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

Yes........a qualified expert like Dr. Martial Saugy at the Lausanne lab.................that is a great idea!!!..........let us all trust Paula's qualified expert........Dr. PLAN B Saugy!!!...........Run Paula!!!!...............Run as fast you can!!!.......Run Nick Davies!!!!!!...........Run Lord Coe!!!!!!!!...........Run Dr. PLAN B Saugy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....................

rjm33 wrote:

Yes........a qualified expert like Dr. Martial Saugy at the Lausanne lab.................that is a great idea!!!..........let us all trust Paula's qualified expert........Dr. PLAN B Saugy!!!...........Run Paula!!!!...............Run as fast you can!!!.......Run Nick Davies!!!!!!...........Run Lord Coe!!!!!!!!...........Run Dr. PLAN B Saugy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....................

rjm: You and others have clearly and convincingly explained why Paula's values indicate, at a minimum, that she was blood doping. I've been following the thread, but, after the second page or so stopped engaging with rek and larkimm because they are at least one of

1. (admittedly brilliant) trolls

2. shills for Paula and her husband

3. Paula and her husband

4. afflicted by some kind of brain damage.

You're never going to convince them. If you have the energy and time to keep posting, do it. I for one have learned a lot. But if not, don't get drawn in. I have a feeling that all of this is about to come crashing down on Coe and Radcliffe and the IAAF. By this time next year, none of them will remain as important forces in the sport.

A boy can dream anyway....

Link wrote:

3. Paula and her husband

4. afflicted by some kind of brain damage.

I go with 3 AND 4, because these people (3) are likely afflicted by some kind of mental problem (4) !!!

Link wrote:

after the second page or so stopped engaging with rek and larkimm because they are at least one of

1. (admittedly brilliant) trolls

2. shills for Paula and her husband

3. Paula and her husband

4. Employed as Internet Community Coordinators hired to pollute threads for a PR firm. Threads aren't being polluted quite like Salazar/NOP threads, but same idea.

Yes, Larkimm and rekrunner, please, keep digging. PLEASE!

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

Yes, Larkimm and rekrunner, please, keep digging. PLEASE!

I think they are (patriotic) fans, no more, no less. Logical for the most part too, but they tend to take Paula's word over actual data, such as in the 30 C (Paula) vs. 21 C - 24 C (weather stations) discussion, and show a huge bias, such as in preferring the 180 minutes instead of the 80 minutes study for Paula's 67 minutes.

I don't really have a problem with that, but unfortunately the IAAF continues to show the same bias (in writing, for everyone to see!), which is quite concerning for the future: apparently nothing is going to change with Coe as president.

Can one of the Paula supporters on this thread give me the answer to a simple question. I've asked a few times already, so please give me any kind of rational explanation, but don't just ignore it:

Q> Why was Paula so knowledgeable of her own haemoglobin levels and fluctuations thereof in 2003?

rekrunner wrote:

Only a qualified expert with all of the information can objectively interpret the validity of the values.

Yeah - I have suggested something like that a few pages back: give all data to three independent experts not involved in any bribery/cover-up, and let them sort it out (after fact-checking Paula's claims regarding the altitude stays and the weather conditions etc.). Too bad - and quite telling I think - that both IAAF and Paula are so vehemently opposed to that.

ABT cheats out!

The 2.8 difference and 15.6 post-race values, both for the Vilamoura 2003 samples, are not made up -- they come from current official responses.I'll leave you to do the math.The IAAF addressed the general accuracy of all of the pre-2009 values, and the impossibility of assuming differences between the values are reliable, in 5.3.2, (see also 4.8 and 4.14), asserting that a claim of "results varied as much as 47%" would not come from a "competent scientist", as arrogant as that might sound. In this case, it didn't -- it came from a reporter of the Times.The IAAF ignored the pre-race value with Off-hr score 82, because it was not discussed as an abnormal value in the Times, except perhaps as a 47% change, which they did address. It was not a matter of convenience, but simply did not factor in the allegations, to which the IAAF were responding in their "RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS OF BLOOD DOPING IN ATHLETICS".Regarding your "comparable" study, I'm curious, what pace, or how far, did the well-trained women run? Did they run more than 10 miles (16K) in 80 minutes? Was it their MP pace? LT pace? 70% VO2max pace? Paula ran at 5:09/mile (3:12/km), with a temperature of 22 deg C and rapidly climbing, with a humidity of 68%, under clear skies. When considering dehydration, the rate of internal heat generated would be an important variable, as well as humidity and outside temperature, which would affect heat dissipation, and subsequently the rise of core body temperature. To calculate that, we also need their weight. Then we could properly assess if the study is "comparable" to Paula's performance in a hot world championship. Similarly, for the "incomparable" men's study, what pace did they run? We would need to do calculations using heat generation and heat dissipation models, to come up with reasonable sweat rates.How do you respond to a current Ex. Phys. textbook saying 10-20% plasma volume loss is common after a prolonged exercise in heat?Textbook, shmextbook! What would our experts Ashenden and Parisotto say about plasma volume loss?Parisotto, Gore, Emslie, Ashenden et al, "A novel method utilizing markers of altered erythropoiesis for the detection of recombinant human erythropoietin abuse in athletes", Haematologica, 2000; 85:564-572 ('hemoconcentration could cause false positives by artificially elevating blood markers such as sTfr and Hct. Hemoconcentration can be caused by dehydration associated with prolonged exercise or by posturally-induced shifts in plasma volume, and may be in the order of 10-20%').This is why Schumacher says:Schumacher et al, Diurnal and exercise-related variability of haemoglobin and reticulocytes in athletes, In J Sports Med 2010;31;225-30 ('The most relevant confounder is physical exercise, which significantly increased Hb. This increase can be explained by exercise induced plasma volume concentration. Many previous investigations have highlighted this issue. The data of our investigation demonstrates that Hb returns to values around pre-exercise baseline within approximately 2h after the cessation of physical activity')

How does that work? Can Paula's dehydration in a world championship half marathon in 22 deg C and climbing heat, under clear skies, be compared to the average of 149 runners in a charity half-marathon and marathon starting at 7:30 am at 10-18 deg C (22 deg C at 10:00am), under scattered clouds? The problem with averages is that they don't tell us what happens at the extremes.We should probably only compare the half marathon -- to be fair to rjm33 and Paula. Then it is only 79 runners. And to be fair to Paula, we should really look just at the top women. rjm33: can you provide us an individual breakdown of the top 5 women in the study?The winning woman ran 1:20:44.Second (Joan Benoit!) was 1:26:15Third was 1:29:12For comparison, the men, 1:11:40, 1:17:15, and 1:24:13. FWIW, the fastest man ran slower than Paula.We don't know if any of these runners participated in the study.The race started at 7:30am, where the temperature ranged from 10-18 deg C. at 8:56am. At 9:56am it was 21.7 deg C.And rjm33 tells us they likely consumed fluids! Slower runners, especially women, in colder weather, consuming fluids, are at greater risk of death due to over hydration (hyponatraemia).Can one of you elaborate why this study is relevant?

casual obsever wrote:

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.

+1 Here I agree whole-heartedly. This would be the normal ABP process. Let Ashenden be one of the panelists.Does Paula and the IAAF vehemently oppose it? They are both cooperating with the WADA Independent Commission, who has full access to all the information, and likely could interview for more details. They oppose telling the public (as does WADA), because the public might unnecessarily generate a 30-page discussion full of speculative suspicious links to shady doctors, and conspiracy theories involving WADA certified lab directors.I'd say the opposition in principle comes from applying 2009 rules only in part -- you can't apply 2009 rules for judgement and not apply 2009 rules for collection, transport, storage, and analysis.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Only a qualified expert with all of the information can objectively interpret the validity of the values.

Yeah - I have suggested something like that a few pages back: give all data to three independent experts not involved in any bribery/cover-up, and let them sort it out (after fact-checking Paula's claims regarding the altitude stays and the weather conditions etc.). Too bad - and quite telling I think - that both IAAF and Paula are so vehemently opposed to that.

rjm33 has two personalities:1) Decent mathematical analysis backed up with some notions (self proclaimed experience) about blood.2) Then ...................................... this.The only problem with "rjm33"'s extensive analysis is the validity of his assumptions. Are 12.0 and 15.6 the good values corresponding to the Off-hr model? When the bias and errors are 0, only then Paula has lots of 'splainen to do. But are 2003 values collected under 2003 standards valid?While I appreciate "admittedly brilliant" and will admit to "trolling for knowledge", let me illustrate what it would take to convince me.If we look at "cause and effect analysis", one model is the "Ishikawa" or "fishbone diagram".So "Paula is a doper and set world records because of doping" is only one of the fishbones.My problem isn't so much the validity of that fishbone, but the lack of attention at ruling out the other fishbones. Several other fishbones are still possible and plausible.My conclusion at this instant, based on all the evidence, and not excluding any single fact, yet excluding prejudgement:- Maybe Paula doped -- then again maybe not.The conclusion is necessarily ambiguous because the facts and evidence are not overwhelmingly unambiguous.Here are some factors in favor of the clean Paula:- the pre-2009 suspicious values have plausible non-doping explanations (put aside Saugy -- Ashenden and Parisotto authored a paper warning about 10-20% plasma reduction leading to false positives due to hemoconcentration -- this discards the 2003 and 2005 values)- Paula had male escorts/pacemakers; no other women since- Paula had a favorable tailwind in London 2003 (statistically shown by ARRS)- lack of depth in female marathons means: not enough female pacemakers, and fewer rivalries- lack of depth also makes women's races tactical- lack of appetite/will for world record attempts; compare for example the attitude in the men's marathons since GebI have the opposite feeling -- Coe and Paula will survive unscathed, as after one year, it's not clear that either did anything wrong.

I don't know -- wouldn't they be entitled to all their blood reports?Why wouldn't she be?She had been competing for more than a decade by then, and by then was an active anti-doping advocate. It's not a stretch to think she'd inform herself about blood levels.

cleans wrote:

Can one of the Paula supporters on this thread give me the answer to a simple question. I've asked a few times already, so please give me any kind of rational explanation, but don't just ignore it:

Q> Why was Paula so knowledgeable of her own haemoglobin levels and fluctuations thereof in 2003?

Once again rekrunner, you are wrong.......The answer to your question about how would we respond to an exercise physiology textbook and an Ashenden study both stating that losses of plasma volume are in the order of 10 to 20% is that..... I respond by saying I totally AGREE with the exercise physiology textbook and Ashenden study.......what a big surprise!!!....... You don't understand the difference between changes in plasma volume and changes in hemoglobin values! They are NOT THE SAME THING!!! .........You don't understand the difference, do you rekrunner??????..........sorry about that..........................

Let me explain it to you how it works :

Hematocrit is the percentage of Red Blood Cells(RBCs) of the total blood volume or..... %RBCs divided by total blood volume.

Total blood volume is made up of RBCs and plasma, so a hematocrit of 45% is 45% RBCs and 55% plasma.

Hemoglobin is the iron containing protein which carries oxygen and is located in the RBCs, so hematocrit and hemoglobin levels will increase and decrease by the same amount in percentage change terms, so with a 10 percent change in RBCs as measured by hematocrit there will be a 10 percent change in hemoglobin value along with it.

Now get your calculator out........ A typical runner has a total blood volume of about 6.0 Liters.

so let's use our typical hematocrit score example of 45% to calculate the amount of RBCS, which is 0.45 x 6.0L equals 2.7L of RBCs and 0.55 x 6.0L equals 3.3L of plasma making up the total blood volume of 6.0Liters.

Now let's go with the highest number from the textbook and Ashenden study of 20% for the loss of plasma volume due to prolonged running and dehydration. So the 3.3L of plasma is decreased by 20%(0.66L) to 2.64L

Note that ONLY the plasma level has changed, not the RBCs, which remain the same at 2.7L.

Now the total blood volume has decreased to 2.7L of RBCs with 2.64L of plasma for a total blood volume of 5.34L. It has decreased from 6.0L to 5.34L from the loss of plasma volume.

The hematocrit, which is the %RBCs of total blood volume, is now 2.7L of RBCs divided by 5.34L of total blood volume, which gives a result of 0.5056179, which is a hematocrit value 50.56179%

So with a 20% loss of plasma volume from prolonged running and dehydration, the hematocrit has increased from 45% to 50.56179%, which is an increase of only 12.36% in hematocrit value. A 20 % loss of plasma volume would also lead to a similar 12.36% increase in hemoglobin values from prolonged running and dehydration......NOT a 20% increase in hemoglobin values. See how changes in hematocrit and hemoglobin values are MUCH LESS and DIFFERENT than changes in plasma volume. They are DIFFERENT, while you have been trying to say they are the same, which is WRONG!!!!.........

Paula had a hemoglobin (or hematocrit) increase of 30%, which if you can do math, in our example leads to an increase of hematocrit from 45% to 58.5%( a 30% increase),with the RBC value still staying the same at 2.7L; this would mean that her plasma volume would have had to decrease from 3.3 L to 1.915L,( for a total blood volume of 2.7L RBCs plus 1.915L plasma equals 4.615L of total blood volume, so 2.7L of RBCs divided by 4.615L of total blood volume equals a hematocrit of 58.5% ) ....this decrease of plasma volume from 3.3L to 1.915L is a decrease of plasma volume of 41.97%!!!!!!! to explain Paula's change in hemoglobin value increase of 30%. So she won the 1 hour and 7 minute half marathon WC race with a plasma volume loss of over 41%( and remember she had an anemic hemoglobin level at the same time!)......WOW!!!....... THAT IS SOME MASSIVE DEHYDRATION and OVER 41% LOSS OF PLASMA VOLUME IN ONLY 1 HOUR AND 7 MINUTES OF RUNNING WHILE WINNING THE WC 1/2 MARATHON RACE!!!! ....Go Paula!!!!.......She is once again SUPERWOMAN!!!!!!.......

So you can see that an implied 41.97% plasma volume loss by Paula is over 100% MORE than the maximum number of 20% plasma volume loss in the exercise physiology textbook or the Ashenden study, and that I agree with the textbook and Ashenden study.......Isn't that strange we would all agree?

See how I have shown you and everyone reading this how to calculate hematocrit and hemoglobin changes, and blood volume changes , and plasma volume changes .....all off the top of my head.........with just a calculator...........NO TEXTBOOK REQUIRED......or ASHENDEN STUDY REQUIRED........Do you know why I don't need them?........because I have already read BOTH of them!!!.....a long time ago.....

See how you are WRONG AGAIN!!!!.......sorry rekrunner........I suggest you go back to your LAB ERROR explanation that you and Paula (with the once again superhuman blood test results) and the IAAF and Dr. Saugy are all so fond of ..........while I wait for Dr. Martial Saugy to be arrested and put in jail................with the rest of his corrupt pals..........

Go Paula!!!!!.... Go Lord Coe!!!.......Go Dr. Plan B Saugy!!... Go rekrunner!!!...Go trolls with poor reading comprehension who don't know the difference between plasma volume changes and hemoglobin changes!!!!!!!!.........You should go to the physiology textbook and Michael Ashenden study that you quote from...and try to understand what they actually state......instead of trying to distort the truth so that it can somehow fit into your distorted pro-Paula world view...........

Are we having fun yet rekrunner?......Hey, what is that sound I just heard???....... I think it might be the sound of your explanations for Paula's blood results being destroyed in the distance..........just like the 67 Russian samples that Dr. Plan B Saugy destroyed for the IAAF.........

Seriously, thanks for your patience and time taken for your posts - many of them should be nominated for post of the year.

You can always rely upon the all encompasing "lab error" exlpanation to come back to you and that only a good and proper expert employed by WADA/IAAF should be allowed to interpret the data and because none of us posters fall into this category our opinions/interpretations have no credibility...

rekrunner wrote:

Here are some factors in favor of the clean Paula:

- the pre-2009 suspicious values have plausible non-doping explanations (put aside Saugy -- Ashenden and Parisotto authored a paper warning about 10-20% plasma reduction leading to false positives due to hemoconcentration -- this discards the 2003 and 2005 values)

This explanation is false. As explained by rjm33

rekrunner wrote:

- Paula had male escorts/pacemakers; no other women since

- Paula had a favorable tailwind in London 2003 (statistically shown by ARRS)

- lack of depth in female marathons means: not enough female pacemakers, and fewer rivalries

- lack of depth also makes women's races tactical

- lack of appetite/will for world record attempts; compare for example the attitude in the men's marathons since Geb

None of these explanations are relevant to the PR is/was clean position. The guilty/innocent argument here is based upon the (at least 3) abnormal blood samples results.

Prior to this year, the only rumours of Paula being potentially suspicious seemed to be from so-called crazed LR posters.

I am curious to know when the earliest credible rumours started. Anybody know when did Race Radio start plugging away at her? How long before the Times article that referenced an unknown British athlete were there suspicions?

Ok, let's play... I added numbers into your quote for simplicity. 1: Yes, ok. But I don't see that as 50 : 50, more like a 99.99% chance that she doped. 2: I disagree. I'd also add 2a: 2012 out-of-competition values are highly suspicious, too; even bordering on the altitude threshold off score that is so high because altitude tends to lower ret%, while Paula's ret% went up (classical sign of EPO use). 3: Incorrect. See Berlin, rumored to be faster than London. 4: Yes. But since then there were twelve years with races in Chicago, London and Berlin, i.e. plenty of chances for WRs. And they actually did happen, but only on the men's side. 5, 6: True in comparison to the men, but not true in comparison to 2003 (on the contrary). 7: True, a consequence of Paula's extreme WR. And8: Her varying excuses and lack of transparency, after demanding transparency from her competitors. 9: While the men kept improving the WR and sub-2:05 races and more and more women dipped under 2:20, both a sign of improved training/nutrition/etc., nobody came close to Paula's 2:15. 10: Paula's regression: peaked in 2003, just before systematic EPO tests were introduced. Age 29, while many marathoners peak later. Her best marathon performance after turning 32: 2:23. What a rapid decline from a 2:15/2:17. Could be a coincidence though. For comparison, this year's majors' female winners: New York: Keitany, 33, current PR at age 30Chicago: Kiplagat, 28, current PR at age 24Berlin: Cherono, 32, current PR at age 32London: Rotich, 29, current PR at age 28Tokyo: Dibaba, 21, current PR at age 20Ok, they might still improve their PRs, so let's look at retired champs: Constantina Diţă, Olympic Champion at age 38, PR at age 35Grete Waitz, World Champion at age 29, PR at age 32Catherine Ndereba, World Champion at age 31 and 35, PR at age 29Gotta go. But I'm sure there are more reasons...

Joke Larkim wrote:

How long before the Times article that referenced an unknown British athlete were there suspicions?

When the NOP stories broke, there was this in March.

I don't have the time to find the original referred to in that post. I recall it earlier as well. Maybe that's just confirmation bias on my part.