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:

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?

If all athletes are sent their blood reports after testing then that's fair enough. I didn't realise that was the case.

I'm sorry but a page in her autobiography detailing the events and details around testing for the Vilanova race- yet failing to mention that the results were potentially troublesome does not reflect well.

It's like writing a restaurant review but failing to mention what dish you had.

Well since we are all in agreement, this discussion should end rather quickly. When you read what I wrote in its context, your whole lengthy response is unnecessary and misplaced. I actually get that 10-20% volume doesn't mean 10-20% Hgb change.I didn't ask how "we respond", but how "casual observer" would respond, following his personal decision that the female 80 min. study is comparable, while the male 3 hour study is not comparable. It was also in light of "pop-up's" "single digit change", and your own presented study of 149 marathon/half-marathon runners.If we follow your math through (and correct me if I'm wrong), with your numbers, for 12.0 g/dl, a change of 0.7-1.5 g/dl is a range you, Ashenden and Parisotto would accept represents changes due to plasma volume reduction, having read the same book.I guess you also agree, with Ashenden, Parisotto, and me, that your own study of 149 marathon and half-marathon (0.3 g/dl or 2.5%) is not representative of a prolonged elite effort in the heat. It's curious, if you already knew that 10-20% is typical, and presumably you possessed your calculator last week, why you would cloud the issue with a study starting at 7:30am in 10 deg C weather of the average of average runners.Here is a follow-up math assignment for you:What happens to Paula's 2003-2005 off-scores when we restore 10-20% of plasma volume?Hint: the red flags turn yellow or green. Here 115 becomes 100-108, below the altitude threshold, and possibly below the normal threshold, and her 109 becomes 95-102, completely in the normal range.And the low RET score would be highly consistent with a recent altitude training -- the result would be quietly accepted and filed by ABP evaluators as nothing unusual considering the circumstances.The Times would have nothing to publish, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.Of course you know all this already, so forgive me preaching to the choir.Since you've already blessed her 2012, sample, the only remain item now is to explain the 3.6 discrepancy, which is now more correctly 2.1 to 2.9. Everyone agrees that the 12.0 measurement looks unusually low, so your whole analysis of that difference hinges on the validity of this measurement. I don't need to "go back" to the lab error argument. Don't fall for the "highlander fallacy" where we can only pick one. All of the arguments ever presented are still in play -- illness, antibiotics, altitude, inter method bias, internal quality checks (calibration), transporting and analysing. Nothing that has happened since Dec. 2014 has made judging pre-2009 samples collected and analyzed with pre-2009 processes with post-2009 ABP rules more valid. The 2009 rules were designed to reduce the uncertainty -- this is because pre-2009 the scientists observed a great deal of uncertainty from several sources.

rjm33 wrote:

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..........................

rjm33 only argued about magnitude. Even with his reduced values, dehydration alone can explain how the 2003-2005 values became suspicious. But it's not alone.The statement that hemoconcentration leads to false positives, comes from Ashenden, et al. rjm33 didn't disprove it, and on the contrary, says he agrees with Ashenden.

preciously jaded wrote:

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

I don't know how it was done before, but today I think they even have access to all of the information in ADAMS, WADA's online whereabout systems.

cleans wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

If all athletes are sent their blood reports after testing then that's fair enough. I didn't realise that was the case.

1) I value your opinion, yet it's still possible you are 99.99% wrong.2) I still value your opinion. Nevertheless, the facts are that significant pre-2009 errors were real-world observations, leading to the 2009 rules that attempt to minimize the variability. 2a) Even rjm33 said 2012 is plausibly explained by altitude.3) I wonder what Mary Keitany can do with a group of male pacemakers/escorts in the right conditions.4) 5) 6) 7) Marathons are tricky and all the factors need to come together at the same time. Given the depth of men versus women, it happens much less frequently for women.8) This looks to me mostly in the imagination of anti-Paula fans. Those who can judge have access to the full data, and all the reasons and supporting documentation.9) The men had male pacemakers, and depth of competitors, sometimes with groups of 8 or 10 as far as 30km. Look at the women in Boston 2014: With an aggressive start from Shalane Flanagan, 4 women broke the course record. That kind of aggressivity from the start, bring a large group through the half, is missing in most of the women's races.10) This could fit in an argument supporting drugs making you worse. If she peaked in London April 2003, all of her "suspicious" values came afterwards, starting a regression she never overcame.

You're pushing it more than hardcore Armstrong fans a couple years ago...

But seriously, how much are you paid for this?

Question to rekrunner, and not a loaded one at all.

These are my beliefs/opinions:

1) a lot of top long distance runners take PEDs or manipulate their own blood

2) based on her anomalous readings, and changing explanations, Paula probably falls into group 1

I know your opinion on #2 is that she probably isn't doping, which is fair enough, but what are your views on #1?

On a separate note (to everyone), check out this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/889694.stm

This is from 2000, the days when the IAAF seem to have been genuinely committed to rooting out drug cheats - even British ones! It's amazing how different things are now.

At the top? -- less than 10%, if not 5%.I don't believe the athletes are doping like cycling 10 years ago.

cleans wrote:

Question to rekrunner, and not a loaded one at all.

These are my beliefs/opinions:

1) a lot of top long distance runners take PEDs or manipulate their own blood

2) based on her anomalous readings, and changing explanations, Paula probably falls into group 1

I know your opinion on #2 is that she probably isn't doping, which is fair enough, but what are your views on #1?

On a separate note (to everyone), check out this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/889694.stm

This is from 2000, the days when the IAAF seem to have been genuinely committed to rooting out drug cheats - even British ones! It's amazing how different things are now.

With Armstrong, I was on the side saying that science was against him, not to mention his teammates, competitors, former employees, former friends, etc.With Paula, the evidence depends on potentially unreliable data (something well known but easily ignored), being interpreted by journalists and the public.I do this for free.

Autologus madness wrote:

You're pushing it more than hardcore Armstrong fans a couple years ago...

But seriously, how much are you paid for this?

rekrunner wrote:

At the top? -- less than 10%, if not 5%.

I don't believe the athletes are doping like cycling 10 years ago.

Unless there are practically unbeatable doping tests, all champions and world record holders will be drug cheats. It is the ‘survival of the fittest’.

The vast majority of elite athletes are lifetime drug free athletes, but a small percentage of elite athletes are drug users. The problem is that all medallists and world record holders from the last several decades come from this smaller subset of elite athletes.

Out of a population of millions of adult males, you could select, perhaps, 1000 extreme genetic freaks that are also incredibly dedicated. Out of this group of 1000, only a small percentage would be willing to cheat. For the sake of this argument, let us suppose that 10% of this extremely elite group are willing to cheat. I am arguing that practically every champion from the last several decades is from this smaller subset. The other 90% will never amount to anything.

This is the brutal reality of sports. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being simpleminded. Hero worshippers typically have rose tinted spectacles.

Every doping scandal from the last several decades strengthens this hypothesis. It is only a matter of time before this hypothesis becomes an obvious fact. In cycling and within Russian athletics, all of the winners were doping. It was a competition between the best of the junkies not a competition between the best drug free athletes.

The myth that the USA and the UK have rigours drug testing has been exposed by Victor Conte and others, so why are so many fans still so optimistic that the best USA and UK athletes are all drug free? The only answer is madness.

What is the solution to the problem? A massive increase in funding for anti-doping research

The current approach of using drug tests that are designed to detect substances that leave the body rapidly in conjunction with out of competition drug testing has been shown to be a complete failure. Too many sophisticated dopers are beating the system.

New drug tests have to be developed that detect the long-term effects of PEDs and not the drugs themselves.

The new ‘omics’ tests that are currently being developed could be the solution to the problem of rampant drug use in sports.

rekrunner wrote:

1) I value your opinion, yet it's still possible you are 99.99% wrong.

Sad, but true. Sometimes I'm even 100% wrong. Let's hope for the sport that you are right here.

I once ran a WR with some of my own blood reintroduced in my body... that was awesome... I ran so fast that day...

Nice responses to the list, but, in particular, you fell apart on number 8 and just called people anti-Paula fans. That is really out of place relative to your other responses. Paula comments on other athletes and investigations a lot. Now her behavior has changed. You cannot just dismiss that. It's noticeable and raises questions. It's also fair to ask for full transparency from someone who wants to remain a leader in the sport. It is not enough to be patronized and told to just accept IAAF's word, especially with all that we have learned over the last few weeks. Many people here cheered for Paula and are not anti-Paula. She could very well be clean. Your position and Rjm33s both rest on assumptions. How are we supposed to be fans of the sport if we can't figure out what is going on? This is especially true of an athlete among the most identified with being antidoping over the last few decades. She should be outspoken about getting fans a full understanding of how testing worked over the years. Instead we have to parse this debate with limited information or expectation of an independent report.I believe doping is a problem and that lots of medalists dope. It may not be practiced by the majority of elites but the percentages are way too high. We need a competent system because a lot of runners are still clean and capable of great times.

Fair enough -- you asked for it.First, 8) is partly flawed, as Paula has not demanded this kind of transparency from her competitors. But to be honest, I don't yet see the problem with any of Paula's responses or her behavior. She was advised by WADA "not to speak", which is clearly out of character for her, and possibly back-fired. But I don't see obfuscation or misdirection. I actually don't see sufficient grounds yet to ask her for any explanation at all. Paula's varying responses are not contradictory, nor exclusive. They are all still in play. When blood values can be affected by a variety of factors, it's not inconsistent to give a variety of possible reasons. This is what I call the "highlander fallacy" -- assuming that "there can be only one" reason.But don't pretend I'm unduly swayed or blinded by Paula's collection of responses -- this was my position after the first IAAF response in Dec. 2014, before Paula uttered one word, once I learned the 2009 introduction of the ABP included more stringent blood collection and analysis standards. Nothing Paula has said has added to my knowledge, or contradicted my previous beliefs. I'm more a fan of mathematics, statistics, science and logic, than a fan of Paula. For doping judgement purposes, we cannot pretend the pre-2009 data carries the same weight as post-2009 data. While you might reflexively dismiss the IAAF's credibility, the variability and uncertainty has been confirmed and published in scientific papers, many published by Ashenden/Parisotto, that contributed to the 2009 rules established by WADA designed to minimise these uncertainties.Here I completely disagree -- it's not fair, and completely unprecedented for the public to demand or expect full transparency, including the raw blood data. Which other "leader of the sport" has been asked to provide this kind of transparency as a prerequisite? Recall that Paula has actually not yet been accused by any expert (who have access to the full blood data) -- only by journalists and the public. To this day, she is still arguably a victim of sensationalist British journalism. To be blunt -- the public, lacks the qualifications, and specific education to interpret the data. They also tend to lack objectivity. Bernard Lagat's "B-sample" not confirming the "A-sample" was classic by the book, and an extensive full report has been made public (it can even be found on letsrun's site), yet how many still think it was a coverup, rather than a proper application of science.And to be fair to Paula, publishing Paula's full set of raw data is not enough. We would need to publish the full blood database, and look for comparisons across the board. It's not enough to compare her to the handful of Brits "brave" enough to publish clean data. What is normal variation when sea-level athletes go to altitude and come back? What is normal when using hypobaric chambers at sea-level? How does her blood data/profile compare to convicted dopers? We would need access to doping control forms, and perhaps the athletes themselves to supply missing information, not to mention quality control forms of the equipment and procedures used to collect, transport and analyze the data. If the public wants to pretend to be ABP panelist judges, then they need all of the relevant data and the expertise and objectivity to evaluate it. Demanding just Paula's complete raw blood data is an incomplete subset.We need *independent* full transparency, but only for the experts who have access to, and are able to objectively interpret, all the data. UKAD has all the data. The IAAF has all the data. (I admit "independence" is a key issue and one necessary for reform going forward.) The Sunday Times do not. Ashenden/Parisotto do not. rjm33 does not. I do not.Whether anyone likes it or not, the UKAD and the IAAF were, and are, the organizations charged with controlling Paula, and they've both dismissed any possible case arising from the raw blood data. Their dismissal is best viewed as a "preliminary trial" which found a lack of evidence to go forward with a "real trial". Ashenden has the raw blood data, the expertise, and is able to assess scientific uncertainty. WADA does too. If there is a coverup, your only hope is that one of these will step forward and say that the UKAD and the IAAF did not make the right determination.My primary position is, NOT that Paula is clean, but that the pre-2009 raw data contains uncertainties, therefore is incomparable due to non-standard pre-2009 processes. This is not an assumption, but verifiable history: see changes WADA 2009 rules, and various Ashenden and the Schumacher paper previously linked about the types of uncertainties that are addressed by changes in 2009."rjm33"'s extensive mathematical analysis hinges on the assumption that 12.0 is a "true value". This is a crucial assumption, and one that is undermined by the possibility of a pre-2009 process introducing errors. But even subjectively, this value looks unusually low. Is 12.0 a normal or repeated value for Paula? Is it a normal value for any athlete, particularly if they were recently at altitude? If it is not a process or calibration or other bias -- what could cause such a low value? I don't see how someone with "rjm33"'s self-proclaimed blood expert credentials can take 12.0 at face value, especially in light of the history of the process and potential for uncertainty, and pretend any kind of scientific validity, without at least acknowledging the potential for bias.

Does anyone know what Farah's results were, i.e. the ones which he released? The BBC seemed to imply - without saying it, for obvious reasons - that he was micro-dosing on EPO.

I'd be interested to see how they compare to what we have been analysing on here for Paula.

All the heat seems to come off Farah since the PR story blew up, and yet he is the one with the (allegedly) dodgy coach and who has twice failed to answer the door to drugs testers. I don't think Paula has ever ducked a test?

IIRC, the released values published by the Times were Off scores - no raw blood data. The graph looked flat compared to a doper (Ramzi?). Maybe you can still find it at the Times website.

The BBC never implied Farah micro-dosing EPO. Both the BBC/Panorama and the Times expressly declared that nothing in their stories implicated Mo Farah, unfortunately in vain. This "disclaimer" didn't stop the rest of the press and public from expressing their worst fears, and hounding Farah. The missed tests are also a non-story - athletes can miss tests, and it happens often for innocent reasons.

Rekrunner still at it.... get a life, man!

She was doping and so what?

If only the leading world experts in this area had through the of this when designing these tests and the ABP. They should have consulted you first.

Think of all those poor athletes who have had their ABP flagged without plasma shift being considered.