not after exercise) to be constant.

It's like you haven't read any of Seppelt's work.

You can't be bothered to read WADA's documentation to answer your own questions. There are massive holes in the process, most originating at the IAAF/sports federation.

If an athlete isn't doping, the bio-passport scores are relatively consistent.

I agree. Let's get to the bottom of the blood values. This other stuff is a distraction and gives people an excuse not to cooperate and release information. Here we have an issue of what has been going on at IAAF, which seems to have lots of issues. Resolving the questions about Paula's data, even without threat of sanction or even if she is clean, may help us figure out how bad or incompetent the conduct was over the past 15 years. Paula has been a strong voice for a clean sport and wants to be part of its governing body. she can help everyone out by getting her data in the hands of independent experts so we can all be informed about the sport. I hope she is clean but there appear to be questions that have not been addressed.We saw lots of rumors and speculation with the NOP story earlier this year. We heard endlessly about dozens of people coming forward and some reported stories were effectively countered with no pushback front the accusers. Once it was countered, we heard very little and are left with USADA doing an investigation and lots of testing. I understand that they have been investigating for a while. We will see what comes of that.As far as il know, there is no issue with USADA. Hopefully, we get some report on that.

In normal circumstances, yes, plasma volume is maintained. But if ther is a significant cardiac drift, it indicates a reduction in stroke volume caused by a reduction in plasma volume. And so, reductions in plasma volume of up to 20% are possible. If the athlete wasn't used to running in those conditons then maybe that it the reason? Lack of acclimation, such as when I lost 7 pounds in fluid on a 9 mile run, which you have to agree is excessive, and due to lack of preparedness for the conditions, which were just 70 degrees F but high humidity.

larkimm wrote:

Clerk wrote:

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

Can you provide some links to articles showing his links to doped athletes please (and they'd need to be links that implicate him as the doper, not just that he treated someone who was later convicted of an unrelated doping offence). My google-fu is clearly not working as I've not found any.

Muller Wolfhart treats hundreds of famous athletes. He couldn't possibly know who was doping and who wasn't. And it's not his business to know.

In normal circumstances, yes, plasma volume is maintained. But if there is a significant cardiac drift, it indicates a reduction in stroke volume caused by a reduction in plasma volume. And so, reductions in plasma volume of up to 20% are possible. If the athlete wasn't used to running in those conditions then maybe that it the reason? Lack of acclimation, such as when I lost 7 pounds in fluid on a 9 mile run, which you have to agree is excessive, and due to lack of preparedness for the conditions, which were just 70 degrees F but high humidity.

Reposted due to ad covering text.

What a troll!

troll much? wrote:

In normal circumstances, yes, plasma volume is maintained. But if there is a significant cardiac drift, it indicates a reduction in stroke volume caused by a reduction in plasma volume. And so, reductions in plasma volume of up to 20% are possible. If the athlete wasn't used to running in those conditions then maybe that it the reason? Lack of acclimation, such as when I lost 7 pounds in fluid on a 9 mile run, which you have to agree is excessive, and due to lack of preparedness for the conditions, which were just 70 degrees F but high humidity.

Reposted due to ad covering text.

That's just not true. I've shown that up to 1% is normal. You haven't shown, well, anything...

You're moving the goal posts. You're showing that you have no interest in actual evidence, but only interest in what you decide is evidence. By demanding that the evidence conform to your expectations, your refusing to engage in the actual discussion. You are a troll.

If you want to talk about Muller Wohlfahrt and doping, then lets talk about it. But not if you're going to troll an insane expectation, and then cast away whole arguments if one element doesn't meet it.

wejo wrote:

For argument, let's say Paula was doping in Portugal. She comes in, takes her initial test a day before the meet. It doesn't show high blood values. She then gets a transfusion that night, but they don't withdraw blood now immediately after the race. I think that is how things are done now? Can athlete's blood dope with impunity now? Or should they then follow up with athlete's the next day (after they've gone home)? Or in the next week? If it's a week later then how come Paula's score after the marathon in Helsinki wasn't abnormally high?

It seems like a huge loophole that exists (by not taking blood after races now), but if it exists it exists because they want the state the athlete is tested in (not after exercise) to be constant.

It is a huge loop hole. You are right.

For example, Alberto Condator was sanctioned for Clenbuterol is his sample. That sample also showed plasticizers in his blood, the kind you can only get from having stored blood in plastic bags! But nothing came up in his APB (the going theory is that Contador infused blood that had Clenbuterol in it, given the low concentration and likelyhood it is used in the off-season and not usually in competition).

It's been shown that drinking a Liter of water can make an EPO doped blood sample not trip the ABP. There are riders who competed in the BP era who have been caught, confessed transfusions, but never were caught with the BP.

There are a lot of ways to not get caught. Regarding your question "Or should they then follow up with athlete's the next day (after they've gone home)? Or in the next week? If it's a week later then how come Paula's score after the marathon in Helsinki wasn't abnormally high?" Yes. Timing matters. Scores depend on several factors. So the low ret% that happens after a transfusion should change the off score, but that can be manipulated by change HGB concentration through hydration or training effort (and plasma volume expansion.)

You're smart enough to know that not every negative drug test means an athlete is clean. The same is true for the ABP. Not every normal off score means an athlete is clean.

Clerk wrote:

If you want to talk about Muller Wohlfahrt and doping, then lets talk about it.

Dr Frankenstein, as they call him in elite sport circles, is the Michele Ferrari of tennis, soccer and track and field....

Where there's smoke, there's fire... Why is Bolt flying from Jamaica to see this doctor? None of the american or caribeean doctors are OK? Come on! 1+1 = doping genius!

Radcliffe is about to fall off a cliff!

Here's the part about Radcliffe for you lazy people!

Muller-Wohlfahrt, who has used all of the treatments at one time or another on himself, describes himself as an "empirical doctor," saying he's driven almost exclusively by his hands-on experience while acknowledging the minimal research behind his unorthodox treatments. The athletes, though, are less concerned with scientific methodology or peer review studies published in prestigious medical journals than with how they feel after coming under his care.

Consider a recent late-morning visit by Britain's Paula Radcliffe, the marathon world-record holder.

Radcliffe, 37, has been a faithful patient since Muller-Wohlfahrt first treated her for a foot stress fracture 17 years ago. Now deep in preparations for the 2012 London Olympics, Radcliffe returned last spring from altitude training in Albuquerque, N.M., complaining of tightness in her lower back and legs. "Not feeling strong," in the words of Muller-Wohlfahrt.

As an "Outside the Lines" reporter watched, the doctor spent an hour listening patiently while tending to Radcliffe. As she lay on a treatment table, the sinewy, muscled distance runner gradually morphed into a human voodoo doll. The doctor went about sticking her with a bevy of needles, injecting a numbing agent and then leaving the needles in place. Into the needles' plastic base or hub that remained above the skin, he followed with injections of natural lubricants and hyaluronic acid.

Radcliffe sighed as the initial injections penetrated deep beneath the skin, with some needles 2 to 3 inches long. Muller-Wohlfahrt used his right hand to deliver 14 injections into her lower back. Another two were directed into the front of her right hip, followed by four into the top of her left foot. He then manipulated her legs wildly -- left and right, up and down.

A grinding, high-maintenance athlete like Radcliffe finds herself returning to Muller-Wohlfahrt's office every two or three months for similar treatments. "I call it coming for a tune-up or checkup," says Radcliffe, effusive and back to her perky self after the session, which she allowed a reporter to watch. "Because I have worked with the doctor so long, he knows right where to check."

She prefers his use of natural substances, saying athletes have become wary of doctors who rely on cortisone to deal with inflammation and to mask pain.

"A lot of athletes know about him," she says of Muller-Wohlfahrt. "He is someone they trust."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7324261/germany-dr-hans-wilhelm-muller-wohlfahrta-great-healer-quack-hyperactive-syringe

Several people seem to be putting a lot of stock behind the measured blood values, specifically taking the 2003 Portugal pre-race "12.0" and post-race "15.6" for granted without attempting to evaluate the accuracy of the measurements.Here's why I believe Paula is plausible when she says that "12.0" (off-score 82) is too low, and why 15.6 (off-score 110) could be high.What did we learn from the IAAF in their 27 Nov response? There were many statements in their latest "IAAF’s RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS OF BLOOD DOPING IN ATHLETICS" that both Ashenden and Parisotto left unaddressed/unchallenged/unrebutted.The big problem with blood values collected before 2009 (i.e. 2003 and 2005), is that they were not collected in a consistent way, because rules were not in place that defined how to collect them in a way that minimizes the observed "non-physiological" variability. The rules established by 2009 were necessary to reduce the observed variations due to external factors like:- different brands of machines- timing of blood tests (i.e. just after a race)- standing versus sitting when taking bloodPost 2009, WADA labs use "Sysmex" machines exclusively. What was used in the Faro hospital? I don't know. Do you? Does the "Daily Mail"?But even the post-2009 exclusive use of "Sysmex" machines is not enough to control the variablity:"even then there can be 'intra-method' variability, i.e., variability between different Sysmex machines. To address this, the WADA ABP Protocol specifies that each laboratory must follow the same mandatory procedures in calibrating its machine (with the same internal quality checks, and a common external quality control assessment that is carried out on a monthly basis) and analysing the samples (with each sample analysed twice and with the results required to be within established limits)."Where can I find the information from the 2003 Vilamoura pre- and post-race samples regarding the machine brand, the calibration and the documented compliance to mandatory procedures defined only 6 years later? I couldn't find it in the Daily Mail or the Sunday Times. Ashenden and Parisotto didn't tell us either -- did they?But "so what?" I hear many of you say. After all, Ashenden told us the pre-2009 values were "fit for purpose" and "compelling evidence of blood doping". After all, the IAAF used these blood values in their 2011 prevalence study, and used it to help extend the sentences of other athletes. Well, read on.Just how much can the brand of machine affect Hgb measurements?We learned from the IAAF that they "observed for the same sample two different machines reported HGB results that differed by 2g/dl".That's not two samples, pre-race and post-race, two days apart, but the *SAME* sample, measured with two different machines giving two Hgb measurements that differ by 2g/dl. Presumably the subject was not blood doping during the time the sample was drawn.In 2006, Dr. Ashenden recognized this effect, and called this "intermethod bias".So when comparing 12.0 to 15.6, we cannot ignore a potential error of magnitude 2g/dl, more or less, if two different brands of equipment were used for the two measurements. We need to better understand the contribution of "intermethod bias" in both measurements.How much can standing versus sitting down affect measurements?"the athlete's posture during sample collection can vary plasma volume, and so haemoglobin concentration, in the order of 10-20%, due to changes in vascular pressure".What is 10% of 12.0? 1.2 g/dlWhat is 20% of 15.6? 3.12 g/dlWhat did Ross Tucker tell us? He found a 1974 study where an "admittedly small" group (6) of men (not women) ran longer, in colder "moderate" weather (22 deg C) and Hgb increased on average 1.6 g/dl (max 2.2 g/dl).These errors are not exclusive. I see 3 independent sources which can explain a difference of as much as 7.32 g/dl, or more, due to potential errors arising from collection methods, and measurements, that would not be allowed under post-2009 rules, without addressing physiology, or resorting to blood doping in order to explain the massive 3.6 g/dl jump from 12.0 to 15.6. So, while 3.6 might seem like a huge unnatural jump only explainable by blood doping -- in fact procedural errors might be as much as double the amount. These don't exclude other factors, like lack of quality controls, or previously offered explanations like illness, antibiotics, or recent altitude training (perhaps combined with sea-level oxygen tents).There are many reasons to think (and many to exclude) before we can arrive at any certain conclusion that the observed values can only be explained by a blood transfusion.Now I'm wondering -- honest question -- Did Paula ever blame "faulty equipment" or "incorrect test procedures"?When I read this article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3337824/Paula-Radcliffe-explains-innocence-blood-doping-allegations-says-testing-fault-unusual-results.htmlIt seems that the terms "faulty equipment" and "incorrect test procedures" actually come from Nick Harris of the Daily Mail.Paula says something more along the lines of:‘There’s something gone on there, that isn’t right, there is no way I could win the championships if it was actually that low, so that is artificially low,’Paula doesn't call the equipment faulty, or the testing procedures incorrect. She simply says that the measured blood values don't make sense.If you truly want to get to the bottom of this you need to first assess:- What brand of machines were used to measure Paula pre- and post-race 2003 in Portugal?- How were the machines calibrated? What internal quality controls were applied, and what external quality control checks were performed?- What procedures were used to collect, and store the blood, and then measure the blood values in the lab?- What was Paula's posture when the blood was drawn?I don't see anyone even asking these questions, but without answering them, you cannot possibly account for, or dismiss, the potential errors due to the 2003 (and 2005) pre-standard methods for collecting the blood, and measuring the values.

Roelants wrote:

I agree. Let's get to the bottom of the blood values. This other stuff is a distraction and gives people an excuse not to cooperate and release information.

...

Natural substances and the unbanned substance Actovegin is not "dope".

Autologus madness wrote:

Clerk wrote:

If you want to talk about Muller Wohlfahrt and doping, then lets talk about it.

Dr Frankenstein, as they call him in elite sport circles, is the Michele Ferrari of tennis, soccer and track and field....

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7324261/germany-dr-hans-wilhelm-muller-wohlfahrta-great-healer-quack-hyperactive-syringe

Where there's smoke, there's fire... Why is Bolt flying from Jamaica to see this doctor? None of the american or caribeean doctors are OK? Come on! 1+1 = doping genius!

Radcliffe is about to fall off a cliff!

rekrunner wrote:

...

I agree. Testing data is not reliable.

So, what are we left with without test results and blood data?

An athlete several minutes faster than the next clean athlete, and also minutes faster than known dopers. An athlete rumored to have bought EPO from a Russian pusher in Albuquerque. An athlete who visits a German doctor for Actovegin (banned in the US), who works with other suspected dopers and known dopers.

"What was Paula's posture when the blood was drawn?"

She was standing on one leg with her arms behind her body, and her fingers crossed for good luck.

larkimm seems genuinely interested in your actual evidence.It doesn't seem too insane to exclude links to the Dr. if he is not involved in the doping.If you can only provide weak links, then your inital claim is equally weak.

I said the doctor is linked to doped athletes. Here is the list:He's worked with Stephen Roche. He's worked with Tyson Gay and Maurice Greene and Asafa Powell.Further, Actovegin is banned by the US government.US Postal used actovegin in 2000: Armstrong, Andreau, Ekimov, Hincapie, Joquim, Kjaergaard, Livingston, Vasseur, Hamilton. Jesus Manzano and Joe Papp used Actovegin as well.Not including the suspicious athletes, like the German National soccer team, Bolt, FBC, and possibly others whose sports I'm not familiar with

rekrunner wrote:

larkimm seems genuinely interested in your actual evidence.

It doesn't seem too insane to exclude links to the Dr. if he is not involved in the doping.

If you can only provide weak links, then your inital claim is equally weak.

But that's not what larkimm asked for. He wanted definitive proof that Hans Muller Wohlfhart was the one who doped those athletes. That demand is not relevent to my original claim, and the example of him moving goal posts.

larkimm wrote:

Clerk wrote:

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

Can you provide some links to articles showing his links to doped athletes please (and they'd need to be links that implicate him as the doper, not just that he treated someone who was later convicted of an unrelated doping offence). My google-fu is clearly not working as I've not found any.

I don't think such proof exists, but I think it is documented that athletes allow him to give them multiple injections, without fully knowing what is being injected.

That strikes me as being a little on the weird side. Clearly not proof of doping, but weird (wreckless?) behaviour on the part of the athlete.