where do you come up with 10 Liters of blood? that would weigh like 23 lbs
wouldn't someone of her size be more like 5-6 liters?
where do you come up with 10 Liters of blood? that would weigh like 23 lbs
wouldn't someone of her size be more like 5-6 liters?
Jack Sparrow wrote:
"This ability to identify dopers should be weighed against the likelihood of encountering an athlete who possesses this score as a result of natural biological variability."
So 1/100 means 99 cheaters and 1 innocent athlete and no way to reasonably distinguish with definiteness amongst them.
Yes, or in other words, 1 in 100 cutoff means that if an athlete crosses the threshold we could be 99% certain that he's cheater and there's only 1% chance that he tested false positive and thus innocent. Again if my calculations are right 1 in 70 means that since she crossed the threshold we can be 98.5% certain she's cheater. Not great, ey?
emajor wrote:
Based on my calculations odds of her results are nowhere close to 1 in 1000, they are 1 in 63 for 109.3, 1 in 70 for 109.86, and 1 in 207 for 114.86.
Radcliffe logic wrote:
Antonio Cabral disagrees.
It's funny how he disagrees and calls her a liar without contradicting anything she says.
Man Overboard wrote:
Radcliffe logic wrote:Antonio Cabral disagrees.
It's funny how he disagrees and calls her a liar without contradicting anything she says.
She said the test was immediately after the race while he said it was 90 minutes after the race. Not sure who is right, but that's quite a difference.
Just so we are all on the same page, 30C = 86F. Just doing training runs in those temperatures leaves my metabolism screwed up for a couple of days afterwards.
Different subject: weren't her VO2 Max values always off the chart? Wouldn't it make sense that her blood values would be near the top end of the acceptable range? I think you would need to see her charts over time to spot fluctuations to indicate doping/not doping; I also don't think most of us on this chat board has the medical background to interpret said data even if we had it.
emajor wrote:
Jack Sparrow wrote:"This ability to identify dopers should be weighed against the likelihood of encountering an athlete who possesses this score as a result of natural biological variability."
So 1/100 means 99 cheaters and 1 innocent athlete and no way to reasonably distinguish with definiteness amongst them.
Yes, or in other words, 1 in 100 cutoff means that if an athlete crosses the threshold we could be 99% certain that he's cheater and there's only 1% chance that he tested false positive and thus innocent. Again if my calculations are right 1 in 70 means that since she crossed the threshold we can be 98.5% certain she's cheater. Not great, ey?
emajor wrote:
Based on my calculations odds of her results are nowhere close to 1 in 1000, they are 1 in 63 for 109.3, 1 in 70 for 109.86, and 1 in 207 for 114.86.
No it does not mean you can be 98.5% certain of cheating. It would mean 100% certainty (assuming the model is perfect) that she is either a cheater or not a cheater. Which is where we start from in the first place. And it means that the innocent 1 out of 100 will show these results and the 99 out of 100 cheaters will show these results but there is no way to distinguish between them.
It is merely an analytical tool to identify potential cheating, it does not prove or disprove cheating.
Do we have any proof she was Training at altitude during the times she claim she was?
Do we have any proof of the actual timing sequence of the tests in Portugal? Other than what the supposed sequence is?
Did she use an altitude tent at sea-level and how would that impact anything?
Before I believed Paula this would be nice to know c
More facts more facts wrote:
Did she use an altitude tent at sea-level and how would that impact anything?
Before I believed Paula this would be nice to know c
That explains its. All these abnormal values are from athletes sitting in altitude tents at 13,000 feet 15 hours a day.
Ross Tucker explains why just the off scores on their own are not conclusive of anything unless they're ridiculously high:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1061634447180927&id=213103522034028
MM3307 wrote:
Different subject: weren't her VO2 Max values always off the chart? Wouldn't it make sense that her blood values would be near the top end of the acceptable range?
VO2max and blood scores are not related.
And, one of the many benefits of the IAAF's very light testing is there isn't enough data for good analysis. They permit doping so that essentially poisons their corpus.
Tucker:
" you can produce the same off-score with different combinations of Hb & Ret% (which would, in theory, allow you to mask doping by manipulating half the equation to hide the other half), so really, isolated off-scores tell you nothing"
rojo wrote:
Very misleading wrote:Why does the home page say that 'Sky news claim she is now exonerated'?
It doesn't say anything of the sort it just reports statements and factual data. No opinion is given.
For those of you who don't know what the poster is talking about. When i saw that this article was out (by reading this thread), i put a link to the article on the front page under the title "Radcliffe's 3 suspicious blood values are published by Sky News - Sky News now says she's exonerated."
"Very misleading" you aren't the only one wondering about the title. .Weldon (of all people) called me and asked why the front page said that as well. I said, "Have you read the headline of the article and the headline on Sky News? That's what it says."
The article may not say anything about her being cleared but the sky news front page and the title of the article were very clear - “Blood Tests That Cleared Paula Radcliffe” .
So what I wrote was factual. Exonerated and cleared are synonyms.
But to not confuse people we have changed the title. It now says, "3 Of Radcliffe’s Suspicious Blood Values Are Published By Sky News Under Headline “Blood Tests That Cleared Paula Radcliffe” .
Thanks for explaining. I don't really see why you need to include the last bit of that since the title was irrelevant and obviously a mistake.
FYI Sky have now rectified the title so it says 'that Paula Radcliffe says clear her'
I'm not sure I've ever followed a news story as closely as this one. It's eye opening how many mistakes and repetition happens on things that are completely false on both sides. I'm British and the one sided nature of the debate the last few days is staggering.
I still feel bad for the MP who said absolutely nothing beyond what was in the public domain - in fact considerably less - and was thrown under the bus so Paula could release her pre prepared statement for maximum misdirection. Now everyone is repeating this as if it were true. Even though video evidence of the hearing exists to the contrary.
The way this has been handled by her makes me highly suspicious of her being innocent. That said if the Sunday times come out and have nothing new to share or don't strongly contest any of her mitigating factors I will believe she is clean.
Sunday will be interesting.
MM3307 wrote:
Different subject: weren't her VO2 Max values always off the chart? Wouldn't it make sense that her blood values would be near the top end of the acceptable range? I think you would need to see her charts over time to spot fluctuations to indicate doping/not doping; I also don't think most of us on this chat board has the medical background to interpret said data even if we had it.
Yes that's why the full data for PR is needed to make sense of claims. Agree most here don't have knowledge to interpret, myself included, but there are plenty that do, many have been active on social media calling on PR to release all data. If all data were released then all reasonable arguments have to be made with reference to it and doubters can be called out if they are wrong. PR currently saying how terrible allegations are and that she has full data and context exonerates her, but that she won't release it. It's an odd position. I'd also like to know if she sanctioned the release of her off scores by Sky today. Seems likely given the positive spin put on them. In which case, the argument for full data release is strengthened further. It's her right not to release this, of course. But then she can't complain if people say she has things to hide and that's why she isn't releasing.
Very thoughtful explanations for a complex subject.
As he mentioned by not giving all the pertinent information it only brings Radcliffe's scores into further question. Why not release everything rather than bits and pieces? Makes me question her even more.
Could Paula been the first known micro-doper and kept her levels at the top end of range without detection???
Sky and The Sunday Times are both Murdoch entities so I would be astounded if she agreed to the release of the scores, especially as she has said that they are meaningless without context, which as I think we've all learned today, seems a fair comment.
The new intrigue is what her other lesser scores looked like and if they indicate wild fluctuations as in Ross Tucker's example of a doper. I don't recall the detail, but I've a hunch it's been suggested that they do.
Maybe this is where the Sunday Times is going with this...
Yes, or in other words, 1 in 100 cutoff means that if an athlete crosses the threshold we could be 99% certain that he's cheater and there's only 1% chance that he tested false positive and thus innocent.
Completely wrong. The false positive rate is not the same thing at all as the probability of innocence.
emajor wrote:
Based on my calculations odds of her results are nowhere close to 1 in 1000, they are 1 in 63 for 109.3, 1 in 70 for 109.86, and 1 in 207 for 114.86.
What exactly are your calculations? And why should we believe them?
So the temperature was only 24=75F and the test was 90 minutes later according to an eye witness, Mr Cabral?