fleetwood mac wrote:
There were rumours a few years ago of British distance athletes using saline drips before major games in hot weather, this was before it was banned.
Are you referring to the fairly well documented Lynsey Sharp episode? Commonwealth medal following a night of 'illness'. She claimed she only had 5ml.
Interestingly, I noticed that Race Radio seems to have Seb Coe and his alleged blood doping in his sights too.
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:
Plasma shift wrote:You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Those rises are plasma shifts, plasma moving out of the blood. You are just clueless, like Ross Tucker. You can read about this in any decent physiology textbook.
Maybe you'd have a better chance arguing the Earth is flat?
Plasma decreases at altitude, in single-digit scores. Win for you!!!
NO ONE is discussing single-digit changes for Paula because the data shows double-digit changes.
Please try again.
Sorry, that's all that Jonny's got.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5944038&page=2Joke Larkim wrote:
fleetwood mac wrote:There were rumours a few years ago of British distance athletes using saline drips before major games in hot weather, this was before it was banned.
Are you referring to the fairly well documented Lynsey Sharp episode? Commonwealth medal following a night of 'illness'. She claimed she only had 5ml.
Interestingly, I noticed that Race Radio seems to have Seb Coe and his alleged blood doping in his sights too.
1000 wrote:
Victor Conte is not accusing Richard Pound. Victor Conte respects Richard Pound, but he does not trust WADA.
You are right, it's John Fahey (his successor at WADA) of whom he is critical. I was relying on memory.
Having re-listened to the interview, it's even more disturbing than I remember it: WADA, the IAAF and USADA all appear not especially motivated to catch drug cheats.
Joke Larkim wrote:
Interestingly, I noticed that Race Radio seems to have Seb Coe and his alleged blood doping in his sights too.
Where is that - on the cycling forums? I couldn't see anything on his twitter account.
it was from some time ago:
Race Radio â€@TheRaceRadio Dec 2
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee should ask Coe about his work with Conconi and his trip to Sestriere right before the Moscow Olympics
Dr. Francesco Conconi has an anaerobic threshold test named after himself, called the Conconi test of course...and a famous pupil who worked with him of the name Dr. Michele Ferrari... who became Lance Armstrong's doctor/coach.....and the trail continues....
Dr. Conconi was also associated with the rise of Gelindo Bordin,who won gold at the 1988 Olympic marathon and won Boston in 1990.
Oh my..... look at the title of this paper published by F. Conconi back in 1988....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3384528
hmmmm......nothing suspicious to see here.......is there?.........
Here is a study of prerace and postrace blood values from 149 runners who completed a marathon or half-marathon. The average mean increase of hemoglobin value from prerace to postrace was 0.3g/dl.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016001
So that same increase would increase Paula's 2003 WC half-marathon prerace hemoglobin value from 12.0g/dl to a postrace value of 12.3g/dl, which would be a 2.5% increase.
Paula's actual hemoglobin value at the 2003 race went from 12.0g/dl prerace to 15.6g/dl postrace, an increase of 3.6g/dl, which is a 30% increase.
So Paula's hemoglobin value from prerace to postrace increased by 12x more, or 1,100% more than the average of the 149 runners in this study!
.........this study also has results that don't really help Paula's case much .....do they?...........sorry..........
........on the other hand...........they do help the Paula is Superwoman explanation ....which is now looking more likely ...........Go Paula!!!......
Coe, Radcliffe, Farah, Froome.... Same UK autologus blood tranfusion madness!
I see this has dropped off the front page, your "controversy" has passed. It's only a handful of you people living in your mom's basement who care about this. But now that Christmas is here you're more concerned about your new xbox game. You've got nothing on Paula. Go play Call of Duty and stop making up rumors.
G. Lough wrote:
I see this has dropped off the front page, your "controversy" has passed. It's only a handful of you people living in your mom's basement who care about this. But now that Christmas is here you're more concerned about your new xbox game. You've got nothing on Paula. Go play Call of Duty and stop making up rumors.
Thanks for bumping this back to the front page.
Of course, you don't need to defend yourself, or convince me. And I'm not trying to convince anyone the data is wrong -- I explicitly framed my post to explain why I believe Paula's claims and the IAAF claims are plausible.I also only said you should be prepared to defend your claims, because in science, claims are always challenged, and only worth the foundation used to support them. I can accept that your conclusion "Paula was a doper" is one that you, a science prof, are unprepared to defend -- that's your right.I didn't say the data was wrong, but that it is risky to rely on it. "sjm33" gives us an extended data analysis, but this is only as valid as the two measurements that go into it. Before relying on the 2003 and 2005 data, it is important to understand, in order to estimate, or rule out, any errors due to pre-2009 collection, and processing. This is something Ashenden and Parisotto did not do (they had different objectives, targeting the IAAF's lack of response, not the individual athletes), nor Seppelt/ARD, nor the Times, nor anyone at "letsrun.com/forum". Experts would be trained and able to take this into account. This is the main drawback with making the data public, who lack the background, or will, to make these distinctions.And indeed, this claim of unreliability doesn't come from me but from the IAAF, and something Ashenden is well aware of. The detailed IAAF response is public knowledge, and they talked about real world magnitude of errors observed when using different machine brands to measure blood values, and different postures to collect the blood.Ashenden talks about this intermethod bias here, in 2004, notably after the 2003 data collections in Portugal:http://ajcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/ajcpath/121/6/816.full.pdfThe IAAF talked about it here (sorry "letsrun" breaks the link):http://www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=e07852d9-7ae6-4452-96d0-e0924baf6940.pdf&urlslug=%20IAAF%20blood-testing%202001-2012%3A%20IAAF’s%20response%20to%20allegations%20of%20blood%20doping%20in%20athleticsYour very own quote confirms that the IAAF talks about inconsistent pre-2009 procedures and data unreliability, something you also conceded. I didn't say any more than that, and you agreed I was correct. So I find it odd when you say that "neither Ashenden nor the IAAF said so", or why you don't find this "exactly convincing". I'm not so much trying to convince anyone of anything, but just stating a ground rule of science: "garbage in = garbage out". This is "Science 101".Your legal analysis of primary and secondary evidence only comes into play if the primary evidence leads to a conviction, which it didn't. Then the secondary evidence has been used to increase the sanction. Even "sjm33" concedes that the 2012 measurement could be reasonably dismissed.
casual obsever wrote:
I don't need to defend anything, and I also don't need to convince you. But as for the burden of proof, you claimed - not exactly convincingly - that the data could be wrong, whereas neither Ashenden nor the IAAF said so. Also remember that not all of her suspicious data predate 2009.
In fact, IAAF spokesman himself wrote here on (to) letsrun: (http://www.letsrun.com/news/2014/12/iaaf-spokesman-nick-davies-writes-letsrun-com-reports-iaaf-not-follow-retesting-150-suspicious-samples-2006-2008/)
"When they are available, the IAAF has used the blood values prior to 2009 as “secondary evidenceâ€, in support of an increased sanction in addition to the post-2009 profile to establish the athlete’s long history of doping. However these values do not have the same level of reliability and strength as the post-2009 values which were collected under strict and stringent conditions."
So while you are correct in stating that the 2005 data are less reliable, IAAF still considers them as "secondary evidence". To conclude, even in the eyes of the IAAF, we have two sets of data as secondary evidence and one set set of data as primary evidence against Paula's "case".
Last, as a science prof, I always have to chuckle when someone quotes wiki.
Um, the report written by Ashenden you quote states exactly the opposite of what you are trying to prove:
"We have identified 3 key findings from this research. First, results derived from several candidate platforms are sufficiently comparable with the ADVIA 120 method to allow values to be substituted into the OFF-hr model. Second, there exists a robust approach to adjust for the bias of a candidate instrument. Third, measurement precision for low reticulocyte values is not inferior to that for normal levels. These findings pave the way for antidoping authorities to harvest hematologic information from a host of diverse sources."
Basically there's a small deviation of results due to the machines that they were using which doesn't affect the overall integrity of the results.
cleans wrote:
1000 wrote:Victor Conte is not accusing Richard Pound. Victor Conte respects Richard Pound, but he does not trust WADA.
You are right, it's John Fahey (his successor at WADA) of whom he is critical. I was relying on memory.
Having re-listened to the interview, it's even more disturbing than I remember it: WADA, the IAAF and USADA all appear not especially motivated to catch drug cheats.
So, I am posting this again. I asked this question on the previous page but didn't get an answer. Can anybody post any independent confirmation that Conte ever acted as any kind of consultant to WADA? By independent I mean any source that is not Conte himself?
I can find confirmation (which I knew) that he met w/ Dick Pound. That was in 2007. Not sure there was any involvement beyond that. I don't think that talking with him in a meeting is the same thing as being a consultant. Here is an article on that meeting:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/13/sports/sp-conte13Maybe it is a side issue, not it is definitely a side issue. I just don't think Conte is a credible source on anything. I keep asking the question, though...
Typo^^. It definitely is a side issue...
Actually I was only trying to prove that Ashenden was concerned about intermethod bias. The paper's very existent alone proves that.But, contrary to your interpretation, the paper confirms that bias exists, as they developed and statistically verified a robust model to measure it and compensate for it.Why would we need a "robust approach to adjust for the bias of a candidate instrument" if the instrument bias is negligible?What value are we "substituting" into the OFF-hr model? -- an *adjusted* value. From the paper:"A paper calibration of this difference will enable the (adjusted) value to be substituted into the OFF-hr model without compromising the model’s integrity."So we don't substitute the raw values, but calculate an adjustment using a "samplator concept" to normalize the values to fit into the model without breaking it.The whole entirety of the paper is exactly what I'm saying -- how to quantify the bias, due to machines that are not the ADVIA-120 used to develop the "OFF-hr model", and developing robust approach to adjust for the bias, with "normalized" values that don't "compromise the integrity". They verified an "approach (that) provides a convenient and objective means of adjusting for interinstrument bias".And in the paper we find that during the experiment:"the ADVIA 120 was noticeably aberrant during weeks 34 to 39, and the laboratory confirmed that this instrument was recalibrated around week 40.""For the ABX Pentra 120, the problem was much greater, with erratic behavior observed throughout the study period.""We occasionally encountered readings that were divergent from the sample’s designated “true†value" ... "it seems prudent to repeat the analysis to ratify the initial value. The average of multiple replicates provides a more precise esti- mate of the sample’s true value and, therefore, enhances the specificity of the OFF-hr model approach."This further re-inforces that blood values need to be interpreted by an expert. Calibration of the instrument, and the type of instrument, are important inputs to make that interpretation.
DHT123 wrote:
Um, the report written by Ashenden you quote states exactly the opposite of what you are trying to prove:
"We have identified 3 key findings from this research. First, results derived from several candidate platforms are sufficiently comparable with the ADVIA 120 method to allow values to be substituted into the OFF-hr model. Second, there exists a robust approach to adjust for the bias of a candidate instrument. Third, measurement precision for low reticulocyte values is not inferior to that for normal levels. These findings pave the way for antidoping authorities to harvest hematologic information from a host of diverse sources."
Basically there's a small deviation of results due to the machines that they were using which doesn't affect the overall integrity of the results.
Clerk, would you say this is representative of your complete knowledge about Paula?I admire your enthusiasm, and repeated efforts to bring real data into the conversation, but this looks below your own standard.
Clerk wrote:
troll much? wrote:Please take these points into consideration and try to be a bit more rational and stop throwing out wild accusations. You don't know anything about Paula Radcliffe.I do know that she is an outlier performer, several minutes ahead of the best non-doped athletes, and minutes faster than other known doped athletes. I know that she is the best marathoner in a sport that is riddled with dopers at the top level, and that the controls in place are no guarantee of her cleanliness. I know that her blood values have been considered suspicious, and that I consider her blood values suspicious. I know that she continues to obfuscate and avoid transparency when a clean athlete would only benefit from transparency. I know that she promised to release her blood values in 2002 but has since not lived up to that promise. I know that there is a rumor Shvetsov bragged about selling EPO to Paula. I know she regularly visited Wohlfahrt, who I know works with a product that is banned in the US, is not well researched and was at one point banned by the IOC (not anymore). I know that he works with other suspicious athletes and has worked previously with dopers. I know that you continue to not show any data or proof connecting cardiovascular drift to Paula's hemoglobin scores. I know you haven't shown that reduction in stroke volume during cardiovascular drift is not from plasma volume drop. I know that this collection of evidence will not constitute proof in a court of law, arbitration panel, or IAAF panel, but I know that this is enough to convince me she is a doper, and there is little to explain that she is clean.
rekrunner, that's an undestatement. His post looks like the ranting of a madman.
Clerk is cherry picking his information, just like all the other nutters on this thread.
I have given up posting info. But I sent an email to wejo with some interesting evidence. I don't know if he will read it? I can't reply to wejo without posting a certain amount of words? WTF? To hell with that.
Hey rekrunner,
There is 0 evidence to support that Paula Radcliffe was clean. ZERO. Do you understand that?
wejo wrote:
The Dirty Duck wrote:Paula, Tyson, Lance, and Weldon have historically been among the most vocal critics of doping and dopers. Weldon could once be described as unwilling to hear excuses and more than happy to let rumor take its course.
It makes this exchange all the more bizarre.
Wow I've never been grouped into Lance before!
I'm still letting rumor take it's course. That's why we allow a thread like this. It leads to a cleaner sport.
People need to see more nuance in everything.
wejo, what? How does this thread or any of these threads lead to a cleaner sport. That is just delusional. The more you talk and write about it, the more you hype it up, the belief in drugs. It's stupid and irresponsible.
Can't you see that it just makes young impressionable people more likely to dope? Because they believe that is what it takes to reach the top. And you are supporting this stupidity. You journalists are part of the problem. A huge part of the problem, but you just can't see it. No serious athlete need drugs to reach the top of the sport. You just can't get this at all. I hope one day you will, but it seems you are a long way from understanding just how stupid and ignorant your drug obsession is.