Was Paula Radcliffe the biggest genetic outlier in running history? Underappreciated on Letsrun

just sayin wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Paula naively underestimated the margins of error for blood testing in the early days, before standards were introduced and uniformly applied, and the bad will of yellow journalists, and a small minority of the general public who still call themselves fans of the sport as they try to destroy the reputations of heros of the sport.

She was wrong to call for transparency, because of the general lack of ability, and sometimes willingness, of the general public to properly interpret data in full context.

Publishing partial information, out of context, has only hurt the sport, and set back public trust in clean athletes, in the WA (IAAF), and in anti-doping organizations.

The only confusion seems to be around interpreting her data

Precisely because she didn't release it

But it would be misinterpreted by many. One issue centred around her hematocrit/haemoglobin concentration pre and post race. The issue being a lack of understanding that these are not real blood counts, they are just concentrations. Trying to explain the simple difference to idiots is pointless.

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

heelstriker wrote:

Of course calories are energy but these drugs increase the rate at which those energy reserves can be utilised.

How do they do that without affecting thermoregulation?

I'll give you $10,000 if you can answer that question.

I never said they don't affect thermoregulation but they result in a net positive effect on running performance regardless and some of them are used in order to sustain race weight then dropped out prior to the race so the negative side effects can be minimised.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You mean like EL G's 1500 and mile records - also apparent outliers - that have stood for over 20 years? So doping isn't part of middle distance running either.

As a reminder, the discussion is doping as a partial explanation of the fastest performances, and not a discussion of doping "use" or "prevalence" or "belief".

I made the statement for the women's marathon. If you change the gender, and the event, it requires a "de novo" analysis looking at different fact patterns, and the different evolution of performance improvements in the different populations with potentially different conclusions.

In the case of the men's 1500m and mile, it has not yet been reliably established that El G doped.

Until then, we are stuck at unsubstantiated suggestions of what "can be".

Your argument was that if doping was a big part of marathon running Paula's performance wouldn't be an outlier. It is - was - an outlier. Just like we have outlier performances in other running events - from sprints to middle distances - where we know doping is prevalent, even if the records themselves are not proved to be doped. So your argument about Paula does not enable you to infer that there is any less doping in marathon running than in any other running event.

just sayin wrote:

The only confusion seems to be around interpreting her data

Precisely because she didn't release it

This is naive. Even if she had released all of the data, this does not eliminate the confusion of the general public around interpreting her data, without a supplemental data package describing the circumstances around each sample, and the expertise to properly interpret all of the data together.

There was no confusion among anti-doping experts who had access to the full data, including the supplemental data.

We don't need public transparency of raw values, but a guarantee of independence.

She claims to have voluntarily frozen her samples in the interest of transparency, given that testing capabilities would likely improve.

Anyone want to take a guess why she never had them retested? Most likely answer is that the samples don't exist, it was all a publicity stunt.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your argument was that if doping was a big part of marathon running Paula's performance wouldn't be an outlier. It is - was - an outlier. Just like we have outlier performances in other running events - from sprints to middle distances - where we know doping is prevalent, even if the records themselves are not proved to be doped. So your argument about Paula does not enable you to infer that there is any less doping in marathon running than in any other running event.

It sounds like you are still conflating "use" and "prevalence" with "explanation of the fastest performances".

I don't argue or infer that there is any less doping (i.e. prevalence) in the marathon compared to other running events.

Although the Sunday Times indicated that for blood doping "suspicion" among World Championship and Olympic medals won.

I have argued that assumptions of higher prevalence, combined with assumptions of large effect, only increase the contradiction that a large performance gap across the whole population for more than a decade represents. While there can be doping and anti-doping explanations, as pattern change over the years, we must also look to other non-doping explanations for explaining the remaining parts.

My idea of outlier in this thread is not based on the number of years a world record has stood, but on the absolute magnitude of performance, as measured in time. For example, from the magnitude of performance point of view, El G is not an outlier.

talent evaluator wrote:

She claims to have voluntarily frozen her samples in the interest of transparency, given that testing capabilities would likely improve.

Anyone want to take a guess why she never had them retested? Most likely answer is that the samples don't exist, it was all a publicity stunt.

I don't believe she claimed that she froze her samples, but simply proposed that the anti-doping authorities do that.

In any case, the authorities followed up and applied that concept to everyone.

The IAAF started freezing samples of all the athletes in 2005, and the 2005 and 2007 World Championship samples were retested, catching 6 athletes in 2012, and 28 more athletes in 2015. The IOC did the same thing for Beijing 2008 Olympics, catching 31 athletes.

rekrunner wrote:

talent evaluator wrote:

She claims to have voluntarily frozen her samples in the interest of transparency, given that testing capabilities would likely improve.

Anyone want to take a guess why she never had them retested? Most likely answer is that the samples don't exist, it was all a publicity stunt.

I don't believe she claimed that she froze her samples, but simply proposed that the anti-doping authorities do that.

In any case, the authorities followed up and applied that concept to everyone.

The IAAF started freezing samples of all the athletes in 2005, and the 2005 and 2007 World Championship samples were retested, catching 6 athletes in 2012, and 28 more athletes in 2015. The IOC did the same thing for Beijing 2008 Olympics, catching 31 athletes.

“I’ve laid myself open to every test available and have samples frozen so tests can be conducted in the future. Do you have a suggestion about what more I can do to satisfy your doubts?”

I suppose she could be referring to the normal freezing process of samples, but she's certainly making it appear that she went above and beyond. This was from 2001 by the way.

Her question is interesting, because quite frankly there are many suggestions of what she could do to satisfy doubts and she did none of those things. Again, her recent stance has been quite at odds with her views in the early 2000s.

heelstriker wrote:

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

How do they do that without affecting thermoregulation?

I'll give you $10,000 if you can answer that question.

I never said they don't affect thermoregulation but they result in a net positive effect on running performance regardless and some of them are used in order to sustain race weight then dropped out prior to the race so the negative side effects can be minimised.

Actually, you did say indirectly that drugs can circumvent thermoregulation but you didn't know it. Because thermodynamics account for 75-80% of our calorie output.

That is why the whole EPO/Blood doping belief is nonsense. It is beyond the laws of physics.

Regarding weight loss, it's easy to do this naturally without losing strength.

Please rethink your beliefs of doping efficacy, otherwise you are just part of the problem, not the solution which is for everyone to learn some basic physiology.

This is just circular reasoning. It's not an intelligent argument.

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

Actually, you did say indirectly that drugs can circumvent thermoregulation but you didn't know it. Because thermodynamics account for 75-80% of our calorie output.

That is why the whole EPO/Blood doping belief is nonsense. It is beyond the laws of physics.

Regarding weight loss, it's easy to do this naturally without losing strength.

Please rethink your beliefs of doping efficacy, otherwise you are just part of the problem, not the solution which is for everyone to learn some basic physiology.

You think EPO is beyond the laws of physics? You think Lombard just happened to start taking EPO and crushing national records because it gave him some self confidence?

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

Actually, you did say indirectly that drugs can circumvent thermoregulation but you didn't know it. Because thermodynamics account for 75-80% of our calorie output.

That is why the whole EPO/Blood doping belief is nonsense. It is beyond the laws of physics.

Regarding weight loss, it's easy to do this naturally without losing strength.

Please rethink your beliefs of doping efficacy, otherwise you are just part of the problem, not the solution which is for everyone to learn some basic physiology.

You think EPO is beyond the laws of physics? You think Lombard just happened to start taking EPO and crushing national records because it gave him some self confidence?

"You think EPO is beyond the laws of physics?"

What is that supposed to mean?

Do you think the laws of Thermodynamics are real or not?

Do you think Cathal Lombard didn't have that ability to run low 13 for 5000 without EPO?

A friend of mine is even faster. Is he doped to the gills?

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your argument was that if doping was a big part of marathon running Paula's performance wouldn't be an outlier. It is - was - an outlier. Just like we have outlier performances in other running events - from sprints to middle distances - where we know doping is prevalent, even if the records themselves are not proved to be doped. So your argument about Paula does not enable you to infer that there is any less doping in marathon running than in any other running event.

This is just circular reasoning. It's not an intelligent argument.

Then you don't know what circular reasoning is.

The examples I gave as outliers in women's sprints as well as EL G's records is that they are outliers in magnitude of performance as well as durability. No one has been close to those times. The closest to the mile record is several seconds slower. Also, no clean runner has gotten near his 1500m time for nearly 20 years.

Armstronglivs wrote:

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

This is just circular reasoning. It's not an intelligent argument.

Then you don't know what circular reasoning is.

So what is your premise and what is your inference?

You don't need to answer that, we already know what you believe.

DC Runnerman wrote:

“I’ve laid myself open to every test available and have samples frozen so tests can be conducted in the future. Do you have a suggestion about what more I can do to satisfy your doubts?”

I suppose she could be referring to the normal freezing process of samples, but she's certainly making it appear that she went above and beyond. This was from 2001 by the way.

Her question is interesting, because quite frankly there are many suggestions of what she could do to satisfy doubts and she did none of those things. Again, her recent stance has been quite at odds with her views in the early 2000s.

So I see this question was after 2002, and she posted all of this on her website in 2013, pre-dating her negative treatment by the British press.

I think what reasonably changed her stance was the negative treatment by the press, which looks like it started with the French newspapers in 2002.

I'm not sure what "many suggestions" means, or if the remaining doubts of the public are justified, but I see it like this:

Beyond subjecting themselves to standard anti-doping testing by national ADOs, the IAAF/AIU, and WADA, what are reasonable expectations from fans for an athlete?

Of these "many suggestions" you propose, are there any precedents of other athletes being subject to the same expectations? If not, why single out Paula to a higher, unprecedented standard?

It just seems highly inconsistent.

Without re-litigating the IAAF scandal, there is already a great deal we learned from it.

Note first that the Australian scientists did not accuse any athletes, which includes Paula, and did not want their opinions known, stipulating it in their contract, but only accused the IAAF of inaction and complacency.

It was the British newspapers that singled her out, despite seven British athletes reportedly recording suspicious values. Why not list the abnormal results of all 7?

In fact, 800 athletes were identified as having "suspicious" samples. Besides the Russians, and all of Kenya (with a reportedly less than average rate of "suspicion") and Paula, where is the outrage and calls for transparency from the fans for the remaining athletes?

Why did the British press and the fans go to great lengths to single her and her alone out?

All of her data, with full context, was subject to review, by the IAAF, twice, by UKAD, by WADA, and by the WADA IC.

The IAAF gave the chance for the public to educate themselves about the history of the development of the ABP, giving several scientifically backed reasons why suspicious values would not lead to sanctions, with many references and footnotes to the ABP research.

If the public is not satisfied with this unprecedented level of scrutiny for one single athlete, and the scientifically backed justifications, can Paula reasonably expect fairness from this same public, if only she had published a list of blood values known to be collected under conditions making the results unreliable?

After all, Mo published his data, and the relief from the public accusations were short-lived.

The Sunday Times already gave us all the information we need to know about the unpublished values from the leaked database, by telling us they published all of the suspicious values, and publishing the range from lowest to highest score.

It hardly seems fair or consistent to require Paula to do more than any other athlete to satisfy any remaining doubts of the public. Again, where is the precedent?

Drug testing.....It's all political based on a nonsensical belief that drugs can give you more energy.

If this belief isn't confronted the exploitation just increases year after year.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The examples I gave as outliers in women's sprints as well as EL G's records is that they are outliers in magnitude of performance as well as durability. No one has been close to those times. The closest to the mile record is several seconds slower. Also, no clean runner has gotten near his 1500m time for nearly 20 years.

Maybe we have different ideas of what magnitude means.

For a long time, until Keitany in 2017, Paula was 2.5% faster than #3 Ndereba, and 2.2% faster than #2 Shobukhova.

(Side note: curiously, since 2017, when the IAAF/WA/AIU started cracking down on Kenyan doping, 12 women have surpassed previous #3 Ndereba, including 5 Kenyans, 6 Ethiopians, and 1 Kenyan-Israeli).

In the 1500m, El G was 0.165% faster than #2 Lagat; 0.8% ahead of #5, Kiplagat, from 2014, and 1.8% ahead of #8 Jakob Ingebrigtsen from 2020.

(By the way, who says Kiprop wasn't clean in 2015?)

If we use the same relative magnitude of 2.2% to #2 Shobukhova, we would arrive at #42 running 3:30.53 in the men's 1500m.

I will ignore the mile since no one really runs it, except that a magnitude of 2.2% gives 3:48.03 which includes about 18 athletes including Cram, Coe, Webb, and Steve Scott.

For the women's sprints, in 100m FloJo was ahead of #2 by 1.4%, and in 200m, was ahead of #2 by 1.3%. Looking again at a relative magnitude of 2.2%, we would add 4 more women to 100m, and 16 more women to 200m.

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

Drug testing.....It's all political based on a nonsensical belief that drugs can give you more energy.

If this belief isn't confronted the exploitation just increases year after year.

Dude stop please you don't even have basic understanding of how these drugs work or how they are used.