OMG, I totally wish Paula Radcliffe gets caught/outted.

Subway Surfers wrote:

m!ndweak wrote:

lol well i thought it was common knowledge that things like this only went to 10, so a level 12 is beyond anything possible...well that is beyond possible for us mere mortals.....leave it up to rek and anything is possible...except for EPO to work and paula to be a doper hahaha

I never knew, I better stop repeatedly walking past the gorgeous 16 min 5k chick's house, who just so happens to live 128.7m from my place ? ("so you need a coach?")

yeah cause a level 12 stalker will come after you like a drunk vent/calculo yelling drivel!!

rekrunner wrote:

I know many athletes exist, thanks in large part to papers written by the Australian experts, and others.

Name them or at least give the data by how much the blood values flucutated.

rekrunner wrote:

Paula alone was not impacted.

[quote]

Name who else was impacted.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstrong tried but failed -- the results were not invalidated.

Wrong. The first time Armstrong had his positve EPO results leaked in 2006, a report cleared him of doping. Armstrong was eventually brought down by circumstantial of him doping over 6 years later which was mainly confessions from team mates. Drug tests had nothing to do with it.

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — A Dutch investigator's report cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, calling the accusations against him "completely irresponsible" and raising the possibility of misconduct by anti-doping authorities.

The 132-page report recommended convening a tribunal to discuss possible legal and ethical violations by the World Anti-Doping Agency and to consider "appropriate sanctions to remedy the violations."

The French sports daily L'Equipe reported in August that six of Armstrong's urine samples from 1999, when he won the first of his record seven straight Tour titles, came back positive for the endurance-boosting hormone EPO when they were retested in 2004.

Armstrong has repeatedly denied using banned substances.

The International Cycling Union appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman last October to investigate the handling of urine tests from the 1999 Tour by the French national anti-doping laboratory, known by its French acronym LNDD.

Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."

The report said tests on the samples were conducted improperly, and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest that the results "constitute evidence of anything."

It said no proper records were kept of the samples, there had been no "chain of custody" guaranteeing their integrity, and no way of knowing whether the samples had been "spiked" with banned substances.

The report said WADA and the LNDD may have "behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing," and may also have been against the law. It accused WADA of putting pressure on the LNDD to summarize the results of the tests, and said both agencies violated rules of confidentiality by openly discussing them.

It said neither Armstrong nor any of the other riders that were tested retroactively could fairly be accused of violating anti-doping regulations based on the LNDD's examination.

etc etc

"Today's comprehensive report makes it clear that there is no truth to that accusation," Armstrong said in a statement. "I have now retired, but for the sake of all athletes still competing who deserve a level playing field and a fair system of drug testing, the time has come to take action against these kinds of attacks before they destroy the credibility of WADA and, in turn, the international anti-doping system."

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — A Dutch investigator's report cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, calling the accusations against him "completely irresponsible" and raising the possibility of misconduct by anti-doping authorities.

This sounds like your problem, based on some revised interpretation of history. This suggestion of blood transfusions was made by a handful of anonymous armchair experts in this forum. I'm unaware this was ever considered seriously outside of gossip forums. Even the Australian experts didn't ever say blood transfusions. I still don't think the British MPs are informed today -- it seems they were mainly concerned about putting Coe in the hotseat, as if Damian Collins was trying to settle an old political score. What was the outcome again of this Parliamentary Inquiry?

Hmm Based on this wrote:

What ever your argument , I cannot get past , lying about altitude camp , and Radcliffe promoting " transparency " make all data public during the Yegorova issue. Then she retracts this when fingers point to her, does not want her test results public. You are trying to cloud how informed the MP's were . The IAAF lab test happened , they triggers likely blood transfusion alerts , the IAAF has these results, Radcliffe has the results,Radcliffe does not want to release this data which makes her look dirty.

You might be interested in reading the CIRC report, for some background on how this "independent" report was externally influenced. In any case, the Vrijman report did not invalidate the test results. If you read USADA's Reasoned Decision, you will also learn that these test results were eventually used as part of the evidence against Lance to support a lifetime ban.

deja vu wrote:

Wrong. The first time Armstrong had his positve EPO results leaked in 2006, a report cleared him of doping. Armstrong was eventually brought down by circumstantial of him doping over 6 years later which was mainly confessions from team mates. Drug tests had nothing to do with it.

Of the 5000 or so athletes in the leaked blood database, I only know some data from about a dozen or so, and most of them were released because the athletes were already busted. Naming any athletes who have suffered wide swings requires more data than Ashenden/Parisotto had. I only have access to data that has been made public. Regarding the fluctuations, over the years in these threads, there have been many references to papers and textbooks regarding the possible sources and magnitudes of different effects -- I don't wish to repeat all that again. For example an Exercise Endocrinology textbook tells us that just 6 minutes at 90% of VO2max intensity is enough to trigger a 12.4% reduction in blood plasma, and other sources say that longer bouts of high exertion can cause as much as 20% reduction in plasma volume. This will cause a significant increase in Hgb measures, not because red blood cells have increased, but because blood plasma has reduced. NOTE specifically that 6 minutes is too early to dehydrate by any significant amount, and these tests were done at room temperature. That's important when interpreting arguments about heat and dehydration. Scientists like Ashenden and Parisotto cautioned against the higher risk of false-positives in such cases. Several scientific studies confirm that at least 2 hours is necessary to restore blood values to pre-exercise baseline values. Another example is that the same blood sample, measured by two different brands of analyzers, using different technologies, has resulted in a differences as much as 2 g/dl. Ashenden himself contributed to a study on machine brand differences, in Hgb values, and particularly RET% values. He labelled the effect inter-method bias. One of the machines in the study produced unusable data which was completely rejected, and another had several weeks of data discarded because during the study, the machine went out of calibration. I'm generally unaware of any studies that show typical or maximum errors due to miscalibration. These, and other effects, are not mutually exclusive, but multiple errors can, in the worst case, be cumulative. Perhaps one indication of the expected rate of errors was that in 2005, we learned that the HR-off score statistical threshold of suspicion in use at the time was not 103 (sea-level) or 111 (altitude), but 123, for female athletes.

deja vu wrote:

Name them or at least give the data by how much the blood values flucutated.

rekrunner wrote:

You might be interested in reading the CIRC report, for some background on how this "independent" report was externally influenced.

In any case, the Vrijman report did not invalidate the test results.

If you read USADA's Reasoned Decision, you will also learn that these test results were eventually used as part of the evidence against Lance to support a lifetime ban.

deja vu wrote:

Wrong. The first time Armstrong had his positve EPO results leaked in 2006, a report cleared him of doping. Armstrong was eventually brought down by circumstantial of him doping over 6 years later which was mainly confessions from team mates. Drug tests had nothing to do with it.

Yes I know the full story and the final conclusion by USADA on Armstrong was way past 2006 and even then, the test results by themselves would have never brought Armstrong down - testimony by witnesses was key in particular Floyd Landis. The Vrijman report in 2006 effectively invalidated the test results at that time based on the arguments that tests on the samples were conducted improperly and fell short of scientific standards. Does this sort of argment sound familiar to anybody? - Armstrong was in fact able to retire and later come back and compete in the 2009 Tour de France to finish 3rd without ever having served any sort of suspension due to doping up to that point in time - something that would have not been possible if he had a validated positive test for EPO back in 2006. One wonders who influenced the IAAF report that "cleared" Radcliffe without the need to provide any further evidence for independent investigation?

And you still have not named any other athletes whose blood values have fluctuated as much as Radcliffe's without doping.

rekrunner wrote:

You might be interested in reading the CIRC report, for some background on how this "independent" report was externally influenced.

In any case, the Vrijman report did not invalidate the test results.

If you read USADA's Reasoned Decision, you will also learn that these test results were eventually used as part of the evidence against Lance to support a lifetime ban.

deja vu wrote:

Wrong. The first time Armstrong had his positve EPO results leaked in 2006, a report cleared him of doping. Armstrong was eventually brought down by circumstantial of him doping over 6 years later which was mainly confessions from team mates. Drug tests had nothing to do with it.

Even obvious doper Armstrong was convicted years and years after the positives were swept under the carpet. And by a federal investigation - Radcliffe will never ever be subjected to the same scrutiny, and she is protected by Coe. A man who is royally tainted because of his blind-eyeing doping corruption right in front of his nose. A man who thought of nothing to receive large sums of money from Nike whose other employees were the subject of doping scandals.

Once again, the Vrijman report did not invalidate the test results. These results were used as validation to establish an improved test for EPO from urine. They could not be used alone to sanction Lance for other procedural reasons, for example, the samples should have been anonymous, or destroyed, and the requirement for a B-sample confirmation, with athlete present, could not be met. We know from the CIRC report (the UCI) that the Vrijman report was far from independent, so we should take any allegations or conclusions in that report, not to mention any quotes from Lance or the UCI, keeping that in mind. I just addressed your request to "name them", electing your other option, to talk about magnitudes of deviations, since the request to provide names is not a realistic or reasonable expectation. It's enough that scientists like Ashenden and Parisotto have warned us of the risk of false conclusions.

Fred Couples (PGA Golf ) had blood values that fluctuated similar to Radcliffe , but Couples had blood platelet injections at a German treatment center, targeting his back treatment. Tiger Woods had the same procedure at the same clinic. This transfusion treatment is not allowed in the USA , thus the German clinic is used . fyi , this was not banned by the PGA at the time , it is now .

The outcome of this whole story was that there was simply no basis for scrutiny. There was never any need for any protection, except from bad journalism.

Dope Apologism wrote:

Even obvious doper Armstrong was convicted years and years after the positives were swept under the carpet. And by a federal investigation - Radcliffe will never ever be subjected to the same scrutiny, and she is protected by Coe. A man who is royally tainted because of his blind-eyeing doping corruption right in front of his nose. A man who thought of nothing to receive large sums of money from Nike whose other employees were the subject of doping scandals.

Funny Armstrong came up in the discussion

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulkimmage/status/641266404977721344

rekrunner wrote:

The outcome of this whole story was that there was simply no basis for scrutiny. There was never any need for any protection, except from bad journalism.

Dope Apologism wrote:

Even obvious doper Armstrong was convicted years and years after the positives were swept under the carpet. And by a federal investigation - Radcliffe will never ever be subjected to the same scrutiny, and she is protected by Coe. A man who is royally tainted because of his blind-eyeing doping corruption right in front of his nose. A man who thought of nothing to receive large sums of money from Nike whose other employees were the subject of doping scandals.

This is the crux of the problem: Radcliffe does not want scrutiny.

And the fair and unbiased retort is:

Does her record not stand up to scrutiny?

She herself, demanded scrutiny in athletics and was very quick to judge her peers.

So what is she afraid of now?

Lance. wrote:

Funny Armstrong came up in the discussion

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulkimmage/status/641266404977721344

They are all full of it. They all know what doping is going on, they are all friends.

Yes but she so needs to be outed

All her nonsense about anti doping to cover her own transgression has done a terrible disservice to anti doping

She should be in jail

rekrunner wrote:

You might be interested in reading the CIRC report, for some background on how this "independent" report was externally influenced.

In any case, the Vrijman report did not invalidate the test results.

If you read USADA's Reasoned Decision, you will also learn that these test results were eventually used as part of the evidence against Lance to support a lifetime ban.

deja vu wrote:

Wrong. The first time Armstrong had his positve EPO results leaked in 2006, a report cleared him of doping. Armstrong was eventually brought down by circumstantial of him doping over 6 years later which was mainly confessions from team mates. Drug tests had nothing to do with it.

I tried to reply earlier so sorry if this is a double post.

You are still wrong I'm afraid. I know the story and we are talking about what happened in 2006 - not what happened more than 6 years later which was in fact based largely on testimony from Armstrong's former team mates - the positive EPO test results on the frozen samples would never have been enough to bring down Armstrong by themselves. The Vrijman report in 2006 effectively invalidated the positive test results based on arguments that the samples were conducted improperly, and fell short of scientific standards etc. These sorts of arguments appear to be very familiar. If you really believe that the positive test results were not invalidated in 2006 when they were first made public then how do you explain that Armstrong served no doping suspension in 2006, came out of retirement in 2008 and competed in the 2009 Tour de France without having to serve any sort of doping suspension.

In any case was it not the IAAF who published some sort of report to clear Radcliffe's name? How can that be seen as independent given that Radcliffe is an employee of the IAAF? That would be like having a report from Team US postal or Team Discovery channel clearing Armstrong's name from doping.

rekrunner wrote:

Of the 5000 or so athletes in the leaked blood database, I only know some data from about a dozen or so, and most of them were released because the athletes were already busted.

So are you effectively saying that the only people you can actually name who had similar swings blood values are those who were busted for doping?

They are all full of it wrote:

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54cd3e51ecad044e2fc3f953-750-565.jpg

Oh to be part of the global elite.

rekrunner wrote:

If you read USADA's Reasoned Decision, you will also learn that these test results were eventually used as part of the evidence against Lance to support a lifetime ban.

The hilarious irony of using pre-ABP blood values to make a point in a thread about Paula Radcliffe, you surpass yourself on this one rekrunner.

rekrunner wrote:

I've seen a lot of allegations about lying -- these always looked like desperate clutching at straws to me.

Just a reminder of the things that Paula has come out with that have subsequently proved to be untrue:

Paula Radcliffe statement 8 Sept 2015:

"All of these three cases followed periods of altitude training."

Interview with the Daily Mail, November 2015:

"Radcliffe and husband Gary said there had never been the intention to claim altitude was directly responsible for specific high off-scores, aside from in 2012. ‘Yes, we had been at altitude and altitude does affect stuff but she never said I had this score, this score and this score and it has been directly affected by altitude,’ said Gary. Radcliffe said: ‘For me, altitude was only the primary factor in the 2012 off score.’"

Paula Radcliffe interview with Runners World about the post-race 10,000m test in Helsinki (the suspicious off-score in 2005):

(I'll summarise) - she was pissed off with her race and wanted to get on with her cool down, so she was through doping control in 20 minutes.

Paula Radcliffe biography:

After the race she had her 30 minute cool-down jog, then an ice bath, and THEN went to doping control.

Paula Radcliffe on Twitter, Feb 2018:

'No law suits were ever threatened, aggressively or otherwise'

Paula Radcliffe quoted by Sunday Times in 2015

"You print it and I sue you (and) you won't be getting any money back in future like Lance Armstrong - I promise you that"

Paula Radcliffe about her 2012 suspicious off-score

She mentions that after receiving information about the high scores in 2012, people in UK athletics told her not to worry because they will see that she had been training at altitude and had been injured at altitude, so I wasn't running every day and I wasn't crushing the red blood cells'

Paula Radcliffe interviews in 2012, a few days before returning home from Kenya:

"I've run twice on all but one day since I got here.....I only expected to be running once a day and I ran twice, comfortably. I pushed hard and it worked out and that gave me a huge boost"

Paula Radcliffe about her pre-Athens injury, from her biography:

'On Sunday 8 August we did our last training session.....Warming up, I felt a little tightness in the vastus medialis muscle in the quad in my left leg....As soon as the run was completed, everything changed for the worse. The leg seized up and we couldn't get back to Gerard quick enough"

Gerard Hartmann's version of the story:

"Paula did a 16-mile run and a car with joyriders going too fast came in onto the gravel trails. A stone or something flung from the back tyre, hit her knee and she got a blood abscess deep in her knee. We flew the following day to see Dr Muller Wohlfahrt"

Apparently Paula won't do any interviews where the interviewer wants to ask her about these doping allegations, so it is very hard to put these inconsistencies to her. But if you have nothing to hide........