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

yawn wrote:No serious athlete need drugs to reach the top of the sport.

What they need is money. For bribes.

You and rekrunner must not get out much. You missed every Seppelt story since, what, 2014?

Whatever you do, DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK!!!!

On a plane. I will just post this:

http://mobile.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2015/12/21/dopage-dans-l-athletisme-l-e-mail-compromettant-de-l-ex-porte-parole-de-la-federation-internationale_4835926_3242.html?xtref=http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php

Clerk wrote:

On a plane. I will just post this:

http://mobile.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2015/12/21/dopage-dans-l-athletisme-l-e-mail-compromettant-de-l-ex-porte-parole-de-la-federation-internationale_4835926_3242.html?xtref=http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php

Isn't this interesting...the text of the email is in english if you scroll down in the article.....

Seb Coe's company is mentioned...........

Note that Nick Davies, the IAAF spokesman,(who has been accused by Lamine Diack of being offered a bribe) says in the part after 5. " ...if WADA decides there really is a problem, we have a plan B to do the tests in Lausanne instead (Gabriel confirmed this to me yesterday)." .....

Gabriel is Gabriel Dolle, the director of anti-doping at the IAAF, who is accused of taking over $200,000 in bribes to cover up positive doping tests and is under criminal investigation....and the "Plan B to do the tests in Lausanne instead" is in reference to the WADA lab in Lausanne which is run by Dr. Martial Saugy....you remember him, don't you?....The Lausanne lab is the lab where the 67 Russian samples were destroyed..... Dr. Martial Saugy is also Paula Radcliffe's blood test "expert"......There are also previous stories about Dr. Martial "I can fix that abnormal blood test result for you" Saugy helping to cover up positive tests for FIFA ( Hey, did I hear Sepp Blatter was finally in trouble now, as well?), and helping to cover up apositive EPO test for Lance Armstrong in cycling, and others......He may have also had a hand in writing IAAF reports that LEAVE OUT the most important information about Paula Radcliffe's blood test results......

Using Martial Saugy to do your blood testing can lead to greatly decreased sensitivity of your lab testing in catching dopers......I guess you could consider using his lab as a possible source of LAB ERROR.....you think?

So you can see how using Dr. Martial "Plan B" Saugy as her "expert" does not really help Paula's case a lot........does it?..........Go Dr. Saugy!!!.......Go Paula!!!!!!!!!.....................

What does this say about Bernard Lagat and his "false positive?"

Sebastian Coe is still at war with the media:

https://twitter.com/hajoseppelt/status/679064969749651457

Hey, hey, Paula wrote:

Nice try, Paula.

yawn wrote:

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.

It's not Paula it's J.R.

Horatio wrote:

What does this say about Bernard Lagat and his "false positive?"

It means Bernie kicked up a stink and the IAAF backed down

They sent Martial Saugy to handle it

No doubt Bernie was on EPO all along

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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 think WADA paid for their 2007meeting in NY, but probably just the cost of it rather than paying a fee ...

doping expert wrote:

Horatio wrote:

What does this say about Bernard Lagat and his "false positive?"

It means Bernie kicked up a stink and the IAAF backed down

They sent Martial Saugy to handle it

No doubt Bernie was on EPO all along

Bernie could have come up with the bribe to make it go away. Saugy " fixes" it to make the paperwork look good.

BTW, we know based on arbitration docs in Floyd Landis's case that the lab tested until the lab got a positive score. Landis, technically never had a T:E ratio that would have triggered a positive.

We know it goes both ways now. For whatever reason, manufactured or real, a positive can conclude any way the federation prefers. The variations are endless!

This is in spite of the fact the bio-passport process is technically good albeit extremely conservative.

The variations are endless and very profitable, possibly even affecting elections in Senegal. Lamine Diack has been in power since around 1999 and Martial Saugy goes back to at least 2001, and Martial Saugy may be involved in track,cycling,soccer, and who knows how many other sports and other coverups we have no idea about. I think that email about plan B points directly at Dr. Saugy being crooked.....

There were some stories with allegations that Altepkin from Turkey was approached about a bribe to coverup her doping positive, and she refused to pay....and her positive was made public; she was banned and lost her 2012 1500m gold medal.....

In response to the Nick Davies email just being made public, the IAAF and Lord Coe have reponded by threatening a lawsuit against Hajo Seppelt, which was just posted above in a twitter link ......

The last time I checked the newspapers, Lord Coe was asked if he had viewed the Seppelt documentary and he replied that he hadn't seen it.......

It seems that Lord Coe knows who Hajo Seppelt is now, and what he has been investigating.......maybe Lord Coe has had time to view his documentary.......

rekrunner wrote:

And indeed, this claim of unreliability doesn't come from me but from the IAAF, and something Ashenden is well aware of.

...

Your 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".

Well, you said "unreliable", while the IAAF said "less reliable". That was my point with "neither Ashenden nor the IAAF said so". Note also that the IAAF did not question these numbers at all in their latest "bloated" report.

In other words, yes I concede that there is an experimental error, but I doubt that the error is so high that the data are useless. If they were, this discussion would never have started, because Ashenden and IAAF would quickly have pointed this out - which they did not.

Even if we'd entertain the remote possibility that the measured 12.0 g/dl were in reality 13.0 g/dl, and the 15.6 g/dl in reality 14.6 g/dl, then we'd still have to find a reason for the 14.6/13.0 = 112% value, i.e. an increase of 12%. As shown by the latest study cited here by rjm, a normal increase would be 2.5% (plasma shift and dehydration included!).

Even if you'd double that for Paula, claiming that she reacts extremely unfortunate to racing in warm weather, you still didn't account for 7%. And note that that is extremely unlikely, because if Paula would have reacted so sensitively, she couldn't have dominated the world championchips.

Further, these large deviations between measured data and real numbers are at odds with Paula's statement that her hemoglobin was almost always between 14.2 and 14.8 g/dl - for this to be true, the scattering error must be less than 0.4 g/dl.

So, let's go back and assign the 0.4 g/dl as an error margin. Again, let's err on Paula's side: the measured 12.0 were really 12.4 g/dl, and measured 15.6 were really 15.2 g/dl. That gives a ridiculously large increase in hemoglobin of 22.5%.

Lord Coe has responded about the leaked Nick Davies email. Coe also promoted Nick Davies to deputy general secretary, as Coe's right hand man, earlier this year after he was elected President. Lord Coe's spokeswoman told the press......"What is very clear is that Sebastian will not respond to emails to which he knows nothing."..............more classic Coe..........he still KNOWS NOTHING............he is still just absolutely SHOCKED to see what his friends at the IAAF have been up to without him knowing anything about any of it...............like Captain Louis Renault from Casablanca..............

From the email:

"Also we can prepare a special dossier on IAAF testing which will show that one of the reasons why these Russian athletes come up positive is that they get tested a lot !!!"

In other words: they'll make up testing results to show whatever is most beneficial for the IAAF.

A larger part of the email:

Extraits de l’email de Nick Davies à Papa Massata Diack

Voici des extraits, en langue anglaise, de l’e-mail adressé le 19 juillet 2013 par Nick Davies à Papa Massata Diack :

« Dear Papa,

Following our discussion earlier I have already had some thoughts and believe that we need to do the following, in the strict confidence and control within a small circle of senior IAAF staff only. This mut be very secret.

(...)

4. Finally, as soon as possible, and ‘unofficially’ PR campaign to ensure that we avoid international media scandals related to the Moscow Championships especially in the British press, where the worst of the articles is coming from. This will require specialist PR skills (working only with me directly) from London, but I believe that if we consider using CSM we can also benefit from Seb’s political influence in the UK.

It is in his personal interest to ensure that the Moscow World Champs is a success and that people do not think that the media of his own country are trying to destroy it. We can work extremely hard in stopping any planed ‘attack’ on Russia from the British press press in the coming weeks.

5. Finally, I need to be able to sit down with the Anti-doping department and understand exactly what Russian ‘skeleton’ we have still in the cupboard regarding doping. I think that the time to have unveiled the various athletes was a long time ago and that now we need to be smart. These athletes, of course, should NOT be part of any Russian team for these World Championships and Valentin should be pressurised to make sur this is the case. If the guilty ones are not competing then we might as well wait until the event is over to announce them. Or we announce one or two BUT AT THE SAME TIME as athletes from other countries.

Also we can prepare a special dossier on IAAF testing which will show that one of the reasons why these Russian athletes come up positive is that they get tested a lot !!! In the same way, we can make the point that the WADA laboratory is the responsibility of WADA not IAAF and that if WADA decides there really is a problem, we have a plan B to do the tests in Lausanne instead (Gabriel confirmed this to me yesterday).

Papa, as soon as I have an idea of the price of this unofficial PR campaign I will let you know, but I will do everything in my power to protect the IAAF and the President.

All the best Nick »

Here is the full text of the statement sent by Nick Davies in "World" Monday, December 21:

"As Director of Communication of the IAAF, manage and promote the reputation of the IAAF were among my responsibilities.

My e-mail sent less than a month before the World Championships in Moscow Marketing Consultant IAAF then, Papa Diack Massata, consisted of an exchange of ideas about possible strategies related to media relations to serious challenges faced around the image of the competition.

No plan was put in place following this email and there is absolutely no possibility that a strategy or a media plan / PR may interfere with the anti-doping procedure.

I have not discussed these ideas with CSM and there was never any agreement between the IAAF and CSM to develop a public relations campaign. CSM has never worked for the IAAF in any capacity whatsoever since Sebastian Coe is a member.

Following your article about alleged corruption concerning Lamine Diack (article published on December 18), I said that I absolutely have never been involved in any criminal conspiracy involving representatives from the IAAF. I never received payments in connection with these conspiracies.

I had no knowledge in 2013 that official IAAF may be involved in criminal conduct related to doping cases, as I have no knowledge of any case of doping was not treaty should have been, or any doping suspension was not published in time stipulated by the IAAF Rules.

When information concerning allegations of corruption were given to me in early 2014, I was one of the employees of the IAAF having seized the IAAF Ethical Commission and contributing the investigation that followed. I was also a member of IAAF staff having offered, and continuing to provide - voluntarily - my full support to the Independent Commission investigators to WADA and to the Monegasque and French Police . "

How does one accomplish so much politically knowing nothing? We should all be so privileged.

Oh, yeah, EPO cheats out Paula.

When you look at it that way, you could say that about anyone and everyone. There is no reason to single out Paula, and separating clean and dirty athletes requires proving a negative.The standard is "innocent until proven guilty".

COL wrote:

Hey rekrunner,

There is 0 evidence to support that Paula Radcliffe was clean. ZERO. Do you understand that?

rekrunner wrote:

When you look at it that way, you could say that about anyone and everyone. There is no reason to single out Paula, ..."

What you say is no longer valid in this case.

The reason why PR has been singled out is that she has had at least 3 abnormal blood test results and the excuses given for these abnormal test results are not really plausible, as explained in depth several times by some knowledgable posters in this thread.

Well actually I said "you cannot ignore" data that "might be significantly unreliable". I don't know why a "science prof" would argue against this basic premise. Are you really splitting hairs between "less reliable" and "might be unreliable"?And the IAAF most certainly questioned all the pre-2009 numbers generally and addressed the 3 "suspicious" values specifically in detail, as well as the "47% jump in HR-off score", in their latest "bloated" report, citing these sources of errors, among others (e.g. medical explanation or a pathological condition, such as gastro-intestinal infection).Ashenden/Parisotto had a chance to rebut this, but both chose not to produce a lengthy detailed rebuttal.I would be interested to see Ashenden to do a fully informed assessment, accounting for illness, altitude, equipment calibration, process documentation, athlete interview, etc., according to the post-2009 ABP process, or at least comment on the plausibility of Paula's case, like Ross Tucker has.Because at the core, the IAAF only accuses these scientists of doing (or enabling) an assessment without complete information.I don't know why you think "this discussion would never have started" -- that looks like a misplaced faith in the public and the British press to behave rationally. In any case, the IAAF did comment about lack of standards before 2009, from the beginning, but since Diack accepted a bribe, and Coe said "declaration of war" and "so-called scientists", the public choses to place their scepticism on the IAAF, rather than documented sources of data measurement errors.When assessing the likelihood of a jump of 3.6 g/dl in 2003, it seems to prudent (if scientifically required) to address, or at least acknowledge, these non-doping sources of potentially significant changes in Hgb, where real world worst case observations are 2.0 g/dl, 3.12 g/dl, and 2.2 g/dl respectively. These are not exclusive (you can add all 3 values together), and not exhaustive (there can be other sources, like calibration of the machine, or one-time errors in processing).You can also look at these values subjectively to get a sense:15.6 seems reasonable, when you account for dehydration12.0 looks unusually low and not credibleBlood doping is one possible explanation, but there are plausible non-doping explanations too.The 2009 rules address all three errors, by:- requiring regular internal quality control and external checks, and limiting the brand of equipment to exclusively Sysmex- Specifying the posture during blood collection- Requiring a 2 hour delay after a race, to give the body time to rehydrate

I've seen all the Seppelt documentaries, and it's hard for me to fully convey how under-whelming I found them, for exposing inside details. It doesn't compare to L'Equipe's 2004 "Armstrongs Lies" or David Walsh's interviews against Lance.I didn't pay too much attention to the Russian stories, because the Russian performances never struck me as dominant anyway, or that much of a surprise, outside of race walking, and the strength events for women, all of which had already been, or were in the process of being, busted by the IAAF.But in Kenya, I never got a sense that Seppelt penetrated the top of Kenyan athletics. In the first one, he posed as a European agent willing to give away his money, and not surprisingly, found a doctor and a pharmacist willing to take his money. He could have equally done that in Frankfurt, or New York.Then he found some no-name athletes actually taking EPO, getting it on video. He had access to Kisorio but didn't manage to expose who provided the drugs.I got the sense he had to meet deadlines, spent all of his budget, and went ahead with what little he found.Maybe more will come out in the next WADA "wow" report, and Seppelt will get deserved credit for triggering an investigation, rather than uncovering real information.

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

yawn wrote:No serious athlete need drugs to reach the top of the sport.

What they need is money. For bribes.

http://fittish.deadspin.com/ohhhhhhh-track-field-organizations-are-supposed-to-s-1745777100

You and rekrunner must not get out much. You missed every Seppelt story since, what, 2014?

Whatever you do, DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK!!!!