If you haven’t read it already, have a look at Ross Tucker’s article in The Science of Sport (September 2015). He makes clear that her explanations are, at best, not conclusive.
It was also not helpful that (1) she refused to release details of her blood scores and (2) she changed her story along the way.
And (3), she said that she would take a polygraph and then refused.
Agreed. I feel that PR was a little hypocritical as if I remember rightly she stated something about having her blood or urine samples frozen and available to be tested at any point, then did a complete about turn. Along with doing so about a number of other things at the time.
She may well have been clean for all we know, but her performances weren't just small outliers so of course there will be an element of suspicion. Add that to all of the above and I can understand why people want to discuss it.
If you haven’t read it already, have a look at Ross Tucker’s article in The Science of Sport (September 2015). He makes clear that her explanations are, at best, not conclusive.
It was also not helpful that (1) she refused to release details of her blood scores and (2) she changed her story along the way.
And (3), she said that she would take a polygraph and then refused.
Did she refuse to take a polygraph test? I'm not aware of that.
Again, I never thought her words were particularly relevant. Would doubters be convinced by a polygraph test, or would they find any reason to keep doubting? (Ask Houlihan.)
All of the anti-doping authorities who looked at the data then, and again afterwards when the blood data was leaked, were virtually unanimous that there was no question they needed Paula to answer under a polygraph.
If you haven’t read it already, have a look at Ross Tucker’s article in The Science of Sport (September 2015). He makes clear that her explanations are, at best, not conclusive.
It was also not helpful that (1) she refused to release details of her blood scores and (2) she changed her story along the way.
I read what Ross wrote at the time. There is much about this story that is inconclusive, and Paula cannot change that. Ross wrote what he usually writes: it could be, or might not be, but my opinion, with caveats, is that ....
1) I assume the rest of her blood scores were normal, as the "abnormal" ones were published (with no context). She objected to the forced circumstances surrounding the release, and the precedent it would set for others to release their data under pressure, to a public with only a partial understanding of what is rightly suspicious and what is not.
2) Did she change her story? I'm not so sure she changed, it, and I don't think her "story" is relevant anyway. There is simply too much uncertainty around data that was collected and analyzed under unknown circumstances, and natural and non-doping factors can explain what data we have seen based on the existing ABP research. I think there are always multiple factors at play, and at times she said listed some factors, then at other times she listed other factors, but multiple factors are still valid. Altitude, non-standard measures, and intense effort are not exclusive factors.
The point you make in your first paragraph is exactly why I have my doubts: there is much which is inconclusive. I’m not saying definitively that she cheated; I am saying I have my doubts and that there is a possibility that she did.
On your two points:
1) If there was nothing to see in her unpublished blood scores , it is odd to me that she refused to publish them. After all, her entire running life‘s reputation was at stake. Perhaps there was something in the pattern of the unpublished scores, which would raise further questions. We shall never know.
2) She initially ascribed all of the off scores to altitude training. She then backtracked on that when it was proven that, for two of them, her known movements did not corroborate that explanation.
I would find it much easier to believe in Paula if she had been both consistent in her story and fully transparent.
And (3), she said that she would take a polygraph and then refused.
Did she refuse to take a polygraph test? I'm not aware of that.
Again, I never thought her words were particularly relevant. Would doubters be convinced by a polygraph test, or would they find any reason to keep doubting? (Ask Houlihan.)
All of the anti-doping authorities who looked at the data then, and again afterwards when the blood data was leaked, were virtually unanimous that there was no question they needed Paula to answer under a polygraph.
Actually , the anti doping authorities knew they cannot ask for a polygraph.
The point you make in your first paragraph is exactly why I have my doubts: there is much which is inconclusive. I’m not saying definitively that she cheated; I am saying I have my doubts and that there is a possibility that she did.
On your two points:
1) If there was nothing to see in her unpublished blood scores , it is odd to me that she refused to publish them. After all, her entire running life‘s reputation was at stake. Perhaps there was something in the pattern of the unpublished scores, which would raise further questions. We shall never know.
2) She initially ascribed all of the off scores to altitude training. She then backtracked on that when it was proven that, for two of them, her known movements did not corroborate that explanation.
I would find it much easier to believe in Paula if she had been both consistent in her story and fully transparent.
Since she wasn’t, I shall always have my doubts.
Once you consider the need for the "2-hour rule" for blood values to return to normal pre-race values, the expected impact of several weeks at altitude, and for weeks after the subsequent return to sea-level, and all the things that can go wrong when you don't use the same standard to analyze and compare 2 independent samples, there is really no strong indication or basis from these measurements that anything was necessarily abnormal in her blood due to blood doping. Your hunt for patterns of the unpublished scores would also be invalid before 2009, before blood collection, transport, storage, and analysis standards were in place.
After all that, you may still have your doubts, and I may be unable to change that, but I think part of your doubts should include how much blood doping helped, or can help, elite marathon performances in the first place. Recall no other blood dopers came close to Paula's times in the height of the EPO-era in the early 2000s. When the ABP was introduced in 2009, Ndereba was still #2, some 3m22s behind. No one beat Ndereba until Oct. 2011. As late as April 2017, Paula still had the top-3 marathon times, and still only 2 women had beaten Ndereba, and then only by 27 seconds, and 10 seconds. Fast forward to the present, in the supershoe era, and Paula's #1 world record is now #7, and her #3 performance is now #33. Were it not disqualified, Shobukhova would be #69, and Nderaba's #6 would be #101.
Regarding these two points:
1) Again, Paula was opposed to the witchhunt nature of being pressured to publish the values, and the dangerous precedent it would set for other athletes, due to the high risk of misinterpretation from a public looking to confirm suspicions fueled by sensational journalism.
2) Did she backtrack on altitude for these other two points? I don't recall that, or that her known movements did not corroborate that. I recall her initial statement contained all the factors: recent stays at altitude for the three samples, blood samples drawn too soon after a race for two of the samples, and other reasons why pre-2009 comparisons are unreliable, such as inconsistency between different analyzers, or even the same ones over time. I also recalled she later clarified, that while she had been at altitude before all three samples -- altitude was a primary factor for the 2012 sample, but not the primary factor for 2003 and 2005 samples, which were taken too soon after an intensive race. I haven't seen (and Paula wouldn't have either) how many weeks it takes blood values to return to pre-altitude levels after the descent back to sea-level. But we also know that Paula slept in altitude tents, which would have delayed the return to normal.
Did she refuse to take a polygraph test? I'm not aware of that.
Again, I never thought her words were particularly relevant. Would doubters be convinced by a polygraph test, or would they find any reason to keep doubting? (Ask Houlihan.)
All of the anti-doping authorities who looked at the data then, and again afterwards when the blood data was leaked, were virtually unanimous that there was no question they needed Paula to answer under a polygraph.
Actually , the anti doping authorities knew they cannot ask for a polygraph.
It's not clear they even considered it. But "ChatLRC" said she refused it. I'm not sure that is true.
The point you make in your first paragraph is exactly why I have my doubts: there is much which is inconclusive. I’m not saying definitively that she cheated; I am saying I have my doubts and that there is a possibility that she did.
On your two points:
1) If there was nothing to see in her unpublished blood scores , it is odd to me that she refused to publish them. After all, her entire running life‘s reputation was at stake. Perhaps there was something in the pattern of the unpublished scores, which would raise further questions. We shall never know.
2) She initially ascribed all of the off scores to altitude training. She then backtracked on that when it was proven that, for two of them, her known movements did not corroborate that explanation.
I would find it much easier to believe in Paula if she had been both consistent in her story and fully transparent.
Since she wasn’t, I shall always have my doubts.
Once you consider the need for the "2-hour rule" for blood values to return to normal pre-race values, the expected impact of several weeks at altitude, and for weeks after the subsequent return to sea-level, and all the things that can go wrong when you don't use the same standard to analyze and compare 2 independent samples, there is really no strong indication or basis from these measurements that anything was necessarily abnormal in her blood due to blood doping. Your hunt for patterns of the unpublished scores would also be invalid before 2009, before blood collection, transport, storage, and analysis standards were in place.
After all that, you may still have your doubts, and I may be unable to change that, but I think part of your doubts should include how much blood doping helped, or can help, elite marathon performances in the first place. Recall no other blood dopers came close to Paula's times in the height of the EPO-era in the early 2000s. When the ABP was introduced in 2009, Ndereba was still #2, some 3m22s behind. No one beat Ndereba until Oct. 2011. As late as April 2017, Paula still had the top-3 marathon times, and still only 2 women had beaten Ndereba, and then only by 27 seconds, and 10 seconds. Fast forward to the present, in the supershoe era, and Paula's #1 world record is now #7, and her #3 performance is now #33. Were it not disqualified, Shobukhova would be #69, and Nderaba's #6 would be #101.
Regarding these two points:
1) Again, Paula was opposed to the witchhunt nature of being pressured to publish the values, and the dangerous precedent it would set for other athletes, due to the high risk of misinterpretation from a public looking to confirm suspicions fueled by sensational journalism.
2) Did she backtrack on altitude for these other two points? I don't recall that, or that her known movements did not corroborate that. I recall her initial statement contained all the factors: recent stays at altitude for the three samples, blood samples drawn too soon after a race for two of the samples, and other reasons why pre-2009 comparisons are unreliable, such as inconsistency between different analyzers, or even the same ones over time. I also recalled she later clarified, that while she had been at altitude before all three samples -- altitude was a primary factor for the 2012 sample, but not the primary factor for 2003 and 2005 samples, which were taken too soon after an intensive race. I haven't seen (and Paula wouldn't have either) how many weeks it takes blood values to return to pre-altitude levels after the descent back to sea-level. But we also know that Paula slept in altitude tents, which would have delayed the return to normal.
It's not clear they even considered it. But "ChatLRC" said she refused it. I'm not sure that is true.
To clarify, she declined after insisting that people under suspicion should take polygraphs, and after being asked by a journalist if she would. She did not technically refuse and was not asked by the authorities to submit. Nonetheless, I find it exceptionally hypocritical and suspicious.
It's not clear they even considered it. But "ChatLRC" said she refused it. I'm not sure that is true.
To clarify, she declined after insisting that people under suspicion should take polygraphs, and after being asked by a journalist if she would. She did not technically refuse and was not asked by the authorities to submit. Nonetheless, I find it exceptionally hypocritical and suspicious.
(IMO) I think Paula said a lot of things when she was younger, due to a combination of naivety, ignorance of the science, idealism, and a faith in the anti-doping process. The process works best when anti-doping officials interpret potentially ambiguous data in good faith. I suspect the reason for her change of stance was that the pressure put on her was coming from a place of bad faith.
You started out by saying her explanations made no sense. When I dug into the best practice and some of the ABP related research, I found the same set of explanations, including from the Australian scientists who initially calculated the off-scores: pre-2009 sample unreliability due to non-standarization, impact of intense exercise, and the 2-hour rule, impact of altitude, etc.
I wonder why Paula should have the burden to explain why the IAAF data is not accurate, when she is no blood expert. She has not been charged with a violation, and her own contracted independent review, and a lengthier IAAF explanation, better explains how these are likely false positives rather than indications of blood doping.
You also asked me to read the sportsscientist writeup. In Ross's first attempt to address the topic, he seems to make a rookie mistake suggesting hemoconcentration during intense activity is due to dehydration rather than plasma shift to extravascular interstitial tissues. Actually Paula first makes that rookie mistake (she is no expert) but Ross didn't correct it.
Ross's main message wasn't from Ross the scientist, but Ross the sports marketer. In spite of a few mistakes, his message was still that all of Paula's explanations were possible and plausible, but she could have crafted a stronger message, and it is in her interest, by arguing that full transparency would have helped her. (Although Mo Farah released all of his data and it didn't help him.)
You started out by saying her explanations made no sense. When I dug into the best practice and some of the ABP related research, I found the same set of explanations, including from the Australian scientists who initially calculated the off-scores: pre-2009 sample unreliability due to non-standarization, impact of intense exercise, and the 2-hour rule, impact of altitude, etc.
I wonder why Paula should have the burden to explain why the IAAF data is not accurate, when she is no blood expert. She has not been charged with a violation, and her own contracted independent review, and a lengthier IAAF explanation, better explains how these are likely false positives rather than indications of blood doping.
You also asked me to read the sportsscientist writeup. In Ross's first attempt to address the topic, he seems to make a rookie mistake suggesting hemoconcentration during intense activity is due to dehydration rather than plasma shift to extravascular interstitial tissues. Actually Paula first makes that rookie mistake (she is no expert) but Ross didn't correct it.
Ross's main message wasn't from Ross the scientist, but Ross the sports marketer. In spite of a few mistakes, his message was still that all of Paula's explanations were possible and plausible, but she could have crafted a stronger message, and it is in her interest, by arguing that full transparency would have helped her. (Although Mo Farah released all of his data and it didn't help him.)
Shattering world records when you run sideways with a limp tends to create a burden of explanation.
I wonder why Paula should have the burden to explain why the IAAF data is not accurate, when she is no blood expert.
...
Shattering world records when you run sideways with a limp tends to create a burden of explanation.
What does that have to do with the leaked IAAF blood data? Explaining world records would involve a discussion of a lifelong of training, and race conditions like weather, pacing, pacemaking, etc. Blood doping wasn't particularly known to help elite women run the marathon faster -- recall all blood dopers where nearly three minutes or more slower, in the height of the EPO era, up until 2017. When and why would blood doping become a candidate factor?
It is the (then) IAAF who collected, stored, transported, and analyzed the blood data, who should explain the data rather than the unexperienced athlete, and the IAAF are on record saying that their non-standardized ways led to unreliable variations in measurements, making it impossible to rely on the data, or to make comparisons between two samples to calculate differences and make profiles and trends. This is wholly supported by lots of ABP research, including contributions from the two Australian scientists, leading to the standardizations which made the ABP viable in 2009.
Why would it be up to Paula to explain the mistakes of the IAAF and the Australian scientists (which she did, by the way, in her first statement), especially for blood data collected long after she shattered the world records?
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
You started out by saying her explanations made no sense. When I dug into the best practice and some of the ABP related research, I found the same set of explanations, including from the Australian scientists who initially calculated the off-scores: pre-2009 sample unreliability due to non-standarization, impact of intense exercise, and the 2-hour rule, impact of altitude, etc.
I wonder why Paula should have the burden to explain why the IAAF data is not accurate, when she is no blood expert. She has not been charged with a violation, and her own contracted independent review, and a lengthier IAAF explanation, better explains how these are likely false positives rather than indications of blood doping.
You also asked me to read the sportsscientist writeup. In Ross's first attempt to address the topic, he seems to make a rookie mistake suggesting hemoconcentration during intense activity is due to dehydration rather than plasma shift to extravascular interstitial tissues. Actually Paula first makes that rookie mistake (she is no expert) but Ross didn't correct it.
Ross's main message wasn't from Ross the scientist, but Ross the sports marketer. In spite of a few mistakes, his message was still that all of Paula's explanations were possible and plausible, but she could have crafted a stronger message, and it is in her interest, by arguing that full transparency would have helped her. (Although Mo Farah released all of his data and it didn't help him.)
Well, "pre-2009 sample unreliability due to non-standarization" is of course wrong. There were standards all the time, but they kept changing until 2008.
It is also a poor excuse for such extreme values and fluctuations. If variations such as hers would be explainable due to different standards pre-2009, a lot more athletes than just 15% would have reported suspicious values in all those years. 15% is even less (!) than the percentage of in-competition (!) blood doping at Worlds 2011!
Shattering world records when you run sideways with a limp tends to create a burden of explanation.
What does that have to do with the leaked IAAF blood data? Explaining world records would involve a discussion of a lifelong of training, and race conditions like weather, pacing, pacemaking, etc. Blood doping wasn't particularly known to help elite women run the marathon faster -- recall all blood dopers where nearly three minutes or more slower, in the height of the EPO era, up until 2017. When and why would blood doping become a candidate factor?
It is the (then) IAAF who collected, stored, transported, and analyzed the blood data, who should explain the data rather than the unexperienced athlete, and the IAAF are on record saying that their non-standardized ways led to unreliable variations in measurements, making it impossible to rely on the data, or to make comparisons between two samples to calculate differences and make profiles and trends. This is wholly supported by lots of ABP research, including contributions from the two Australian scientists, leading to the standardizations which made the ABP viable in 2009.
Why would it be up to Paula to explain the mistakes of the IAAF and the Australian scientists (which she did, by the way, in her first statement), especially for blood data collected long after she shattered the world records?
Well, "pre-2009 sample unreliability due to non-standarization" is of course wrong. There were standards all the time, but they kept changing until 2008.
It is also a poor excuse for such extreme values and fluctuations. If variations such as hers would be explainable due to different standards pre-2009, a lot more athletes than just 15% would have reported suspicious values in all those years. 15% is even less (!) than the percentage of in-competition (!) blood doping at Worlds 2011!
Isn't "changing standards" just another way to say non-standardized? The direction of evolving standardization was to reduce the kinds of errors and fluctuations as they were uncovered by ABP research, as the research evolved. Earlier values are more likely to have extreme variations, with fewer standards in place, and immature ABP science.
There is no way to conclude more than 15% would have reported suspicious values. The magnitude of errors would be expected to be distributed randomly, in both directions, reducing over time, as new standards were introduced, and as standards were more broadly adhered to.
Your comparison between the simple analysis of the leaked database, and the estimated in-competion blood doping at Worlds 2011 doesn't seem valid. There are significant differences in the metric used to estimate blood doping (off-scores against population thresholds by the Australian scientists in their unofficial analysis, versus population distribution of ABPS scores against expected population distributions) at Worlds 2011. There are also differences in the populations tested, with the general IAAF blood testing focusing more on endurance athletes and also including non-World Championship athletes and multiple samples per athlete, while at Worlds 2011, (nearly) every World Championship Athlete from all disciplines were tested, with only one sample included in the analysis.