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

rekrunner wrote:

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 dehydration

12.0 looks unusually low and not credible

Blood doping is one possible explanation, but there are plausible non-doping explanations too.

I agree 12.0 looks unusually low. That figure, correct me if I'm wrong came from PR's memory? She knew it was twelve point something. I would go with 12.8 as a reasonable figure for an athlete who arrives in a humid venue and adapts quickly to store extra fluid, as we all do.

And 15 is a reasonable number for post race dehydration. Despite what all these self appointed letsrun physiology experts claim to the contrary.

Look at other figures for plasma shift. When visiting altitude hemoglobin/hematocrit can rise 25% and the same happens between summer and winter training. The reason for these changes is the cooler air and lower humidity which significantly reduce sweat rates.

Why wouldn't the same plasma shift be possible unders severe heat stress?

What other posters here don't want to discuss is cardiac drift caused by plasma shift reducing stroke volume, with associated increase in hemoconcentration.

It's rather telling that those posters who obviously want to demonize PR don't want to engage in this subject of plasma volume shift.

I'm actually starting to think that the blood tests and passport are a waste of time if there are all these mitigating circumstances. And i'm not being facetious.

I thought the 1/1000 'line in the sand' meant that it was 99.9% probable that the athlete doped.

But seemingly it isn't the case, and it doesn't even mean that the athlete probably doped. It just means it's time to look at extenuating circumstances.

Pretty disappointing.

cleans wrote:

I thought the 1/1000 'line in the sand' meant that it was 99.9% probable that the athlete doped.

It's important to look at anti-doping with two views.

From the technical perspective, the statistics, biological science, etc. is very good.

From the political perspective, it's clear the federation is ignoring the data and actively working against using it.

One of the principles behind the entire system is to ensure there are no false positives and the system goes to great lengths to ensure this. Along the way, athletes and federations abuse the system's legitimate and flexible exceptions to control for false positives.

The email shows at least the IAAF is actively pursue discrediting WADA's standards using PR and Saugy. We know cycling did it.

Try not to confuse how the system is being compromised by corrupt officials with the actual system itself.

Reread the post carefully, particulary what COL said, for full context, as you are not looking at it his way. He's looking for evidence of clean, which doesn't involve these 3 samples. I only said that's a useless way to look at it.

preciously jaded wrote:

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.

I don't argue your method, it's correct to demand more information before jumping to conclusions, but just disagree with the actors. It is not my case, and not my burden to show the measurements are wrong. Nor is it yours to show they are reliable. The burden would be on the lab to provide the necessary documents to the proper federation, that document calibration, and the blood collection and measurement process were done correctly, according to the applicable rules. Presumably that is part of being WADA certified. It's more complicated when you try to use 2009 rules to evaluate 2003 data collected under different rules. The requirement for expertise is even higher, as you need to be aware of both sets of rules, and the impacts of the differences. You and me and everyone else here are interested outsiders with incomplete information.But it's a mistake for anyone to take for granted that no errors exist, until proven otherwise, particularly since this argument was made public from the beginning, that the 2009 procedures were more stringent in order to reduce these kinds of errors.Trained experts with all of that information, and all the blood values of all the athletes are better able to make that determination. No one here can rule out bad measurements (or blood doping).You seem to correctly realize that even if Paula published every detail she had, we would then need the details of her competitors too, and then the doping control forms, and lab documents, etc. Then we would need extensive training to interpret all that.

rekrunner wrote:It is not my case, and not my burden to show the measurements are wrong. Nor is it yours to show they are reliable.

And by that measure, nothing is accomplished.

We need even longer and more circuitous posts attempting to cast doubt on Paula's cleanliness.

Keep em' coming.

Do you expect kindergarteners to comment on the utility/futility of string theory?You have to chose the right actors with access to all of the data, and able to evaluate it in proper context, giving every element a proper weight.

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:It is not my case, and not my burden to show the measurements are wrong. Nor is it yours to show they are reliable.

And by that measure, nothing is accomplished.

We need even longer and more circuitous posts attempting to cast doubt on Paula's cleanliness.

Keep em' coming.

cleans wrote:

I'm actually starting to think that the blood tests and passport are a waste of time if there are all these mitigating circumstances. And i'm not being facetious.

I thought the 1/1000 'line in the sand' meant that it was 99.9% probable that the athlete doped.

But seemingly it isn't the case, and it doesn't even mean that the athlete probably doped. It just means it's time to look at extenuating circumstances.

Pretty disappointing.

So there is no such thing as plasma shift?

You people are so full of $hit.

That's pretty much spot on. The world is in color, not black and white. The ABP requires "expert" evaluation that the observed data fits the Off-hr model.You cannot arrive at any valid conclusion without looking at the potential impact of external circumstances.The 1/1000 "line in the sand" is only as valid as the assumption that the new data fits the existing model.The 2009 rules were designed to minimise the previously observed variance due to these external circumstances. Therefore look at 2003 and 2005 values keeping that in mind.

cleans wrote:

I'm actually starting to think that the blood tests and passport are a waste of time if there are all these mitigating circumstances. And i'm not being facetious.

I thought the 1/1000 'line in the sand' meant that it was 99.9% probable that the athlete doped.

But seemingly it isn't the case, and it doesn't even mean that the athlete probably doped. It just means it's time to look at extenuating circumstances.

Pretty disappointing.

rekrunner, is there no such thing as plasma shift? Did I just make it up?

If so then Paula must be guilty. Enough of the semantics of the biological passport if you please. Can you actually address the issue directly.

Either dehydration beyond a certain point causes cardiac drift or it doesn't.

The only smoke and mirrors on this thread are by those posting on it who are ignoring this issue and not by PR herself. Her recall of exact numbers is not the issue to be debated, even if they are slightly amiss.

What has to be quesioned is the authority of those claiming to have real medical or physiological knowledge of the issue, but deny the possibility of a decrease in plasma volume to values that are commonly recorded.

You got it all wrong!

Your plasma shift theory can't explain only a fraction of the extreme variability recorded in PR samples....

You don't even know what Plasma shift is. Neither the word theory.

It looks like you completely misunderstood my post, as it actually potentially *supports* the position of extenuating circumstances such as plasma shift.

Assuming you are not a troll (trolls tend to post comments like 'You people are so full of $hit' but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), could you give an easy-to-digest summary of Plasma Shift and why it explains Paula's scores.

Please don't just post a link to it. Anyone can do that.

Plasma shift wrote:

So there is no such thing as plasma shift?

You people are so full of $hit.

Paula,

Nobody argues the existence of plasma shift as a response to altitude in single digit percentage changes. Paula's changes are tens of percentages changes.

EPO cheats out Paula.

I appreciate that this doesn't validate 12.0 to 15.8, but even Tucker references a study (of only 6 individuals) which shows double digit changes in 1/3 of the study participants. So to claim double digit changes are beyond the realms of possibility just makes you look like someone who doesn't know his stuff. Though I'd readily accept that neither of them show numbers close to 12.0 to 15.8.

If we cut down the hyperbole, we might actually get somewhere!!

Well since Paula's innocence hinges on my answer, I guess I better address this. Let me repeat again that expert answers should come from experts, and I am no expert on blood. I couldn't find a good definition for plasma drift, nor do I understand the significance of cardiac drift to changes in blood volume. Having said that...First, it looks like your figure of 12.8 is a better figure than 12.0 that has been used for 29 pages of calculation. From Paula's official response, the blood expert talked about a 2.8 g/dl difference in the 2003 measurements, not 3.6. From the IAAF official response, the post race measurement was 15.6. Therefore, the 12.0 figure coming from the autobiography seems to be the least official, and the correct value should be 12.8. This means the difference is then not 30%, but 22%.If by plasma drift, you mean changes in blood volume, due to hydration and dehydration, I thought Ross Tucker settled this, with his 1983 study (slight plasma expansion) and 1974 Dill and Costill study (plasma reduction), that significant changes can occur with prolonged exercise. From what I can tell, there are two kinds of changes, first there is an increase in blood volume to prevent/delay dehydration (or preserve osmolality?), and then a decrease as fluid gets redirected to the skin (causing your cardiac drift?). The details might be wrong but it looks like there are two opposite effects, probably occurring in that order.In your (as "troll much?") previous link to the "Exercise Physiology" textbook, we can find in Chapter 7, that after prolonged exercise in the heat, it is "common" to have plasma volume reduction of "5-20%". Later, in Chapter 8, it is "not uncommon" to have a reduction of "10-20%".So starting from 12.8 g/dl, given that pre-2009 blood collection, handling, and processing was less stringent/ more variable, and that a 20% volume loss is still considered common by a current Ex. Phys. textbook, we don't have to stretch far to explain a 21.875% difference.

Plasma shift wrote:

rekrunner, is there no such thing as plasma shift? Did I just make it up?

If so then Paula must be guilty. Enough of the semantics of the biological passport if you please. Can you actually address the issue directly.

Either dehydration beyond a certain point causes cardiac drift or it doesn't.

The only smoke and mirrors on this thread are by those posting on it who are ignoring this issue and not by PR herself. Her recall of exact numbers is not the issue to be debated, even if they are slightly amiss.

What has to be quesioned is the authority of those claiming to have real medical or physiological knowledge of the issue, but deny the possibility of a decrease in plasma volume to values that are commonly recorded.

First off, the increase is 12.0 to 15.6 for Paula in 2003.

I just referenced a study of 149 runners who finished a marathon or half marathon who had an average increase in hemoglobin values of 0.3 from pre race to postrace. That is a 2.5% increase, among a lot of people, in real world conditions, at a race,where they likely consumed fluids during the race.

It is also correct that the study referenced at Tucker's site, has much bigger increases, which I used in ALL my previous analysis of Paula's results because they were the BIGGEST INCREASES I could find, to really give Paula a large margin, and the possibility of really big increases in hemoglobin values due to PLAMA VOLUME DECREASES from possible severe dehydration after the race, even though it only took 1 hour seven minutes for her to complete! (....PS....Were you able to read and understand that last sentence, Mr. plasma shift?)

The study from 1974 by Dill and Costill on Tucker's site had runners who all lost 4% of their body weight(about 6 lbs for a 150lb. man), and were very dehydrated after running for 2.5 to 3 hours in severe conditions, possibly with no or very little fluid consumption. Their hemoglobin levels increased by an average of 1.6g/dl which would be an increase of 10.7% for an average male hemoglobin value of 15.0g/dl. The MAXIMUM increase in hemoglobin value by ONE person in the study was 2.2g/dl,which would be an increase of 14.7% for an average male hemoglobin value of 15.0. These are large increases in hemoglobin values from severe dehydration. Using this MAXIMUM increase value(not even using the average increase of 1.6g/dl) of 2.2 only gets Paula from 12.0 to 14.2g/dl, which would be an 18.33% increase for her hemoglobin value.

Paula Radcliffe's hemoglobin value increase from 12.0 to 15.6 is a 30.0%increase, which is NOT EXPLAINED BY ANY PUBLISHED STUDIES posted here on this thread by me or anyone else so far....perhaps Mr. plasma shift can go find one.......go check your textbooks and Wikipedia Mr. plasma shift........see if you can find an actual published study.....and let us all know when you find it..........

And rekrunner arguments boil down to infinite possibilities of measurement errors, machine variations, etc......all just variations on Paula's own new favorite explanation of LAB ERROR....which of course can explain ANY RESULT of Paula's, no matter how abnormal or unlikely the results may appear.........so NO RESULT CAN DISPROVE PAULA"S INNOCENCE BECAUSE SHE CAN NEVER BE PROVEN GUILTY........because ALL of Paula's abnormal results are simply unreliable due to possible LAB ERROR and should just be IGNORED....See how easy that argument was?.....and not only that but Paula is really unlucky because lab error follows Paula around over and over ............

Think about how absurd these arguments would sound coming from a Russian.................I am laughing just thinking about it...........

The Lausanne lab run by Dr. Martial Saugy is mentioned in the Nick Davies email as "PLAN B" to have the Russian samples tested at the Lausanne lab if there was a problem at the Moscow lab. This was confirmed by Gabriel Dolle, the IAAF director of anti-doping, according to the Nick Davies email just leaked. The Lausanne lab run by Dr. Martial Saugy is where the 67 Russian samples were then DESTROYED, thus preventing further analysis. I would say that is a bit more of a problem than just delaying the reporting of doping positives by Russians.........don't you think so?.............

Dr. Martial Saugy and his Lausanne lab has also been implicated in positive doping tests going away for Lance Armstrong, FIFA, and others.

Dr. Martial Saugy is also Paula Radcliffe's BLOOD TEST EXPERT!

See, there was a smoking gun in that leaked email that Paula's supporters keep IGNORING.........because just like Paula's blood results.......there is a SUSPICIOUS PATTERN surrounding Dr. Martial Saugy.......and that is where the real story here is leading to now.........

Go Dr. Martial Saugy!!!!!!!..............Go Paula!!!!!!........RUN AWAY AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!!!!!!!!................................

This is both grasping for straws. The 12.8 is a made-up number. BTW, I read the IAAF document again: the IAAF conveniently ignored this number. They also argue at length against Ashenden's comments such as that a high off-score constitutes "compelling evidence that the athlete is blood-doping". For that, he uses the 1/1000 threshold... (see 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 and 3.2.3). As for Ross Tucker, he cited data after a comparable run ("A group of well-trained women ran in moderate conditions (21C) for 80 minutes, and their blood values were measured."), and found an increase in hemoglobin concentration ("Note both the hematocrit and hemoglobin values – they actually go DOWN, not up.") Paula's run was for 67 minutes at 21 - 24 C, depending on the source. This includes all effects, including dehydration and plasma shift. The data that showed an increase in the concentration came after a 2.5 - 3 hour run ("Six men ran for 2.5 to 3 hours in moderate (22C) conditions"), and should thus not be used for comparison here. In particular one shouldn't look for the most extreme case of this 3 hour run, for Paula really didn't suffer under dehydration, considering her speed increase during the last couple of miles.

rekrunner wrote:

First, it looks like your figure of 12.8 is a better figure than 12.0 that has been used for 29 pages of calculation.

If by plasma drift, you mean changes in blood volume, due to hydration and dehydration, I thought Ross Tucker settled this, with his 1983 study (slight plasma expansion) and 1974 Dill and Costill study (plasma reduction), that significant changes can occur with prolonged exercise.

This overlapped with my response... I couldn't agree more with the below. Sadly, nobody of the Paula supporters here reacted to your study, even after I repeated it... they rather compare Paula's 67 minutes with the most extreme case - not the average - of a 180 minute run.

rjm33 wrote:

First off, the increase is 12.0 to 15.6 for Paula in 2003.

I just referenced a study of 149 runners who finished a marathon or half marathon who had an average increase in hemoglobin values of 0.3 from pre race to postrace. That is a 2.5% increase, among a lot of people, in real world conditions, at a race,where they likely consumed fluids during the race.