rjm33 wrote:
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: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.