Yes
We already had 2 of the world's foremost experts on blood-doping examine the data and draw conclusions on the extent of blood doping in athletics.
Yes
We already had 2 of the world's foremost experts on blood-doping examine the data and draw conclusions on the extent of blood doping in athletics.
Right. As often pointed out, if one really wanted to inhibit cheating, one needed to stop having Brits in charge of British cheaters, Kenyans in charge of Kenyan cheaters, and Russians in charge of Russian cheaters, just to name a few.
Plus a complete overhaul of IAAF and WADA, not just a VP replacing the president as a magic fix of the widespread corruption.
It's an interesting interpretation.Ashenden and Parisotto only made conclusions about the IAAF's actions. As a precondition to their analysis, they stipulated that their opinions of individual athletes should not become known to the public.The WADA IC did not consider the conclusions of the scientists about the IAAF correct, unable to reconcile the public statements of the scientists with their peer-reviewed research.When attempting to investigate individual athletes, the waters were made muddy by ABP-enabling anti-doping research, including much research by Ashenden and Parisotto, showing context is important to permit reliable conclusions, and minimize false positives.
MD.. wrote:
You would need complete data now since the ABP is in place to make a determination.
Not so pretty 2009 when Ashenden and Parissito(2 world renowned experts)
were able to draw reliable conclusions from limited data due to the nature of blood-doping at this time.
Of course certain people weren't happy with these conclusions and tried to muddy the waters by introducing context and other red herrings.
Not everyone was fooled by these tactics.
I missed that too -- but the fact is on an anonymous forum, there is no way to confirm claims of credentials made by anonymous contributors.
Fat CaliDog wrote:
Explorer. wrote:How many troll handles is Rjm33 using on this thread?
It confuses the sh1t outta me
Impossible to take him seriously since apparently he wasn't actually a doctor as he claimed .
Really, Rjm33 isn't a doctor? Sorry, I missed it, when did that come out?
Paula's case is a good example. The full data, from 2001-2015, complemented with context, was available to four separate organisations, all reaching the same conclusion -- that the British press did not present a valid case.Tucker suggested that Paula go public with the data, for PR reasons. Given how she was treated by the British press, and a handful of posters here, I don't share the optimism that going public as a win-win scenario, but one that could backfire.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:The best way to respect athlete privacy, and yet make any doping determination based on fully released data, is to release the full data, collected in a standardized way, anonymously to independent bodies qualified to interpret the data in context, with other independent bodies controlling the integrity of the process.
That would indeed be nice (just like Tucker's suggestions for Paula), but is of course blocked by Coe and Radcliffe and Co.
Perhaps you should go back and review exactly which conclusions come directly from Ashenden and Parisotto, and which conclusions come from extra research conducted by the British press.
MD.. wrote:
Yes
We already had 2 of the world's foremost experts on blood-doping examine the data and draw conclusions on the extent of blood doping in athletics.
Perhaps Kiwis and Aussies should be in charge since there are so few cheaters among them, or so it would appear.
rekrunner wrote:
Paula's case is a good example. The full data, from 2001-2015, complemented with context, was available to four separate organisations
You keep saying that, but there is no hard evidence for it - only the IAAF's word, which was proven to accept bribes in that time period. To cite Tucker once more: "Words are relatively meaningless".
rekrunner wrote:
Tucker suggested that Paula go public with the data, for PR reasons. Given how she was treated by the British press, and a handful of posters here, I don't share the optimism that going public as a win-win scenario, but one that could backfire.
Well... not go public, but go to independent experts. I cite:
"So here’s what I’d be doing. The very second those allegations were published, and the media started whispering about who the ‘mystery’ British athlete was, I’d have found a way to contact Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto. Why them? Because they are going to be your “accusersâ€, even though they’re not directly making a specific, personal accusation.
And because of that, when this story hits the mainstream media, it is going to be played out as an “us vs them†story. Ashenden & Parisotto on one side, the athletes and sport on the other side. Of course, Seb Coe helped this process along by stupidly calling the report a declaration of war, and by then the lines were drawn.
Radcliffe, if innocent, would have benefitted enormously from getting THOSE experts, not WADA or self-appointed people, to comment publicly on her data and the context she (rightly) informed us matters when interpreting blood values. Go to them, give them everything – the test results, the contributing scores, your altitude training dates for the periods in question and other altitude camps, your medical record for those anti-biotics, the timing of the tests and say to them “You are the experts, and you are about to become the most trusted anti-doping voices in athletics. You look at those values, with the full context I am prepared to give you, and tell me if you still think I’m dopingâ€."
This is actually pretty much what you suggested: give everything to really independent experts (not just go public). But we all know that Paula preferred to go the Dr. Saugy instead - for obvious reasons.
Besides the words of the IAAF, we have the words of the WADA IC, in an official report, and UKAD, in a statement. WADA also has the whole history of athletes anti-doping data, and at least all of the post-2009 blood data in their ADAMs database.
The IAAF were not known to accept bribes as early as 2003 and 2005, the first time these blood values were analyzed. In any case, Paula's 2003 and 2005 values did not cross suspicion thresholds in place at the time -- there was simply no incident that would have required Paula to pay a bribe.
What we can glean from Tucker is that Paula's problem was a PR problem. It is and was all about public perception -- a public who forms their opinion based on doubts raised in sensational news stories -- and how the story plays out in mainstream media, rather than a real bona-fide anti-doping case with merits.
In your quote, Tucker tells us that Ashenden and Parisotto never directly accused Paula, nor any other athlete. This is because for them, it was only ever about the IAAF, and never about Paula, nor any athletes.
The Paula angle was introduced by the British press, based, not on Ashenden and Parisotto's conclusions, but on supplemental conclusions of the newspapers, conducting their own supplemental analysis above and beyond the reports of Ashenden and Parisotto.
One point I do agree with Ross, is that the Australian scientists could have killed the sensational Paula angle, with public statements basically standing behind the conclusions of their own peer-reviewed research, that help form the IAAF basis for rejecting any conclusions based on ABP-unreliable data. It's a shame that they lacked the courage to clarify, one way or another, their position of the specific problem they helped create for Paula.
It's telling that the WADA-IC, in 400 pages of reports, in two parts, did not make one single comment directly about Paula, but only indirectly, by recognising that the IAAF was very active in anti-doping, and by finding that the IAAF response was scientifically sound.
The most obvious reason to request Saugy is that he is highly qualified to evaluate the existence of confounding factors in a sample collected too soon from an intense effort in warm conditions.
But was it collected too soon?
We have an eyewitness that says it wasnt
Edna glancing back. This isn't over.
^ Wrong thread, obviously.
rekrunner wrote:
Besides the words of the IAAF, we have the words of the WADA IC, in an official report, and UKAD, in a statement.
No we don't. We only have the word of IAAF that it forwarded all data to WADA, and WADA's word that it forwarded everything to its hand-picked committee.
(I won't even comment on your trolling that WADA and its hand-picked committee are "separate organisations", but if you want to continue to pretend to be American, not British, consider stopping to post during our night time with British spelling.)
So for example, if the evidently corrupt IAAF let an OOC sample disappear during 2011 (remember the sample destroyer/Russian advisor/Paula's hand-picked expert Saugy?), neither WADA nor its committee nor UKAD would have heard of it, making this statement complete bull:
rekrunner wrote:
The full data, from 2001-2015, complemented with context, was available to four separate organisations
El Keniano wrote:
^ Wrong thread, obviously.
Wrong observation, too.
Is rekrunner being paid to post here?
It looks suspiciously like he is
El kenyanoo wrote:
Is rekrunner being paid to post here?
It looks suspiciously like he is
No way. He constantly gives us winks that he is just trolling, e.g. by pretending that IAAF is a reputable, not corrupt, organization and Saugy a trustworthy scientist, not the sample destroying Russian advisor who told Armstrong how to beat the EPO test.
Yet sometimes I can't stop responding to him. Oh well, maybe this time I'll learn.
Trollism wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:Slow down with this kind of thinking.
Remember that if an athlete gets into the international elite testing pool, it's entirely up to the IAAF.
If the regional anti-doping administration actually tested her, it likely would have been a urine test and she would done the equivalent of failing an IQ test.
Not true. The IAAF (also limited interest in busting Kenyans) only becomes responsible for testing of athletes from nations without the facility to carry out there own testing or dodgy countries (double whammy here). It's in Kenya's best interests to remain incapable of policing their own.
You should probably read the IAAF's own testing reports and WADA's reports. They are two different things once an athlete gets into the testing pool.
Kenya is in a RADO. We agree the testing isn't frequent.
casual obsever wrote:
Right. As often pointed out, if one really wanted to inhibit cheating, one needed to stop having Brits in charge of British cheaters, Kenyans in charge of Kenyan cheaters, and Russians in charge of Russian cheaters, just to name a few.
Plus a complete overhaul of IAAF and WADA, not just a VP replacing the president as a magic fix of the widespread corruption.
Is that the reason Ben Johnson failed or did Canadians out him?
Lydiard is God wrote:
Perhaps Kiwis and Aussies should be in charge since there are so few cheaters among them, or so it would appear.
Normally I would be in favour of this, but is this really true? Australian Rugby League is dripping with Ostarine, then look at Sonny-Bill Williams. Cathy Freeman 48s for 400m, no way that is clean, sadly.
rekrunner wrote:
Paula's case is a good example. The full data, from 2001-2015,
Ugh. Please. The data wasn't "full."
rekrunner wrote:
complemented with context, was available to four separate organisations, all reaching the same conclusion -- that the British press did not present a valid case.
Wait, the British press Radcliffe publicly stated would sue? So, "the press" were effectively prevented from publishing anything. Yeah, that was some case....
And those "four separate organizations" were the IAAF (not corrupt in the least. Has never buried positives), Martial Saugy (Mr. fix-it for the IAAF) and whomever else would spin the tale.
Radcliffe is a Sumgong-class doper the IAAF would never test positive.
Let it go. It's over. She's beloved by the IAAF and seems to be all set to do very well there alongside all the other corrupt officials.