re-test Bekele's blood n urine sample immediately

rjm33 wrote:

Dr. Saugy is not going to be doing evil things any longer at the Lausanne WADA lab.

I am still counting this one as a win.

OK?

OK. Dr. forever-Assc. Prof. was promoted though, as a thank you for his good deeds.

His defenders are as hilarious as the Salazar defenders, but at least in this forum there are only 1 - 2 trolls still pretending to support Plan B Saugy, who considers all athletes, even including Armstrong and Radcliffe, to be innocent.

point of order wrote:

The only athlete who suffered reputational damage by not releasing data was Paula Radcliffe. Her decision not to release data contradicted her previous stated position on the matter and was suspicious in the circumstances.

Mo Farah suffered no reputational loss through the release of blood data .

All correct. Radcliffe also suffered some reputational damage by lying about the circumstances of her extremely suspicious high off scores indicative of blood doping, from "I raced at 30 C" to "I was at altitude" and "instrument error".

More interesting is that Lord Conflict-of-Interest Coe was backing her so vigorously, although that made him even less trustworthy.

Oh. Well. Nothing to see here, right?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Rater of Bads wrote:

-4.7/10

What was his most recent 3,000m time?

Ta.

a 7:28 3000 is worth about a 13:02 5000. He peaked at 12:53 at 18, then when he turned 19 he started declining real fast.

Same thing happened to Mary Cain and Jim Ryun. Teenage phenoms burn out real quick.

But what I'm mostly saying is he's obviously not doping if he's running a 13:19, now is he? So quit trying to confuse the issue.

-5.8/10

Did you even watch the 3,000m race?

Bad trolling, Mr. Bad. Bad trolling.

It's a no-win scenario for Paula:- If she doesn't release the rest of her data, it's perceived as an admission of guilt- If she does release her data, it won't eliminate suspicion, as we have seen with Mo. Mo's releasing of his blood values should have stopped the EPO accusations -- but his accusers are not really interested in the actual data, nor even the gesture to be transparent.According to newspaper accounts, Paula's data in the leaked database only contained three suspicious values, and the whole range varied by 47%. This means that all of the remaining 11 values or so, in the leaked database, should be values between 78 and 103.Assuming this is correct, and these values were released, what would the public make of that? I think the accusations would not go away, but simply change.

point of order wrote:

WADA and UKAD advice wrote:

Innocent athletes with "false positives" will suffer reputational damage, as the public will not believe they are being told the truth.

The athletes who released the data caused reputational damage to the other athletes who chose not to.

Another good reason to not release data, is the false promise that this will reduce suspicion. Mo released his data -- how did that work for him?

The only athlete who suffered reputational damage by not releasing data was Paula Radcliffe. Her decision not to release data contradicted her previous stated position on the matter and was suspicious in the circumstances.

Mo Farah suffered no reputational loss through the release of blood data .

WADA and UKAD advice wrote:

It's a no-win scenario for Paula:

- If she doesn't release the rest of her data, it's perceived as an admission of guilt

- If she does release her data, it won't eliminate suspicion, as we have seen with Mo.

Yes, but "admission of guilt" is worse than not to "eliminate suspicion".

Moreover, don't just look at the off scores: the data will likely show, in accord with her bio, that her Hb was often around 12 - 13 g/dl, which would in turn prove without any doubt even to her hard-core fans her doping to achieve the 16.2 g/dl that she was caught with in 2012, completely without dehydration and yet with normal ret-% (which speaks against the altitude excuse).

I note you use 4 significant digits to express the 21.88% increase. Before 2009, this assumes too much.

rjm33 wrote:

Yes. They changed it to 10 years last year in 2015 I think…and then they got some more positives on retesting…and there were the legal challenges that they could not go back 10 years…since the rule at the time the sample was collected was only 8 years…therefore the new positive on retesting after 10 years…"does not count"…just like Paula's 21.88% increase in hemoglobin level in 2 days at the 2003 half-marathon WC…"does not count"…since the ABP did not start until 2009.

casual obsever,

I note here for accuracy:

- "extremely" is a word added by you

- assumptions like normal values of 12-13 (or 14.2) are made up by you

Please see the other thread for details as to why:

- 29 C or 30 C doesn't matter -- 23 C is enough

- it's not only about dehydration -- strenuous exercise is enough

- instrument calibration is important

- 0.77% RET (on the low side of normal) at altitude in the off-season is inline with the IAAF's explanation -- they expect even lower values at the end of the competitive season.

- 16.2 g/dl is a reasonable value after weeks at 2400m altitude (as is 0.77% RET)

- I think you illustrate well why data should not be made public due to high risk of misinterpretation

rekrunner wrote:

I note you use 4 significant digits to express the 21.88% increase. Before 2009, this assumes too much.

Excellent point. Also, rjm, remember that the real number is 30%, not 22%.

ROFL. Didn't you just write that you wanted to start looking at facts, and facts only? And yet, you start again with such a bold lie?

For evidence (that you pretend to like so much), proving that I did not make that up, I cite Paula herself:

"My haemoglobin was unusually low, just 12.0, when I’m usually around 14-14.5."

Also I did not say that 12 - 13 was normal for her; I usually give 14.2 g/dl or in the lower 14s or something like that, in line with her bio (where she also refers to her anemia, lol).

First of all, you were about the only one who made these absurd claims in the other thread. Tucker for example showed why 23 C is not enough based on two similar studies to cause such a 30% increase in Hb etc.

But in short, point by point because this is fun:

A - but Paula said 30 C - why did she lie?

B - but Paula only said dehydration, not "strenuous exercise"

Evidence:

"Obviously dehydration is a huge factor in post-race tests, particularly in very hot conditions. For example, one of the tests was done immediately after finishing a half marathon in Portugal in midday temperatures of approximately 30 degree Celsius heat."

C - yes, and the calibration was just fine!

For evidence, I cite the Sunday Times:

"there were 29 other tests with the same device that were at normal levels"

D, E - yes, again you use your typical trick of only considering half of the data. 0.77 in itself is fine, but 16.2 is extremely unlikely for females, in particular for Paula with her normal 14-14.5, and especially if ret-% is normal, instead of lowered by the altitude effect.

F - stop trolling, that is too lame to respond to.

A - but Paula said 30 C - why did she lie?

.[/quote]

She is 'crooked Paula' and

Soon she will found the Radcliffe foundation.

casual obsever wrote:

rjm33 wrote:

Alberto Salazar has broken various federal and state drug laws when he administered the schedule III controlled substance and prescription drug Androgel (testosteone gel) to his two subjects (sons) in his "Galen Rupp might be sabotaged with Androgel (but no other possible sabotage drug) experiments".

The Salazar defenders here make me laugh (just like the Paula defenders). One of his athletes was caught and banned for testo doping, he gave Rupp "testosterone medication", and on purpose broke "various federal and state drug laws" and international customs laws. Fact, fact, fact, and fact. Yet some act as if a person like that would never lie or cheat or dope.

Dr. Don Catlin was involved in the detection of THG in the BALCO scandal with con man Victor Conte and chemistry graduate Patrick Arnold, who was the smart guy who actually made the THG. They both went to jail. Alberto Salazar was trying to get medical exemptions (before the term TUE) back in the 1980's for himself. Dr. Don Catlin turned Salazar down for the exemptions every time. He also talks about drug testing being done by Alberto Salazar on his runners back around 2001.

Salazar was also buying supplements a long time ago "to increase testosterone levels" that were "legal". Salazar was also doing some urine testing at the same time.

Guess who Alberto Salazar got his supplements from…and who was doing his urine testing?

His name was Victor Conte.

Here is a list of clients of another company called SNAC that was run by Victor Conte:

There are a lot of bodybuilders and Bill Romanowski, who has used anabolic steroids.

Here is what Alberto had to say about his innocent association with Victor Conte:

"I was running poorly and he contacts me (through a coach) and says, 'We got this new tech of measuring your trace elements' and all this. So I sent him some urine," Salazar says. "That was the only time I did anything with them, other than buying some ZMA, but then everybody started making this stuff. They said people who were low on testosterone, it could help them. A lot of athletes took that. It's legal and there's nothing wrong with it."

Read more:

It is just another "testosterone coincidence" for Alberto Salazar!

Yea. Sure. No worries.

Salazar seems obsessed with testosterone: ZMA, testoboost, "testosterone medication" for Galen Rupp in his chart, positive testosterone test (and ban) for the above a 6:1 T/E ratio result in 1996 for the runner he coached (Mary Decker Slaney), with drug testing... urine testing…illegal "testosterone gel sabotage" experiments with the measurement of urine T/E ratio…etc…etc... etc...

You are a conspiracy nutcase.

There is nothing to see here.

No worries.

Sleep well Alberto.

You accused me before of blindly following what Paula says, but two of your arguments start out with "but Paula said...". Recall Paula is an athlete and not a scientist. Like any non-expert, what she says must not be blindly accepted, but cross-checked and confirmed with the subject matter experts.You actually said "will likely show ... 12-13 g/dl" and this was "in accord with her bio". You made this up, and just provided the quotes that show "14.0 -14.5" is in accord with her bio. If you have such strong arguments, why do you feel you need to make stuff up, and artificially inject words like "extremely". If her bio is sufficient proof for you, her bio says 12 g/dl is "unusually low", which supports a claim that something unusually wrong with that low measurement. She expected "14.0-14.5".You place an unusual significance on 14.0-14.5 g/dl being some kind of firmly established baseline, but in an ABP context, that is not how you establish or use baselines. WADA uses an ABP software to establish rolling individual baselines based on data measured in precise conditions -- they don't ask the athletes to write a biography.A - She said "approximately 30 C". I could speculate several reasons how she made this mistake, but this is a non-issue, as race reports all say it was hot, 23 C and climbing, and this is sufficient to produce a significant, if not maximal, effect.B - Hemoconcentration can be caused by strenuous exercise (pushing plasma into interstitial tissues), or by dehydration (causing real plasma loss), or by both. Dehydration can be "a huge factor", but not the only one. Paula's quote is not wrong. But dehydration is not the only factor that can artificially increase the off-score.C - Were these 29 tests pre-race or post-race, or both? Did the Sunday Times print the response to the actual query? "Normal levels" can vary widely, normally, and doesn't give much insight into the calibration of the equipment, or other processes. Her "low reading", at 12.0 g/dl is still "at a normal level", and still would be if it were 14.0 g/dl.D, E - What trick? I clearly considered both points. Do you just see half of what is written? Is that the whole problem here? Both 16.2 and 0.77% are reasonably likely, in this context, for Paula. I've given you references that show up to 16.5 g/dl is still considered normal "at sea level", and an adjustment for 2400m altitude can be "up to 1.4 g/dl" for female athletes. 16.2 is not extremely unlikely for females, but well within expectations for a female athlete, like Paula, after spending several weeks at 2400m. This is not only my opinion, but it was the conclusion of the analysis.

Oh my Paula "Perfect Blood" Radcliffe. Paula's favorite song is by AC/DC. The name of the song is "YOU WANT BLOOD" (WE GOT IT):

Paula Radcliffe's Rule: "You only know for sure about yourself" is WRONG.

I know about Ms. Paula Radcliffe. I have objective evidence:

Ms. Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25 is equivalent (Purdy tables) to a 4:00 mile, 8:00 3K, 13:53 5K, and 29:03 10K. Paula is way beyond Almaz Ayana, Wang Junxia, and the Dibabas. Paula is the best long distance athlete that has ever lived on this planet.

From wiki:

She has previously asked for the results of a blood test taken at the London Marathon to be made public, saying that she had "absolutely no objection to my test being released".[115]

In 2015, in the wake of revelations of widespread doping in athletics,[116] Radcliffe said that, unlike some other prominent British athletes, she would not be releasing her blood-test history, and discouraged other athletes from doing so.[117] She was later indirectly identified as a suspected doper by MP Jesse Norman during a parliamentary inquiry into blood doping.[118][119] In response, Radcliffe issued a statement in which she "categorically denied" cheating in any form and said she has "nothing to hide".[120] Shortly afterwards, her three suspect test results were leaked, though Radcliffe still refused to release her complete blood-test history.[121] In late November 2015, the IAAF declared that the accusation were "based on the gross misinterpretation of incomplete data". The UK Anti Doping Agency, having received Radcliffe's blood test history via the IAAF, stated that "Ukad has come to the same conclusion as the IAAF review that there is no case to answer".[122]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Ross Tucker has Paula as a 7 on his "suspicious" scale.) Here are some OFF scores from blood test results:

http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Capture-400x256.png

The OFF score= hemoglobin(g/dL) x 10 - 60(square root of the reticulocyte%).

Here is the information I used to come to a conclusion on Ms. Radcliffe:

On Oct. 2, 2003…two days before the World Championship Half-Marathon that she won…Paula had a blood test result which had a hemoglobin value of 12.8 g/dL, and a reticulocyte score of 0.59% (of RBCS), which make up an OFF score of 82 pre-race.

On Oct. 4, 2003…Paula had a blood test result which had a hemoglobin value of 15.6 g/dL, and a reticulocyte score of 0.47% (of RBCs), which make up an OFF score of 114.87 post-race.

That is a 21.88% increase in hemoglobin value in 2 days, from 12.8 g/dL to 15.6 g/dL.

To get a rough estimate of hematocrit score (which many people are more familiar with), the hemoglobin score can be multiplied by 3, so the 12.8 Hb would be roughly equivalent to a hematocrit value of 38.4%. A 21.88% increase in hematocrit value in 2 days, from 38.4% to 46.8% is a very large magnitude increase... in a very short amount of time.

Even severe dehydration, which causes a loss of plasma volume, and elevates Hb values, does not increase hemoglobin values more than 15%…even in extreme dehydration after running for 2.5 to 3 hours and losing 4% of bodyweight. Paula ran for 1 hour 7 minutes and also won the race.

Altitude training can increase Hb values by 5 to 10%…and takes 3 to 6 weeks to work. All types of EPO take weeks to work. Cobalt chloride takes weeks to work. Inhalation of xenon or krypton gas to increase erythropoiesis also takes weeks to work. Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers such as FG-4592 also take weeks to work. No other drug or substance that I know of can work in 2 days to increase hemoglobin values by that much.

The only way I know of that can increase hemoglobin values by 21.88% in 2 days is:

1) An autologous blood transfusion by Ms. Paula Radcliffe.

(The reticulocyte score also shows a 20% decrease (from 0.59% of RBCs to 0.47% of RBCs), which is also consistent with a blood transfusion, since the reticulocytes are diluted by the infusion of the old stored blood.)

My conclusion is:

Ms. Paula Radcliffe is a Brit Doper-Cheater-Liarâ„¢.

For more reading on the physiology and mechanism of action:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874847/

http://www.hypo2sport.com/total-hemoglobin-mass-testing-the-gold-standard/

Paula is OFF the charts in every way!!!

Oh yea.

Hi Paula.

http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/2007+World+Athletics+Gala+bVvZN8YHBSjx.jpg

It looks like Paula and Lord Coe are having a really fun time.

Go Paula!!!

Guys, guys, guys.

Way off topic, we're supposed to be focusing on Bekele's killer cocktail.

My best guess: he was taking some sort of muscle increaser (androgel or designer hgh) this explains his ability to sprint 5k. At the same time he was doing some sort of obscure epo or plain old blood doping. I have always suspected that Ken and Geb would turn out in mid-May as soon as their samples would be clean for testing, they would do a WR or an unreal time without any warm up races, but they would be vulnerable later in the season because they would be off the sauce for too long. It seems a stretch that Bekele couldn't win the 5k in 2004 after running 12:37 earlier in the summer without proper pacemakers.

You are saying my 21.88% is wrong. OK.

Would you like to make it 21.9%?

How about 22.0%?

20%? 30%?

It does not make any difference.

You are completely full of sh*t.

It does not change my conclusion.

You will never accept ANY number or ANY value which shows that Paula Radcliffe is a DoperCheaterLiarâ„¢.

You always find something wrong with ANY number or ANY value.

You are ridiculo.

I am now going to do some plyometrics to improve my running economy:

http://www.wc-news.com/wc-news-content/hottest-olimpic-girls/high/DaryaKlishina-bikini-jumper.jpg

(I am also very flexible. I do a lot of yoga.)

You will NEVER be invited to our fun LRC beach parties:

http://www.gotceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/celebrities/darya-klishina/hot-50-photos/Darya-Klishina-Hot-50-Photos--11.jpg

I am sorry rekrunner.

You are not fun... at all.

rekrunner wrote:

D, E - What trick? I clearly considered both points. Do you just see half of what is written? Is that the whole problem here? Both 16.2 and 0.77% are reasonably likely, in this context, for Paula. I've given you references that show up to 16.5 g/dl is still considered normal "at sea level", and an adjustment for 2400m altitude can be "up to 1.4 g/dl" for female athletes. 16.2 is not extremely unlikely for females, but well within expectations for a female athlete, like Paula, after spending several weeks at 2400m. This is not only my opinion, but it was the conclusion of the analysis.

Let's start from the back. False, the experts in the end could not agree on a verdict, which by design let Paula off the hook. Fact. My guess: science against Saugy - but I'm curious to see other people's guesses. (At least that's the official version; she retired right after that decision.)

What trick? The trick that you write "Both 16.2 and 0.77% are reasonably likely, in this context, for Paula." without combining these two and her history.

First of all, 16.2 in itself is not "reasonably likely", because a) we know what Paule normally has, which is b) lower than 16.2 - 1.4 (the most extreme change you could find in one article), c) we know that Paula usually does not get about 15.6 after altitude + dehydration + strenuous exercise.

Low-15 is in line with the normal reaction to altitude, given there as an increase of 0.5 - 1.0. But then remember that Canova said that the best of the best don't get an Hb increase from altitude (but a migher affinity to O2), according to his measurements.

Second, we know that higher Hb caused by altitude goes along with lower ret-%, but this time is the record in Hb (by 4% despite the missing dehydration + strenuous exercise, which you need to be a huge factor to explain the other abnormal off-scores) and ret-% (by 75%!!).

So now, in order to have the 2012 values at least somewhat likely, you'd need to say that dehydration + strenuous exercise (I'm still laughing) are small factors, thereby admitting that Paula doped in 2003 and 2005.

And then don't forget her anemia. Lol.

Dead Nike Lunar Forever 2s wrote:

Guys, guys, guys.

Way off topic, we're supposed to be focusing on Bekele's killer cocktail.

That's boring, because no troll pretends to be defending Bekele.

Which in turn is very telling by comparison, because there is no evidence in contrast to Paula's case with her abnormal off scores, and his WRs are only minor improvements over Haile's, against whom there is also no evidence, in contrast to Paula's opponents.

Anyway, I am done feeding the troll. Let's go for a run.

rojo and wejo have exactly the same opinion as you... on Paula's blood test results.

All three of you should form a rojo-wejo-rekrunner Blood Test Think Tankâ„¢.

Please publish your results... from this meeting of the great minds.

casual obsever wrote:

Dead Nike Lunar Forever 2s wrote:

Guys, guys, guys.

Way off topic, we're supposed to be focusing on Bekele's killer cocktail.

That's boring, because no troll pretends to be defending Bekele.

Which in turn is very telling by comparison, because there is no evidence in contrast to Paula's case with her abnormal off scores, and his WRs are only minor improvements over Haile's, against whom there is also no evidence, in contrast to Paula's opponents.

Anyway, I am done feeding the troll. Let's go for a run.

But Paula's old news, a bobble head that you put on your dash board to make the kids happy, she has no world or olympic medals on the track and used male escorts to drag her through in marathon's. I've got a $50 bet that she won't have the marathon WR in 3-4 years. I want see what Bekele's on, I thought that was the whole point of this thread.