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

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

eurodonkey wrote:

Paula doesn't have that much time on her hands.

Paula could not even be bothered to check her crazy explanations against her own biography. Larkimm and rekrunner are performing way above that criteria.

If only Paula would permit discussion of her values, then this thread would die. I wonder why she won't permit it???

The reason she won't permit discussion of her values as she has stated herself is because of people like you trolling the internet with misinformation and false accusations.

rekrunner wrote:

Ashenden already had all the data. For him, the story was not about Paula.

WADA just found the IAAF followed up the pre-2009 commendably. Why would you say the opposite?

hey folks: Even in 2015, she ran faster than my marathon PReurodonkey: I don't either.pop_pop:Thanks for the respect, I guess. Regarding publishing Paula's values, I'm afraid you have misplaced faith that publishing the values would end the thread once and for all. Maybe for you (and me) but not for the many others. UKAD/IAAF/WADA/Ashenden/Parisotto/Seppelt/ARD/Sunday Times have ALL of her values. Maybe (your friend) Saugy too.All of the experts have all of the data, and none of them have raised any suspicion. Paula was not their concern.How many independent experts do you need? How many are left?However, the "non-expert" Sunday Times had the data, and made it a public issue, in a sensational series of in-depth look at track and doping.I could see why she doesn't want to give it to more "non-experts".One thing I completely agree with you -- I would like to see Ashenden's opinion. In 2009, he emphatically said in an interview "I'm 100% sure Lance doped." Ashenden quit a job in anti-doping, when they wanted to gag him, so he could retain his right to speak out. This is a guy who doesnt want to be silenced on doping, yet here, he doesn't speak out one way or the other. I could say "his silence is deafening", but I'd genuinely like to know his expert evaluation. When I read Ashenden's/Parisotto's concerns about the health of the athletes, I think they are talking about the Russians, with scores of 135-150, not Paula's odd "altitude threshold" outliers at 110-115. When I read that "the IAAF did nothing", again this (for me) clearly points to the Russian corruption and delays, and not Paula. It's disappointing that they were in a position to resolve a huge ambiguity for the public, but said nothing.Similarly, WADA could have clarified the situation, and removed the ambiguity.Surely Paula's threat of litigation did not chill all of these organisations. Ironically, the Sunday Times is the organization most exposed to litigation, subject to UK libel laws, and yet they are the only one to brand her values "suspicious".

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

eurodonkey wrote:

Paula doesn't have that much time on her hands.

Paula could not even be bothered to check her crazy explanations against her own biography. Larkimm and rekrunner are performing way above that criteria.

If only Paula would permit discussion of her values, then this thread would die. I wonder why she won't permit it???

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

Regarding publishing Paula's values, I'm afraid you have misplaced faith that publishing the values would end the thread once and for all. Maybe for you (and me) but not for the many others.

[quote]

You will always have people who will remain cynical no matter what. However, other British athletes, including Farah have made their blood values public and to a degree this has reduced suspicion about them using blood doping/EPO.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

UKAD/IAAF/WADA/Ashenden/Parisotto/Seppelt/ARD/Sunday Times have ALL of her values ...

All of the experts have all of the data, and none of them have raised any suspicion.

[quote]

PRs international career started in 1992 and effectively ended last year. Are you saying that all of these parties have all her values from this time frame? I don't think this is the case.

Besides, even President Lord Coe has admitted that the IAAF is a "failed organization" amongst other things. I don't think anyone should take the actions of "experts" working for "failed organizations" very seriously, Even more so when we know the level of corruption that has occurred in the IAAF today.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

How many independent experts do you need? How many are left?

However, the "non-expert" Sunday Times had the data, and made it a public issue, in a sensational series of in-depth look at track and doping.

I could see why she doesn't want to give it to more "non-experts".

Similarly, WADA could have clarified the situation, and removed the ambiguity.

[quote]

When you look at the case of Lance Armstrong it was first pesky journalists (some from the Sunday Times funnily enough) looking for sensationalist stories, then gossipy team mates (more likely to happen in a sport like cycling where you have large teams and their entourages together over three-week tours sharing hotel rooms etc...), then the FBI, and then USADA who sequentially played a significant part in bringing him down. The process went on for over 10 years and WADA and whoever "experts" they had working for them were pretty much useless in the whole affair. I really would not be taking WADA too seriously in the fight against doping based on that performance. It seems that keeping things ambiguous is the best that they are able to do.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

I think they are talking about the Russians, with scores of 135-150, not Paula's odd "altitude threshold" outliers at 110-115. When I read that "the .

[quote]

For the names on the list of leaked blood tests results that have been made generally public in the English language press, all I have heard about are the Russians and PR who have been throwing up unusual/suspicious scores on multiple occasions. Is there anyone else? Many of the British athletes (both male and female) who have made their blood data public are endurance athletes who have done altitude training. Are they also frequently throwing up suspicious/borderline scores/ blood profiles when they go altitude training, or when they don't drink enough water, or take antibiotics? Did the labs testing their samples have the same sorts of problems of calibrating their equipment/handling the samples correctly?

You are moving the goalposts. No one asked to publish her values since 1992. We are talking only about 2001-2012.

You are stretching "failed organization" too much. The failure was not in detection of doping, and recommendation of sanctions, but in follow through, and a structural failure to detect a problem. Even with the Russians, the antidoping detection part worked. WADA says the anti-doping science in the IAAF response was sound. To still suspect Paula, we would need something like evidence of collusion/bribery between the IAAF, UKAD, and UK athletics that Paula was somehow protected. We have nothing comparable.

You are also strectching Lance's history to compare it to Paula. With Lance it was first competitors, ex-riders, sports announcers, as well as sports journalists. At that time, the Sunday Times let the lab interpret the science. And there was no shortage of witnesses with direct knowledge of violations. With Paula, there is none of this. No teammates, no competitors, no former staff, no former friends, and no positive tests. We only have three values, two of which did not violate blood limits in effect at the time, and taken too close after a race (2003, 2005), and two below the altitude threshold (2005, 2012) of suspicion.

And we still have the uncertainty due to processes. Everyone focuses on an argument that the data is still reliable, accurate, or otherwise good enough to judge doping. In most cases, they might be right. Let me try to put this a different way. If measurements can vary, then the post-2009 thresholds are no longer 99% and 99.9%. The limits for suspicion (103 and 111), are probabilities, based on a model derived from controlled and normalized data, of the chance of false positives. If there is uncertainty, variability, in the measurements, this directly impacts these probabilities, in the direction of uncertainty. If the data can vary due to uncontrolled processes, these thresholds (103 and 111) are no longer 1/100 or 1/1000 chances. To arrive at 99% or 99.9% certainty thresholds using variable data, you would have to move them up, and depending on how far they move, maybe all three values no longer meet the modern thresholds as suspicious. Such an exercise requires much more data than Paula's missing values, and an extensive statistical analysis. That's why the 2009 rules are so important, to produce data worthy of judging an athlete with confidence without all the process noise.

Regarding the leaked names, those are all good questions. The Sunday Times threw out different statistics, like 1 in 7 suspicious, and 30% podium finishers suspicious, so many other athletes also exist, with issues. But when we see they didn't correct for altitude training, these numbers based on the data are inflated. What likely happened is that those athletes whose data was "100% non-suspicious" were brave enough to release them to the public. It's the ones who didn't publish that are also likely to have issues that need to be explained to the public, if the data were made public.

Rekrunner, you're trying too hard on this.....

I see FREUD has a new client (PR) and employees are active here (probably Plasma shift, you and Larkimm)!

Haha FREUD -- that's funny everytime.

No one can be certain that Paula Radcliffe’s explanations are the real reasons for her abnormal test results. It is not possible for WADA to be certain on this matter. The case against her is complicated. This is the reason why there is so much speculation about her test results.

rekrunner wrote:

You are stretching "failed organization" too much. The failure was not in detection of doping, and recommendation of sanctions, but in follow through, and a structural failure to detect a problem. Even with the Russians, the antidoping detection part worked. WADA says the anti-doping science in the IAAF response was sound.

The IAAF (and WADA to begin with) failed to discover the biggest doping scandal since the East German doping scandal (and the IAAF completely missed that scandal as well).

WADA completely ignored Vitaly Stepanov when he told them about the rampant doping in Russia. Vitaly Stepanov was forced into contacting the journalist Hajo Seppelt.

Your statement is ridiculous. The IAAF is an incompetent and corrupt organisation.

Where is WADA’s investigation into Kenya and Jamaica? The world anti-doping agency is overrated.

Paula is one of the greatest female distance runners of all time, and we should applaud that. She has put the hard yards in, and had to compete against doped athletes. If she 'tuned up' a bit herself, to even the playing field, I can understand that. I personally believe she didn't take EPO.

There are those who believe that we should not be suspicious of Paula: Larkimm, Rekrunner, and Plasma Shirt. I respect that. But I would also ask them if they are suspicious of FloJo. And if so, on what grounds.

I've asked this before but didn't get a response.

rekrunner wrote:

All of the experts have all of the data, and none of them have raised any suspicion.

This is a really dishonest claim.

#1. Paula made it clear it would rain litigation if her values were discussed without her consent. If she was so clean, publishing values would be no problem.

#2 Coe has declared Paula clean. Like all those other clean athletes that were very likely to have doped. The IAAF declaring anyone non-positive means nothing.

#3 We now know, for sure, Saugy's role for the IAAF is as a "fixer" for positives. See Papa's email to Coe's team member.

So, any idea that the anti-doping system functions to protect clean athletes is gone. It doesn't even work for Paula.

If only Paula would permit discussion of the values in Seppelt's set, this thread would have died almost 1 year ago.

Yes. Very good points.

Why was there no mention by Dick Pound about the Nick Davies email which mentions that Dr. Gabriel Dolle, the head of IAAF anti-doping who has been accused of taking $200,000 in bribes, confirming that they had a Plan B to use the Lausanne lab run by Dr. Martial Saugy? This is the lab where the 67 Russian samples were then destroyed. The head of the ABP at IAAF has also been accused of being offered bribes.

Dr. Saugy also being Paula's blood test expert is not credible. The IAAF report was a whitewash which left out the most suspicious elements of Paula's blood test results (the rapid and large magnitude changes indicating blood transfusion).

In Paula's biography, she states that an official was talking to her about her hemoglobin prerace value of 12.0, saying something to the effect of "Well, we know you are not doing EPO." Why is an official discussing Paula's Hb value with her at a World Championship Halfmarathon race???

A low prerace Hb value is not obtained by EPO use (or altitude training), so altitude cannot be used to explain the 2003 or 2005 postrace high Hb values of 15.6 and 15.1, respectively.

I think the anti-doping authorities at the time in 2003 and 2005 WERE SUSPICIOUS OF PAULA DOING TRANSFUSIONS at the time, because they did do a blood test for homologous transfusion in 2005, which was negative, because it can only detect transfusion with another person's blood. They also did follow up urine EPO tests at the time, which were negative. So they did do all they could at the time in terms of testing in the pre-ABP days of 2005.

Everybody(officials, anti-doping agencies, and athletes) knew that there was absolutely no way to test positive for an autologous blood transfusion anytime before the ABP in 2009. The only sign would be the suspicious (rapid and large magnitude changes) in Hb values from prerace to postrace, but nobody could be sanctioned for just suspicious blood test results back then.

So you had proper follow up testing, negative results, and Paula still could have been doing autologous transfusions, with no risk of ever getting caught.

We don't know what Paula's OFF scores were around her 2:15 marathon. Maybe they were 130 to 160. Remember Liliya Shobukhova is still the European 5K record holder with a 14:23, faster than Paula's PR of 14:29. Looks like EPO worked pretty well for Liliya Shobukova, even though her marathon PR was "only 2:18." And EPO worked for 2:18 Rita Jeptoo, and for Elvan Abeylegesse's 29:56 Olympic silver medal 10K.

Wang Junxia's 8:06 3k record from 1993 is worth (Purdy table) a 14:03 5K, a 29:26 10K, and 2:17:12 marathon. During her 10k world record of 29:31 she covered the second 5K in 14:26! I think EPO worked for her as well, even though she never tested positive and all her records still stand today.

Paula's 2:15 marathon is worth a 4:00 mile, 8:00 3K,13:53 for 5K, and 29:05 for 10K! Really OFF the charts!!! (Pardon the pun) Faster than outrageous dopers!!! Extraordinary times demand extraordinary evidence to back them up as legitimate.

If Paula could achieve that 2:15 with normal 90 to 100 range OFF scores and normal range hemoglobin levels, she would have already released those scores. Wouldn't you? I know I would if it was me. The fact that she doesn't release those 2:15 marathon blood test scores says a lot!.........Go Paula!!!.......................

rekrunner wrote:

To still suspect Paula, we would need something like evidence of collusion/bribery between the IAAF, UKAD, and UK athletics that Paula was somehow protected.

What? I hope you are kidding. We might need that to convict her, but not to suspect her. Otherwise you'd have to start defending Junxia as proven to be innocent as well.

We don't need to be certain about Paula's explanations. We have a bunch of scientific papers, many written by Ashenden, and Parisotto, and Schumacher, that tell us all about blood, altitude, post-exercise dehydration, off-score modeling, machine dependent measurements, etc. Paula didn't ever say anything that contradicted these papers, and she didn't need to say anything at all to the IAAF and WADA, in order for them to make their determination. When you see her worst figures at the altitude threshold, and she regularly trained at altitude, her case doesn't seem that complicated.The IAAF not only discovered the Russian scandal, but the IAAF Ethics Commission started investigating the IAAF/Russian bribery/extortion in Aug. 2014, six months before the first ARD documentary, independently of the Stepanovs and Hajo Seppelt. One thing to note is that the incompetent VP council that failed to take the opportunity to address their governance issue, actually created an Ethics Commission in 2013, and one of their first cases was the Russian scandal.Kenya and Jamaica's anti-doping problem is bigger than their doping problem.

I don't have any strong feelings about FloJo.Her muscular body changes support a claim of steriods, and other male hormones. But maybe intense workouts at the gym, protein shakes, ... ?Reasons to suspect her: body changes, coupled with very fast times.Reasons to believe she's clean: someone has to be the best, body changes from the gym, and broken wind-meter.

cleans wrote:

Paula is one of the greatest female distance runners of all time, and we should applaud that. She has put the hard yards in, and had to compete against doped athletes. If she 'tuned up' a bit herself, to even the playing field, I can understand that. I personally believe she didn't take EPO.

There are those who believe that we should not be suspicious of Paula: Larkimm, Rekrunner, and Plasma Shirt. I respect that. But I would also ask them if they are suspicious of FloJo. And if so, on what grounds.

I've asked this before but didn't get a response.

rekrunner wrote:

...The IAAF not only discovered the Russian scandal...

The IAAF did not discover that the Russians were operating a state sponsored doping program. They COMPLETELY missed it!

The IAAF did discover that Russia had a massive problem with blood doping. This only occurred because Russian coaches and doctors were incredibly dumb, they could not figure out how to beat the ABP! The IAAF tried their best to hide their findings from the public.

All the Russian athletes would have been using androgenic/anabolic steroids and a panoply of other PEDs. The testing by the IAAF failed to detect this. This is concrete proof that the IAAF is incompetent. Their drug testing is a joke.

There are no clean athletes in Russia.

rekrunner wrote:

All of the experts have all of the data, and none of them have raised any suspicion.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

This is a really dishonest claim.

Rekrunner is a dishonest poster.

You have a tendency to view things in the worst possible light, taking personal advantage of every benefit of the doubt. I guess it's your right, but it's rarely right.1) Yet the IAAF talked about her suspicious values in detail, and she expressly asked WADA to talk about them. Ross Tucker talked about them. The Sunday Times talked about them, as did the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, etc. She's not hiding her values from these experts (in fact she can't -- they have them), but only from a public who only accepts a flat line between two dashed lines as proof of clean.2) Like you said, it means nothing. Coe is not in the decision chain for doping decisions, and certainly wasn't in 2003, 2005.3) You've convinced yourself of many things that "we know for sure". Was Saugy wrong about Paula? Has anyone rebutted or contradicted Saugy?The whole question is if her blood data is grounds for suspicion. British newspapers and anonymous fans say yes, but all of the experts with access to all of the data don't stand with them or against Paula.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

All of the experts have all of the data, and none of them have raised any suspicion.

This is a really dishonest claim.

#1. Paula made it clear it would rain litigation if her values were discussed without her consent. If she was so clean, publishing values would be no problem.

#2 Coe has declared Paula clean. Like all those other clean athletes that were very likely to have doped. The IAAF declaring anyone non-positive means nothing.

#3 We now know, for sure, Saugy's role for the IAAF is as a "fixer" for positives. See Papa's email to Coe's team member.

So, any idea that the anti-doping system functions to protect clean athletes is gone. It doesn't even work for Paula.

If only Paula would permit discussion of the values in Seppelt's set, this thread would have died almost 1 year ago.

rekrunner wrote:

The whole question is if her blood data is grounds for suspicion. British newspapers and anonymous fans say yes, but all of the experts with access to all of the data don't stand with them or against Paula.

?

Michael Ashenden wanted to pursue sanctions based on pre-2009 database values, but the IAAF and WADA refused to pursue such cases because of legal reasons.

There is only one expert that has publicly stated that Paula Radcliffe’s explanations are the real reasons for her abnormal test results. His name is Martial Saugy. No other expert has come to her defence.

Umm, Dick Pound's report was quite critical of the Nick Davies email.12.0 seems too low to be a "true" value. I would wonder too why someone presumably so knowledgeable about doping and blood doping, would blood dope between pre-race and post-race testing (surely she did it to win, with full knowledge she would be tested post-race) enough to cause a 30% boost in RBC. How many liters of blood would that be? She had to have known the impact on her blood values would be visible. Was a half-marathon road championship worth that much, after she already set two world marathon records? Was she already prepared then to use the exercise-in-heat excuse? Was she protected by a pre-Coe IAAF under a first term Diack?I can't imagine that the Sunday Times had all the values from 2001 to 2012 yet kept scores of 130 to 160 unpublished. I know -- pure assumption on my part. It's also possible they don't have a blood sample from London 2003.Respect for mentioning Purdy.I don't think Wang Junxia took EPO alone. Ma's success with women, and not men, suggest (to me) male hormones.Paula's 2:15 also had male escorts, and a statistically significant tailwind similar to Boston 2011.Almost all of the 5000 athletes in the 2001-2012 have not published their blood values. The ones that have divulged private medical data under pressure. There is no reason that any of these athletes should have been put in that position. For reasons you chose to ignore, the pre-2009 data can fluctuate a lot more than post-2009 reasons, for innocent reasons.