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

"I'm the only innocent athlete in there."

What are the odds of that?

Jeez.

1000 wrote:

“I hope Dick Pound will bring forward the assessment of my data. I’ve spoken to him a number of times and he says he can’t comment on individuals but I’m the only innocent athlete in there [the independent commission report]. It would take him barely two minutes to do that.”

Good grief she's bribing everyone.

I am glad she is saying she wants transparency. Serious question: why ask pound to do this rather than do what the other GB athletes and release data?

1000 wrote:

"The marathon world record holder was cleared of any wrongdoing by the IAAF and has spoken to former WADA Dick Pound, chairman of the agency’s independent commission, asking him to clear her publicly when the report is published in Munich on Thursday."

“Some things need to come out so I can move on,” she said. “I hope Dick Pound will bring forward the assessment of my data. I’ve spoken to him a number of times and he says he can’t comment on individuals but I’m the only innocent athlete in there [the independent commission report]. It would take him barely two minutes to do that.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/athletics/paula-radcliffe-fears-sebastian-coe-could-be-hounded-out-as-iaaf-president-over-athletics-doping-a3154156.html

Because somebody on her team knows Pound can't do a thing. This is a continuation of the long running misinformation campaign about WADA's role and scope of authority. See Papa Diack's email to Coe's assistant.If Ms. Radcliffe's lips are moving, then that means WADA's forthcoming report will likely pour more fuel on the suspicion fire.All Paula has to do is release her tests. That's all. If she's clean, it will be in the scores and she really will be the GOAT. Somehow, that's not happening. I wonder why?

90% of the public will believe this BS

Did anyone read the Telegraph article on the front page at LRC about Operation Puerto back in 2006 and Dr. Fuentes, known as "Dr. Blood", with the 200 bags of blood at his residence?

In the article it states that in a May 2013 email to his lawyer, Dr. Fuentes threatened to reveal ..."My medical relationship with winners of the London Marathon"....

That is an interesting statement by Dr. Fuentes. Note that he used the plural "winners"....implying he was associated with multiple runners who did autologous blood transfusions... that were winners of the London Marathon.

Will those names of London Marathon winners associated with "Dr. Blood" Fuentes ever be revealed?....

The Fuentes appeal will be decided shortly

Rekrunner, If trial by lets run.com is wrong, then don't post anymore you hypocrite. You are making a trial out of it as much as anyone. If the defenders shut up it isn't a trial anymore , just opinion. You want your propaganda / spin to be public and not dissenting opinions. Sorry, it sometimes is a free press.

Paula, we all remember, was a winner of the London Marathon 3 times in 2002, 2003, and 2005, during the years when "Dr. Blood" Fuentes had an active blood transfusion operation going on.......... just another coincidence.........like Paula's suspicious blood test results which were also in the years of 2003 and 2005.......just another coincidence.............Go Paula!!!!!!!.....Run fast Paula!!!!!! ....Run!!!!!!!!.......Go "Dr. Blood"Fuentes!!!!!!!................

rekrunner wrote:

We have many non-doping explanations arising from the less stringent (more variable) pre-2009 processes for blood collecting, transporting, and analysing procedures.

And how horribly unlucky it is that all of these different explanations ended up influencing a false positive rather than a false negative result ....

rjm33 wrote:

Did anyone read the Telegraph article on the front page at LRC about Operation Puerto back in 2006 and Dr. Fuentes, known as "Dr. Blood", with the 200 bags of blood at his residence?

In the article it states that in a May 2013 email to his lawyer, Dr. Fuentes threatened to reveal ..."My medical relationship with winners of the London Marathon"....

That is an interesting statement by Dr. Fuentes. Note that he used the plural "winners"....implying he was associated with multiple runners who did autologous blood transfusions... that were winners of the London Marathon.

Will those names of London Marathon winners associated with "Dr. Blood" Fuentes ever be revealed?....

Good spot, although Paula has been on record saying they should be kept:

Mind you I guess she did once say blood values should be released too.....

The Spanish marathoners have been linked to Fuentes

Haile gebresellasies manager also appears to have a connection through peraita who is connected to Fuentes

So "free press" for you means I should be quiet? Of course everyone is free to offer their uninformed opinions, especially in a largely unmoderated, anonymous public forum. My primary message is NOT that Paula is innocent, but that a proper ABP evaluation is a multi-step process, where an expert committee has to also consider information not contained in the blood value database. In the special case of using pre-2009 data, other factors can degrade reliability of the data -- this is important to consider and weigh properly if you want to draw any conclusions. This was not done by Ashenden/Parisotto, by the Sunday Times, nor by you.Trial by the Sunday Times and letsrun.com can be right, if you respect the process and constraints and possible sources of errors. To do this, you must know what they are, to be able to give them proper weight.

Wrong. wrote:

Rekrunner, If trial by lets run.com is wrong, then don't post anymore you hypocrite. You are making a trial out of it as much as anyone. If the defenders shut up it isn't a trial anymore , just opinion. You want your propaganda / spin to be public and not dissenting opinions. Sorry, it sometimes is a free press.

When talking about off-scores and ABP, no individual blood value can rightly be called "positive" or "negative", but rather "suspicious" and "unsuspicious", or maybe "non suspicious". To avoid adding confusion, I will use your terms as appropriate.According to the ABP process, to actually suspect doping, an expert must look at the profile formed by many blood values over time, and make an expert determination that the profile is normal or abnormal. The athlete is allowed to offer potential non-doping explanations for any suspicious values, or fluctuations, which the expert can evaluate, and accept, or reject, and that forms part of the expert conclusion. (To "Wrong.", that's not opinion/spin/propaganda, but a fundamental part of the process). If an ABP qualified expert had actually made an abnormal profile determination (including evaluating Paula's explanations), and the Sunday Times article reported that determination, rather than providing their own non-expert summary analysis of the values, then this public discussion would make more sense to me. But this determination cannot be made alone by non-expert Sunday Times reporters, and/or non-expert anonymous forum dwellers.The 3 "suspicious" values we talk about were chosen by the Sunday Times. It's not "horribly unlucky" that they might be "false positives", but rather a direct consequence of the criteria used by the Sunday Times to publish only "suspicious" values. I'm not sure how "false negatives" fit in this discussion. A "suspicious" value cannot be a "false negative", because it is not "negative". It can only be a (true or false) "positive". The only question, which remains unaddressed by any ABP expert, is if they are truly suspicious for doping reasons, or falsely suspicious for non-doping reasons. Other "unsuspicious" values might be candidates for "false negatives", but that really seems to belong to a different discussion."rjm33" talked a lot about another 4th value, the 2003 low value recorded in Paula's book, but this one was not highlighted by the Sunday Times, nor Ashenden/Parisotto as "suspicious", as it is well below the threshold of suspicion. Do you think this one is a "false negative"? I think this is an "unsuspicious value" with a large error. With or without the error, it would be a "true negative". "rjm33"'s concern was more the radical change between that value and the other 2003 "suspicious" value. It would carry more weight if an ABP expert concluded that the data was reliable for that purpose, and that the radical change is therefore abnormal.

preciously jaded wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

We have many non-doping explanations arising from the less stringent (more variable) pre-2009 processes for blood collecting, transporting, and analysing procedures.

And how horribly unlucky it is that all of these different explanations ended up influencing a false positive rather than a false negative result ....

rekrunner wrote:

So "free press" for you means I should be quiet?

I stopped reading your posts long ago and I only read the first line of the quoted one above while scanning the thread. The reason I and probably many others don't read your posts is because they are so long, are retarded, i.e. not well thought out, are not logical, therefore don't make any sense and are not worth reading. It would help if you thought a lot more before posting, and then posted a lot less, which would help you to look a lot less like an idiot.

This thread is a cess pool of misinformation by people who can't accept that a woman can run so much faster than them.

I can't take your critique of my posts seriously, when the first thing you admit is you don't read them. It fits well though with a pattern of drawing conclusions without information.

Here's the thing` wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So "free press" for you means I should be quiet?

I stopped reading your posts long ago and I only read the first line of the quoted one above while scanning the thread. The reason I and probably many others don't read your posts is because they are so long, are retarded, i.e. not well thought out, are not logical, therefore don't make any sense and are not worth reading. It would help if you thought a lot more before posting, and then posted a lot less, which would help you to look a lot less like an idiot.

This is my summary of this thread:

Some of Paula's off-scores are reported to be 'suspicious'. These values are published, and indeed appear to be rather high.

Some posters educate themselves on the subject of blood doping and conclude that Paula is almost certainly a doper/blood transfuser.

A second group of posters state that the first group are not qualified to make any assessment of whether Paula is actually guilty or not.

The same camp then present their own, self-researched, medical opinions to explain that Paula's abnormal off-scores are down to factors other than blood doping/ABT's.

Rinse and repeat.

I'm going to go back to square one and view Paula and her blood as suspicious.

You have said that these 3 suspicious/false positive values were taken before 2009 and thus inconsistencies in protocols, lab procedures etc could have accounted for them being suspicious/false postives. [Interestingly, this was the same sort of argument used by Lance Armstrong saying that the "science was faulty" when referring to the 2005 Equipe sports newspaper story that he had urine samples testing positive in the 1999 Tour de France.] However, these types of errors or incosnsistencies can work both ways making a sample either more likely to be falsely tested as positive/suspicous or more likely to be falsely tested as as negative/ not suspicious. It is not really a valid explanation on its own, especially when you have positves/suspicious values coming up on multiple occasions over time.

The general public or journalists do not have the authority to determine whether an sports star is guilty or innocent - the sports governing bodies are the ones who do that. However, there have been a series of scandals reported by the press of corruption and cover up in elite sports' governing bodies such as the UCI, IAAF, or FIFA which have been proven to be true. In this light, it is good and natural that the public and journalists will question any official finding or determination made by "experts" from or hired by these governing bodies.

rjm33's interest in this value was that the findings in the following samples changed radically over a short time frame in a manner indicative of blood doping rather than dehydration/fatigue/illness. Now you seem to argue that the findings for the sample, which in context make the changes in blood profile suspicious were also due to "errors". It seems that whenever suspicion arises over the blood sample profile readings for the athlete, you chalk this up to an "error" of some sort. This sort of argument will fuel suspicion along with the fact that, at present, no further data has been released by the athlete in question even though other athletes have done so to show that have not been blood doping or taking EPO.