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 doubt that rekrunner said that. Two were before 2009, one thereafter. In my humble opinion, none of them can be explained without doping. As far as I recall, rekrunner claimed that the 2012 value was ok because rjm33 allegedly said so. I disagree but then, I am not rjm33. Also I haven't seen rjm33's explanation for the 2012 off-score. Oh, and as for the dehydration argument including plasma shift (which Paula stopped using): one of the arguments to Paula's success in the other thread was that she planned her fluid intake perfectly, i.e. never raced into dehydration.

preciously jaded wrote:

You have said that these 3 suspicious/false positive values were taken before 2009

casual obsever wrote:

I doubt that rekrunner said that. Two were before 2009, one thereafter. In my humble opinion, none of them can be explained without doping.

preciously jaded wrote:

You have said that these 3 suspicious/false positive values were taken before 2009

Apologies, the posts are long and it is not so easy to quickly sift through all the details. This is the part of rekrunner's post that I used to make that conclusion (now instead I think he means that 2 [pre 2009] not 3 samples are not valid because lab protocols etc were not yet established etc):

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.

Read more:

Here is an executive summary of the explanations:

2003 pre-race: lab or process or calibration error (values too low to be credible; needs confirmation or corroboration)

2003 post-race: post-altitude + dehydration

2005 post-race: post-altitude + dehydration

2012 out of competition: altitude

other 10 blood samples: not reported by Sunday Times because not suspicious

When you say "it works both ways", you talk about the other blood samples which are "truly" suspicious, but process errors made the samples "falsely" unsuspicious. Maybe, but it's another discussion, which is useless because:

pre-2009 samples: not suitable for ABP type analysis because processes uncontrolled (collected for a different purpose: to screen for more expensive follow-up urine tests; comparative accuracy not required)

The experts at IAAF, UKAD, and Ashenden/Parisotto did not make any determination that Paula's blood profile was abnormal. This was done purely by the Sunday Times reporters and "rjm33".There is no expert basis for suspicion.

preciously jaded wrote:

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.

I hate that cheating filthy doping skankyass brit ho so much. She's a lying hypocritical beyatch. I hope that they throw her and her nasty rotten teeth in prison. I'm tired of every dishonest ear-grating brit sound coming out of her stinking gob.

She is GUILTY !

EPO cheats out !

rekrunner wrote:

The experts at IAAF, UKAD, and Ashenden/Parisotto did not make any determination that Paula's blood profile was abnormal. This was done purely by the Sunday Times reporters and "rjm33".

There is no expert basis for suspicion.

This is a very dishonest post. Clever, but incredibly dishonest.

There is basis for suspicion as your dehydration hypothesis fails, quickly. Someone that dehydrated would not be able to podium an elite race.

Off scores are wildly off.

Radcliffe's explanations conflict with other facts, including her own biography.

Coe has publicly backed Radcliffe, cementing her "never tested positive" status.

Ashenden and Parisotto would not discuss individual samples. On top of that, Radcliffe made it clear she would litigate.

There is ample evidence at this point that the IAAF permits doping and protects the dopers it values despite the WADA process.

BINGO!

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

There is basis for suspicion as your dehydration hypothesis fails, quickly. Someone that dehydrated would not be able to podium an elite race.

Off scores are wildly off.

Radcliffe's explanations conflict with other facts, including her own biography.

Coe has publicly backed Radcliffe, cementing her "never tested positive" status.

Ashenden and Parisotto would not discuss individual samples. On top of that, Radcliffe made it clear she would litigate.

There is ample evidence at this point that the IAAF permits doping and protects the dopers it values despite the WADA process.

You're all just jealous because she actually did it with talent and hard training and you can't accept it.

Dedication, natural talent and hard work, more than any other athlete before...

We all heard this before!

ABT CHEATS OUT!

Dehydration is a scientific reality. Schumacher showed us that.Off scores from pre-2009 blood samples have too much uncertainty.Even if they were meaningful, 3 suspicious values are not necessarily an abnormal profile. The values need to be interpreted in full context.WADA has the chance to expose any inappropriate IAAF "protection".If UKAD, IAAF, WADA, and Ashenden/Parisotto don't think it's an issue, then maybe it isn't. These are all of the experts.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The experts at IAAF, UKAD, and Ashenden/Parisotto did not make any determination that Paula's blood profile was abnormal. This was done purely by the Sunday Times reporters and "rjm33".

There is no expert basis for suspicion.

...

There is basis for suspicion as your dehydration hypothesis fails, quickly. Someone that dehydrated would not be able to podium an elite race.

Off scores are wildly off.

Radcliffe's explanations conflict with other facts, including her own biography.

Coe has publicly backed Radcliffe, cementing her "never tested positive" status.

Ashenden and Parisotto would not discuss individual samples. On top of that, Radcliffe made it clear she would litigate.

There is ample evidence at this point that the IAAF permits doping and protects the dopers it values despite the WADA process.

rekrunner wrote:

The values need to be interpreted in full context.

Again, Paula fights, obfuscates, threatens, then unilaterally declares herself clean. She has scores that would prove or disprove her performances yet will not permit their discussion.

If she's so clean, releasing some scores would be no problem.

rekrunner wrote:

WADA has the chance to expose any inappropriate IAAF "protection".

With what authority? Answer: they have no such authority.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Suggesting that I write like you is offensive. Take that back!

Good point. You can't say the 2012 value was ok because I said so. My opinion is always worthless. You can't pick and choose. Here is my opinion anyway, with some other findings.The Feb 7,2012 value was just an isolated blood test out of competition in Monte Carlo, but Paula can always be at altitude no matter where she is because she can use an altitude tent anywhere. Her OFF score was 109.35, with a Hb of 16.2 and reticulocyte score of 0.77%. The reticulocyte score is within normal range of 0.5 to 1.5%. With EPO use you would see high reticulocytes of over 1.5% or even over 2%, from all the new RBCs being produced. She also had a negative EPO urine test at the time.There are no other blood tests before or after to compare it to, so we can't look for other rapid changes between tests that could indicate blood transfusion, and she wouldn't be doing a blood transfusion in the off season out of competition anyway. If anything, she would be withdrawing blood for storage to use before an important competition. The removal of blood would give a low Hb score for a while after removal, which we do not see here.Her 16.2 Hb is very high and is suspicious, which is why the OFF score is high also. In reading, I found out some information on Hb levels from data derived from clean altitude-trained cross country skiers over a period of six years. Normal range for Hb is 12.0 to 15.0 for females and 13.0 to 16.0g/dl for males. With altitude training, Hb increases are usually 3 to 5%, with an extreme outlier increasing 10%, with Hb increases taking from 3 to 8 WEEKS of altitude training to achieve, not 1 or 2 days. They found that in VERY RARE instances, a few females that were altitude trained achieved Hb levels of 15.8 to 16.0. Paula's was 16.2, once again a VERY RARE AND UNUSUAL RESULT for Paula. It is suspicious. Is it a plausible explanation that this value COULD be achieved by a clean altitude-trained female athlete who is an outlier? In my opinion, yes, it is possible. I would not sanction someone for an isolated Hb score of 16.2 with a negative EPO urine test. However, it is still a suspicious blood test result.Males can get up to about 17.2 Hb levels with altitude training. EPO was banned by the International Skiing Federation in 1988, and by the IOC in 1990, so they were very aware of EPO. The ski federation set up cutoffs similar to the 50% hematocrit used in cycling to either stop athletes from competing and/or nullify results, but they used hemoglobin scores instead, with cutoffs of 16.5g/dl for females and a very generous 18.5g/dl for males.I don't know if these cutoffs are still in use.With EPO use you can see the more extreme "grotesque" and dangerous Hemoglobin values of 17 to 19g/dl in women and 18 to 20+g/dl in men.Altitude training does not explain the 2003 or 2005 results, which could indicate blood transfusions. Altitude training might explain the low reticulocyte scores, but altitude training should also give high hemoglobin scores(like 16.2!), not a prerace OFF score of 82 with a hemoglobin level of an anemic 12.0 which goes to 15.6 in 2 days in 2003, or a prerace OFF score of 92(with an implied normal Hb level of about 13 to 14, we do not have this actual Hb value, I am making a guesstimate!) to a postrace OFF score of 109.87 with a Hb of 15.1 in 1 day in 2005 after just a 10K. Sorry, the prerace scores show no hemoglobin response to altitude training, and altitude training does not work in 1 or 2 days. The rapid and large magnitude blood hemoglobin changes in 2003 and 2005 are most plausibly explained by autologous blood transfusions, not altitude training and/or dehydration.Isn't it strange that Paula RESPONDED REALLY WELL to altitude in 2012 with an above normal high hemoglobin level of 16.2, but DID NOT RESPOND to altitude at all in 2003 or 2005, with low normal prerace hemoglobin levels at both races?Someone who responds to altitude should always respond to altitude, not sometimes respond really well and other times not at all...That is strange of Paula's blood to act that way, isn't it? One day her hemoglobin level is 12 or 13, and 1 or 2 days later it is an above normal 15.6 or 15.1, or she might have a level of 16.2 on another day. This is from someone that stated in her biography that her blood results NEVER VARIED VERY MUCH AT ALL, EVEN FROM ALTITUDE TRAINING!.....That statement in her biography turns out to be absolutely false.... Go Paula!!!! Go 3 time winner of the London marathon!!!!! Go Operation Puerto and "Dr. Blood" Fuentes!!!!............

casual obsever wrote:

I doubt that rekrunner said that. Two were before 2009, one thereafter. In my humble opinion, none of them can be explained without doping.

As far as I recall, rekrunner claimed that the 2012 value was ok because rjm33 allegedly said so. I disagree but then, I am not rjm33. Also I haven't seen rjm33's explanation for the 2012 off-score.

Oh, and as for the dehydration argument including plasma shift (which Paula stopped using): one of the arguments to Paula's success in the other thread was that she planned her fluid intake perfectly, i.e. never raced into dehydration.

preciously jaded wrote:

You have said that these 3 suspicious/false positive values were taken before 2009

Reposting this in case Larkimm misses it.

Inexplicable scores... Check

Extraordinary human biology artifacts with no rhyme or reason... Check.

Paula's 2015 explanation conflicts entirely with other facts including her own biography... Check

EPO cheats out Paula.

In 2003, the pre-race value of 12.0 is unreliable.

For Paula 2012, is not interesting.

Paula only defends herself against sensationalist non-expert ABP analysis from reporters based on data not suited for that purpose.Paula's declaration is not unilateral. The UKAD and IAAF, the only organisations entitled to judge, have no issue with Paula's blood values. As you surely know, these organisations have the scores, as does Ashenden and Parisotto, so any further release to a large group of non experts is unnecessary.The WADA Independent Commission had the full authority (and full cooperation) to investigate the IAAF's response to the blood values, and to expose any improper actions.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The values need to be interpreted in full context.

Again, Paula fights, obfuscates, threatens, then unilaterally declares herself clean. She has scores that would prove or disprove her performances yet will not permit their discussion.

If she's so clean, releasing some scores would be no problem.

rekrunner wrote:

WADA has the chance to expose any inappropriate IAAF "protection".

With what authority? Answer: they have no such authority.

larkimm wrote:

You may be surprised to learn that I agree with this. Though I do extend this a little and say that having agreed that Paula's values are suspicious, I place reliance on the IAAF's ABP processes to have enquired into this suspicion and concluded to their satisfaction that there is no case to answer.

What I don't see is how they can conclude that there is no case to answer. There will be athletes with high off-scores who are not cheating and some who are. Unless the panel are mind-readers, how do they know how the high off-scores came about?

Paula's values are suspicious, but only she and her team know what she was doing around the time that the three suspicious readings were recorded. Only her inside circle know for sure whether she is innocent or guilty. The rest of us can provide an opinion, but we can't say she is 100% innocent. Just as we can't say she is 100% guilty. We don't know.

ABP needs an expert finding of an abnormal profile, not a non-expert finding of suspicious values.Off-scores before 2009 are pseudo-fabrications, for journalistic purposes.Panelists don't need to be mind readers. In addition to the blood values, they would have access to doping control forms, laboratory equipment and analysis documentation, supplementary athlete explanations, and the expertise to evaluate these.

rekrunner wrote:

...The UKAD and IAAF, the only organisations entitled to judge, have no issue with Paula's blood values.

Why would they even bother to analyse her blood data before 2009?

Even if all of Paula Radcliffe’s off-scores were over 150, WADA, UKAD and the IAAF will all say the exact same thing. "Blood data before 2009 has no legal standing."

There is a question mark about the reliability of blood data before 2009, but this data was at least partially vindicated because it provided evidence that Russian endurance athletes were systematically blood doping. We now know that this was indeed the case.

Paula Radcliffe will never be charged with doping offences. We all knew this from day one; However, Paula Radcliffe will always be viewed with suspicion, and rightly so.

The greatest achievement of the Athlete Biological Passport was exposing the state sponsored doping program of the Russians.

Most of us cannot believe the Russians were so dumb, but they have learned their lesson. They will now rely on micro dosing with EPO and micro autologous blood transfusions. They will beat the Athlete Biological Passport.

Nothing has changed. The drug cheats will still dominate.