preciously jaded wrote:
rekrunner wrote: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
Who were the "experts" who concluded that altiutude/dehydration were plasubile explanations for the unusual results? If they were from the IAAF then I am not sure that you can put much stock in what they tell you. This sort of thing has happened before; when Armstrong was testing positive for cortisone during the 1999 tour, officials at the UCI told us that this was because he was using a saddle-sore cream which contained the substance.
The IAAF's official response. WADA just backed them up, saying the science was sound. It's also corroborated by science papers from Schumacher, and our friends Ashenden and Parisotto. Armstrong/UCI example is apples and oranges. In any case, it was Armstrong who got the backdated TUE, and submitted it to the UCI.
rekrunner wrote:
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 discussion of the pre 2009 samples and the procedures followed always boils down to the same thing: whenever a suspicious profile arises you can say that procedures were not followed (to allow comparison cross samples) or that there was a calibration error or laboratory of some sort for that particular sample which makes the profile look unusual. Conversely, all of these things could be argued to have made the process less sensitive to picking up blood doping/EPO use.
That's exactly the point. For both reasons you state, there is no way to salvage this in a public discussion, except not to discuss it at all. You simply cannot start an intellectually honest ABP type discussion with pre-2009 samples, and at the same time ignore the extra uncertainty. To reduce the uncertainty requires a lot of extra information, and the expertise to understand it.
rekrunner wrote:
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)
When discussing technicalities such as lab procedures/protocols for the pre 2009 samples, one can also ask how much of a difference does this really make ?- The procedures were already being used to single out athletes for target testing so they had to be pretty accurate in the first place - what would be the point of carrying out expensive target testing based on an unreliable indicator to do so? The whole process was a prescursor to the biological passport; it should be noted that, as several others have pointed out on this and other threads, the profiles of pre 2009 samples seemed to show pretty well the blood doping that was going in Russian athletes which was later revealed.
I gave some figures before, from papers and textbooks:
- same blood, different equipment: 2.0 g/dl difference observed in RBC (paper says RET is even more sensitive)
- dehydration of 10-20% typical: using rjm's math 7-15% increase in RBC (1-2 g/dl)
- altitude: threshold is 8 "off-score" points higher
Values might be accurate enough for "intelligence" but two values cannot be reliably compared (the way rjm33 attempted) without uncertainty.
The point of using the cheaper blood analysis is to do fewer "expensive" urine tests. This is possible even with the lab/process uncertainties.
With more uncertainty in the individual readings, the pre-2009 profiles would need different, wider thresholds to obtain 99% and 99.9% certainty. For example 103 and 111, might become 120 and 140 to arrive at 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 probabilities.
rekrunner wrote:
other 10 blood samples: not reported by Sunday Times because not suspicious
This is an assumption. You do not know this unless you personally know the results. All we know is what has been reported to the public. It is strange that neither the athlete in question nor the IAAF has made these results publicly available if they had no cause for suspicion.
Yes. I assume it's more likely that they gave us at least the "worst" points, because that would make the best story. It is strange that any of this data became public at all.
I think we agree that overall, more data is required to make firmer conclusions. However, these data have not been made transparent. Given the now known history of corruption and coverup in the sport's governing body, it is only normal that some members of the general public will continue be suspicious whenever a high profile athlete has multiple unusual blood-test findings and is declared innocent with no additional data made public to explain the fuller picture .
You would need the data, the doping control forms, the lab documentation, the data of other athletes, and the expertise to assess these. This is not possible for the public to do in any meaningful way in a focused discussion. Everyone who can do this, and has access to the data, have decided it's a non-story.