oops just seen that the same thing has been posted above, but in more detail.
oops just seen that the same thing has been posted above, but in more detail.
I agree. We are left with a bunch of rumors and circumstance and some sensationalist journalism for entertainment.When you look at Paula's pre-2009 blood profile, you have to take the added variability into account.This is properly done by qualified experts, aware of the pre-2009 issues, and not by sensationalist British journalists, or letsrun anonymous armchair experts.Ashenden and Parisotto could have done it, as they seem to have the scientific credentials, but they lacked all the information external to the blood data, that would have come with doping control forms and direct athlete interviews.The case for Paula doping is weak, because the arguments are weak, and also because no one can strongly exclude the non-doping scenario.
Clerk wrote:
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.
Which brings us to the points before all of the leaked blood data even emerged: Do you really look at Paula's 2:15 as a performance that screams clean? I just can't see how anyone with a sober perspective can look at that and say "Yes,".
(That's not a real question. I can guess your answer, and I know I'm not going to convince you by making these kinds of rhetorical points.)
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
rekrunner wrote:
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 blood
Post 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/dl
What is 20% of 15.6? 3.12 g/dl
What 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.
...
Great post.
These questions need to be answered. When I spoke to Paula the impression I got was "something wasn't right" in Portugal. She mentioned it in her autobiography as well. Sure she could be doping and the biggest pathological liar of all time or there could be a much easier explanation. I'll go for the latter until proven otherwise.
She's offered to take the MRI brain scan. We can take her up on the offer. I hope eventually the blood value gets analyzed by everyone but am waiting for WADA.
cleans wrote:
larkimm wrote: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.
I agree you'd better have a ton of trust in the doctor. I went and saw Dr. Galea mentioned in one of the articles. He was later busted for HGH at the border and was seen by tons of stars including Tiger Woods. Why did I go see him? I actually went and saw the physio/chiropractor (Linsday) he works with because Dan Pfaff had said he was one of the best in the world. Then while seeing him, he said I should go see Galea. If he had said "you need this injection of XYZ (and told me it was legal)" I likely would take it because I believed the guy was one of the best in the world. Could it be something else? I guess but that would be malpractice.
Or you could go the Tyson Gay route and just not want to know what was in it.
But I know everyone who saw Galea wasn't a doper (I wasn't) and clearly that is the case with Hans-Muller Wolfhart. It's not like Bolt or Paula were trying to visit him secretly.
wejo wrote:
Sure she could be doping and the biggest pathological liar of all time or there could be a much easier explanation. I'll go for the latter until proven otherwise.
Given that we have seen pathological liars at the same scale (Armstrong, Woods to some extent, Marion Jones, ARod, probably more I can't think of), I'm not sure how the most most outstanding performance of all time, in a sport littered with dopers, minutes faster than other known dopers, is a simpler explanation. Much more has to be explained away to say she is clean, than to say she is the kind of liar we have seen several times before.
You already asked this question before and it was already answered. Athletes are still tested soon after races today. Get it. It doesn't matter if it's immediately after, 30 min after,1 hour after,2 hours after, or 6 hours after the race. I don't know what the exact protocol is; you can go look it up if you want. It doesn't matter because the large magnitude changes caused by a transfusion are too large for the small magnitude variations from the timing or method of postrace test protocol used for the postrace test to matter at all in terms of detecting if a transfusion took place....The huge changes (which are seen in Paula's blood test sequential results)from the transfusion overwhelms any small variations from postrace testing protocols used...Get It???Go talk to Ross Tucker again and ask him if he thinks the 2003 numbers are still "plausible", because when he wrote that article the hemoglobin value was 14.8, with an increase of 2.8, but the numbers have been updated by the Sunday Times and the IAAF to the new 15.6 hemoglobin value, which now makes the 3.6 increase (now a 30% increase in hemoglobin value!) much less "plausible" in my view. See what he thinks......The 2005 results could also be explained by an autologous BLOOD TRANSFUSION, as she is going from a prerace OFF score of 92 on Aug. 5, which is probably going to have a fairly low Hgb score with it, which neither Paula nor the IAAF will release. For this scenario, let's generate the OFF score of 92 =Hgb 13.0 x10 - 60x(square root of 0.4% reticulocytes). All you need is a calculator. I just made up this 13.0 Hgb and 0.4% reticulocytes score, which generates an OFF score of 92 with the formula for OFF score, for an example of a good guess at what her Hgb score was on Aug.5 (since Paula and the IAAF won't release it). Then the next day Aug. 6, she runs the 10K in 30:42, in what she today describes as a "sh*t" race (but with a suspicious blood test which comes with her sh*t race!), and not near any of her best performances.... (This statement by Paula I think is open to debate, since 30:42 is actually a really good performance and only 8 days away from winning the WC gold in the marathon in 2:20:57, which I think would also qualify as a very good performance) but she didn't use that description back in 2005, where you said she wouldn't race if she didn't think she could medal, and her comments at the time sounded like she was satisfied with the 10K race....She certainly did not use the term "sh*t race" back in 2005, did she??.... Yes, we all know Paula is very competitive.... After the 10K, we know Paula's postrace results show an OFF score of 109.87 (suspicious, above the ~106 altitude cutoff used today) with a Hgb score of 15.1, which is also above normal range of 12.0 to 15.0. The increase of 2.1 from 13.0 to 15.1 in this scenario in 2005 could be explained by blood transfusion again, as well as back in 2003. Paula could try the dehydration explanation again here, but remember our previous study at the Ross Tucker website showed only a 1.6 average increase in Hgb in runners after losing 4% of their bodyweight by running for 2.5-3hours!, but here in Helsinki, Paula's Hgb went up by 2.1 to above normal range, after only running for 30 minutes in the 10k!!!.. how dehydrated can Paula get in 30 minutes??? ... Come on!!!!...that would be a weak explanation again..... So only 1 day later from her 92 OFF score, Paula now has a suspicious OFF score of 109.87, showing again a LARGE magnitude sequential change (although not as outrageous a change as in 2003 from 82 to 114.87 for OFF scores...she may have improved the fine tuning of her transfusion protocol in the two years) in ONE DAY!!( which the IAAF completely leaves out in their report...the most suspicious part of her bloodtests...the large and rapid sequential change is left out...again!!).....Paula then trends down as the effect of the transfusion gradually wears off, until Paula wins her only WC or Olympic gold in her career by winning the marathon in 2:20:57 on Aug. 14, where her postrace OFF score (which is also not mentioned in the IAAF report) is now 102, which is right at the ~102 cutoff for sea level, and below the ~106 altitude cutoff used for altitude-which Paula always gets to use since Paula can always be at altitude with her altitude tent....so Paula finally shows a non-suspicious OFF score after the marathon (which probably had a normal Hgb value to go with it....my guess would be around 14g/dl.....we don't know as neither Paula nor the IAAF will release these results either) However, a blood transfusion might also show a low reticulocyte score even 8 days later after the marathon...which would also be suspicious...which may be a reason why those results are NOT being released....In summary, the 2003 and 2005 blood results, when looking at the CHANGES between sequential scores (which the IAAF leaves out) and not just individual scores looked at in isolation, do not pass the smell test, and show a pattern which could be explained by autologous blood transfusion. It has been shown that the other explanations such as dehydration, and now LAB ERROR.. are weak explanations...and Paula and the IAAF have been extremely NON-TRANSPARENT and SELECTIVE in their release and discussion of blood test results.The blood transfusion test done back then, or even now, only detects homologous transfusion of someone else's blood by looking at antigens on the cell membrane of RBC's to detect differences between people...look up Tyler Hamilton and his human chimera-vanishing twin argument he used to try to explain why he had blood from 2 different people in his bloodstream after he got caught doing homologous transfusions....that wins the prize for funniest doping excuse ever!!!In the present time (and after 2009), people are caught by the ABP when they show sequential blood results similar to Paula's. It would be interesting to see if Ashenden would consider these sequential results suspicious enough for an adverse analytical finding with the standards of today, but there was no ABP back in 2003 or 2005, and no specific test for autologous blood transfusion even up till today, so there was absolutely NO WAY for Paula to be caught back then if she was doing autologous blood transfusions. However, in the present day, people are working on a specific test for autologous(same person) blood transfusion which involves looking at proteome differences in cell cytoskeleton poteins and cell membrane proteins in red blood cells to detect differences between regular bloodstream blood and "older" transfusion blood which has been stored before transfusion. I don't think this test is ready yet for actual use at this time in 2015, but it may be used soon...hopefully they won't make a loud announcement about it when it is implemented. Until then, there is still the ABP which can catch people.... For further reading see the special issue named: Sports drug testing for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and autologous blood transfusion., which is in the journal: Drug Testing and Analysis.2012, Volume4, Issue 11, from Nov. 2012.I can also say that from my own personal experience in medicine over many years, I have seen hundreds and hundreds of blood tests for hemoglobin, hematocrit, reticulocytes, and many other types of blood test results as well, including results from men, women, people at altitude, athletes and runners (including a 2:11 marathoner) ....and I can tell you that I HAVE NEVER SEEN BLOOD TEST RESULTS LIKE PAULA'S IN A FEMALE EVER!!!...........I sure hope there aren't any blood bags from the over 200 blood bags in Dr. Fuentes refrigerator from Operation Puerto that could be identified with Paula...those names could maybe still come out...because that would be getting caught red-handed!!!.......pardon the pun.......I mean red-bagged...........Go Paula!!!.............Go Lance!!! ......Go Dr. Ferrari!!!!......Go Dr. Fuentes!!!.......Go Dr. Rosa!!!............................
wejo wrote:
rjm33 wrote: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!!!!.........................
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:
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/09/wejo-speaks-paula-radcliffe-can-gain-credibility-with-more-transparency-science-of-sports-ross-tucker-says-paulas-explanations-are-plausible-but-more-info-is-needed-tucker-youre-not-dealin/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.
Hi rekrunner, in short, I agree, it's coming down to one of these three possibilities: A) At least some of the data are wrong. B) Paula was a doper. C) At least some of the data are wrong, and Paula was a doper. Having said that, I don't agree with your assessment of the likelihood of A, and I don't agree that the burden should be on us to prove that the data are correct. It would be quite shocking if a Western hospital couldn't reliably measure the difference between hemoglobin concentrations of 12 and 13 g/dl...
rekrunner wrote:
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.
...
Froome said it all came together when he moved to Monaco.
The Telegraph:
" Froome admitted he had been to see Dr Stéphane Bermon – who has convicted doper Alexandre Vinokourov among his former clients – “a couple of times†for pulmonary function tests as there was no Sky doctor based on the Cote d’Azur. There was no follow-up question, this link having already been long since established. "
You are correct in your assessment, casual observer. Are these huge error values coming from our notorious IAAF scientists? If we take his most severe example adding up to a 7g/dl lab error value, and an average hemoglobin value is about 14g/dl, then that is a 50% error value!! No doctor or hospital or lab in the world could use the test -"I'm sorry Mrs. Jones, we can't tell if you are very anemic with a hemoglobin level of 10 or you have polycythemia vera with a high hemoglobin level of 17, because of this darn lab error." The test would never have been validated for use at labs and hospitals, as it would be useless and would fail lab test standards for how reproducible tests are, their reliability, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, standards for calibration, variation etc., before they would ever be used in medicine or labs across the world everyday.
It would also mean we can call Shobhukhova, and every other athlete that has ever been sanctioned by the ABP and tell them the good news...It doesn't matter what your OFF score or hemoglobin value is because ANY hemoglobin value can be explained by LAB ERROR VARIATION, so it doesn't matter if your blood result had a hemoglobin level of 11 or 18, because nobody can determine what it is due to all this variation in lab test results. If this was true, the ABP should have never been set up and shouldn't exist now. It should be stopped now as it is just useless...You better call Ashenden and Parisotto and tell them how stupid they and all the silly ABP people have been all these years......Hey, we are all done now....... we have just been wasting our time.....everyone can go home now..........I have heard that Paula is now very fond of the LAB ERROR EXPLANATION.....as there aren't many other explanations left....are there?
Clerk wrote:
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.
Which, everyone knows, doesn't exist in a manner to satisfy Larkimm.
I am loving the loooooooong "if you look at it with your head turned and one eye closed it's possible that..." explanations. Lottery odds are better.
We need more and even longer posts that are almost impossible in the real world.
rjm33 wrote:
You are correct in your assessment, casual observer. Are these huge error values coming from our notorious IAAF scientists? If we take his most severe example adding up to a 7g/dl lab error value, and an average hemoglobin value is about 14g/dl, then that is a 50% error value!! No doctor or hospital or lab in the world could use the test -"I'm sorry Mrs. Jones, we can't tell if you are very anemic with a hemoglobin level of 10 or you have polycythemia vera with a high hemoglobin level of 17, because of this darn lab error." The test would never have been validated for use at labs and hospitals, as it would be useless and would fail lab test standards for how reproducible tests are, their reliability, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, standards for calibration, variation etc., before they would ever be used in medicine or labs across the world everyday.
It would also mean we can call Shobhukhova, and every other athlete that has ever been sanctioned by the ABP and tell them the good news...It doesn't matter what your OFF score or hemoglobin value is because ANY hemoglobin value can be explained by LAB ERROR VARIATION, so it doesn't matter if your blood result had a hemoglobin level of 11 or 18, because nobody can determine what it is due to all this variation in lab test results. If this was true, the ABP should have never been set up and shouldn't exist now. It should be stopped now as it is just useless...You better call Ashenden and Parisotto and tell them how stupid they and all the silly ABP people have been all these years......Hey, we are all done now....... we have just been wasting our time.....everyone can go home now..........I have heard that Paula is now very fond of the LAB ERROR EXPLANATION.....as there aren't many other explanations left....are there?
Machine calibration errors have become a meme in cycling. Jonathan Vaughters explains the rise in HGB in the third week of a grand tour, (which should go down because of plasma expansion, and could only go up due to transfusion) as a machine calibration error. Not just once, as in the breakout performance of track-star turned grand tour contender BRadley Wiggans (2009, 3rd TDF), but also his "I-used-EPO-but-stopped-then-got-good" journeyman Ryder Hejsedal (Giro 1st, 2012).
Who would have thunk, the two most awe-inspiring performances from the former-dopers clean team, both happened to have calibration errors which make it look like they were doping. And Mrs. Radcliffe, who's camp only decided to try calibration after crying altitude, sickness, and then dehydration as excuses.
Thanks for the information. Interesting points about the machines.
Excellent examples ...yes, Hgb values will tend to decrease during the Tour.
I just thought of something else about Paula\'s 2005 scores. I forgot to mention her low reticulocyte score of 0.47% (as reticulocytes can go down with transfusion) on Aug 6 after the 10K,which could also indicate transfusion. Also, if Paula was to use dehydration to explain the large rise in Hgb after the 10K with only 30 minutes of running!, and yet her blood test result shows no sign of dehydration and elevated Hgb after the marathon 8 days later with over 2 hours and 20 minutes running!....that\'s pretty weird.....isn\'t it?
Of course Paula has quite a history of really being unlucky with LAB ERROR, which NONE of the other British runners who voluntarily released their lab work seemed to EVER have, not even once.......the probabilities of having 3 independent 1/100 blood test OFF scores is 1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100=1 out of a MILLION chance of a clean athlete getting these scores just by chance.....so obviously it must just be that Paula is just very unlucky with lab errors....Our Paula!....She\'s one in a million I tell you!!! .....Go Paula!!!......
Clerk wrote:
larkimm wrote: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.
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.
Jeez, you try to have a rational conversation and get accused of being a troll!
I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for credible sources that suggest he is anything other than a doctor with some weird techniques and who uses weird products (goats blood??). He might not be a normal doctor, but nothing I've read suggested he was anything other than just unusual but with a high reputation amongst some superstar sports-people. Just a bit of evidence that points to him being involved in some way as a doper.
Its not enough for you to make an assertion that evidence that Paula is a doper simply because she associates with a doctor with some unusual practices. That is just evidence of her using a doctor with some unusual practices. If you have anything to back up your assertion I'll happily read it!
Most top athletes would appear these days to be into 'tuning' their bodies, and have retinues or associates to support that. No different to cycling, really, in that regard.
Tuning could mean altitude training, supplements, an oxygen tent, or EPO. I don't think 'cheating' is binary anymore, i.e. "she cheats but he doesn't"; there just appears to be a sliding scale for the 'tuning'.
What may be fine for an athlete to take this year (Actovegin, say) could be a banned substance next year.
Paula and her team clearly put 'tuning' very high on the list. This isn't disputable: as early as 2003, Paula was fully aware of her blood scores and what were 'typical' blood values for her. It's in her autobiography, no less.
I fully believe Paula would be willing to take a lie detector test for taking 'drugs', and may well pass it. But I personally think she would be unwilling to take such a test for having a blood transfusion.
Since most of her opponents were probably 'tuning' to varying extents, I have no problem with Paula doing the same. And if she drew the line at blood transfusions, and wouldn't take EPO, then her 'EPO Cheats Out' stance is not entirely hypocritical.
If Paula did 'tune' to a high extent, she probably was forced into it because others were beating her. Given the margin of her WR for the marathon, I think she would probably kick everyone's butt in a race where all the runners were cleans. (It's sad that in the last 30-40 years we probably haven't witnessed an entirely clean field of runners duking it out for gold medals.)
Larkimm, earlier in this thread, when asked what would be enough to 'prove' someone is doping, you mentioned an absence of plausible explanation for physiological data as being one criteria.
Also, earlier in this thread, you yourself mentioned the 12.0 - 15.6 discrepancy as something that was unexplained and needed to be looked into. It seems you already realize there's something very implausible about that ... and many posters here have explained why current explanations from Paula and the IAAF aren't credible. It's been stated many times, that the simplest explanation is a blood transfusion.
This is why you're being accused of trolling. Ignore the doctor, etc. Just look at the available information about the 12.0-15.6.
For British athletics fans there's something heartbreaking about it. Paula has been built up as the plucky heroine from Bedford since the early 90s. I was there on the course in London this year - it was spine-tingling to see the reaction the crowd gave her. So I understand why you have got your head in the sand. But nothing about the blood data, the IAAF reaction, and Paula's lack of transparency passes the smell test here.
wejo wrote:
She's offered to take the MRI brain scan. We can take her up on the offer. I hope eventually the blood value gets analyzed by everyone but am waiting for WADA.
She offers to take an MRI lie detector test, but the only thing everyone wants is review of her blood values by independent experts. This is the simplest solution, and she prohibits it. She's trying to add complexity where none need exist. This alone should raise major red flags--she's trying to cloud the discussion.
Wejo, you keep saying you're waiting for WADA. Surely you know WADA isn't going to comment on individual athletes. They're bound to follow their own protocol, and their protocol would not permit them comment on such a case.
I suspect you keep saying this so that when WADA says they "have no reason to investigate Paula," you can shout from the front page, "WADA Clears Radcliffe!!" Entirely disingenuous.
Look, there are no organizations who will investigate this. WADA isn't able to legally, and IAAF and Coe are too crooked to. The only thing left is for fans of the sport to shame Paula into releasing her blood values.
If she truly has nothing to hide but some other reason for not releasing them, eventually the public shaming will override that other reason and she'll release them. But if the public shaming continues and she still doesn't release them, we will know the answer--that further examination would lead independent experts to conclude that she transfused or doped.
Joke Larkim wrote:
Larkimm, earlier in this thread, when asked what would be enough to 'prove' someone is doping, you mentioned an absence of plausible explanation for physiological data as being one criteria.
Also, earlier in this thread, you yourself mentioned the 12.0 - 15.6 discrepancy as something that was unexplained and needed to be looked into. It seems you already realize there's something very implausible about that ... and many posters here have explained why current explanations from Paula and the IAAF aren't credible. It's been stated many times, that the simplest explanation is a blood transfusion.
This is why you're being accused of trolling. Ignore the doctor, etc. Just look at the available information about the 12.0-15.6.
I am looking at the 12-15.6. The issue I have with it is that the only place it has been discussed (specifically) is here. It does need scrutiny, I fully agree. On the basis of Tucker's analysis that 12-14.8 is unusual but not completely implausible, clearly 12-15.6 could well be a leap too far for natural explanations. But it needs someone with some credibility in the area to evaluate it, not just posters on here (due respect, but none of us can really be trusted!!)
Believe me (if you will) - I am not interested in trolling, I've avoided ad hominem attacks (I hope), I am solely interested in getting a shared understanding of the facts. Thereafter our opinions might agree to disagree, and I fully recognise I am biased. All I ask is that you give me the credit for having genuinely held opinions and recognise of yourself that there may be biases in your evaluation that might distort your clear views too.