According to her the 114.8 came from a sample taken immediately after a half-marathon in 29C heat in Portugal.
There appears to be some discrepancies in the story.
Is there still a super injunction in effect, and what do you think its specific intent is?
I\'m glad she has been exonerated.
There is justice.
wejo wrote:
I corrected the LRC headline about 40 minutes ago. I read it and told Rojo it wasn't accurate.
The Sky News headline is sensationalist in Radclife's favor, but I'd say the Sunday Times was sensationalist in the other direction or at least cast a lot of suspicion without releasing values and test results themselves. Headlines won't sort this out, the full blood profile being analyzed will.
I assume in due course all of the values will come out with experts assessing her full profile. I do see how people just discussing a single score and a threshhold gives some credence to the idea that values can be misinterpreted (in either direction).
We need independent experts looking at Paula's full profile. After talking to Paula in Beijing I was confident this would all get out there and be discussed. People want this to be all sorted out instantly but I do think it takes more analysis than that. Otherwise people would be sanctioned for doping by computers.
Did Paula consult independent experts before she called out Olga Yegorova at the 2001 Worlds Champs? Yegorova's positive EPO was ruled invalid by IAAF's experts. Who gave Paula the right to overrule their decision? You're her friend ask her? Ask her when she's going to apologize to Yegorova?
Here's all the data you need to see:
differs wrote:
Man Overboard wrote:It's funny how he disagrees and calls her a liar without contradicting anything she says.
She said the test was immediately after the race while he said it was 90 minutes after the race. Not sure who is right, but that's quite a difference.
I'd say that being pulled into the doping control right out of the finish chute fits any reasonable definition of "immediate".
And FWIW, 23C plus 61% humidity = a humidex of 27C/81F, which is pretty hot for a half marathon.
jaminnnn wrote:
Does she say she didn't take any banned substance? Or does she just give possible explanations for the high scores?
B-Sample wrote:http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffeTwo of the OFF scores were 109, which is below the 111 recommended by Ashenden in conjunction with altitude training, the third is 114, taken at the World Half Marathon Championships:
"She says the third, which gave the highest reading of 114.86, can be explained by circumstances that would now render it invalid.
It came from a sample taken immediately after a half-marathon in 29C heat in Portugal. The World Anti-Doping Association now considers any samples taken within two hours of competition as invalid, because exertion can affect blood values."
Antonio says that the test was 1.5 hours after the finish, and the other guy says that the temp was not 29C.
Are the circumstances correct. I would like to bring in F. Lee Bailey to question the story.
Coach Cookie wrote:
Here's all the data you need to see:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COkE1MZUAAAwJj7.png
Because Freya Murphy, Hatti Archer, Lisa Dobriskey , Emma Jackson and Jennifer Meadows are in the same class as PR?! LOL!!
Also this "cut off number" for OFF score is complete sophistry, the allowable limits are individually tailored and change depending on the time of year, claiming there is an arbitrary objective limit is either a deliberate attempt at obfuscation or whoever wrote the piece doesn't understand what was written. Either option is troublesome.
I started watching cycling in the 80's when my compatriot Robert Millar was competing , so we're the seeing the usual attempt of trying to provide no checkable facts. However some statements have been made that have been contradicted with varying degrees of authority.
From the time after completing the race to the temperature on the day. Also the statement that none of the values were taken around a good performance by her has also been shown to demonstrably false.
The continual smearing against Dr Ashenden is particularly calumniating. The guy is a dedicated anti-doping Expert, helped create the EPO test, headed up the team that created the test to enable bloodbag usage detection. helped create the whole Passport system. Called Armstrong out about his samples with EPO from 1999. When the UCI were trying to be more cloak and dagger he just quit and explained why instead of just staying quiet and getting his money. So calling him a "so called expert" or trying to insinuate he won't be able to understand the data is frankly laughable for anyone who knows about him. Thank god cycling has him i say!
I understand how a lot of folk feel, pretty heart-breaking to find out your sport is not what it seems. Or have the main person saying things like "i almost died of cancer, there is no way i would take anything that could jeopardise my health" It's unbelievable that someone would have the gall to say such things untruthfully. However elite athletes are extreme personalities hyper competitors.
It's coming out , it's just a case of waiting, Coe is in charge atm and trying to smear the Doctors with insinuation, he won't be in power for ever though.
This is a depressingly familiar scene for all cycling fans.
Man Overboard wrote:
differs wrote:She said the test was immediately after the race while he said it was 90 minutes after the race. Not sure who is right, but that's quite a difference.
I'd say that being pulled into the doping control right out of the finish chute fits any reasonable definition of "immediate".
And FWIW, 23C plus 61% humidity = a humidex of 27C/81F, which is pretty hot for a half marathon.
Agree - you're going to be pretty badly dehydrated racing a half with a humidex of 27C/81F. Also agree with the poster who said the most suspicious athletes should be the ones that slip just under the threshold on many occassions, therefore never getting flagged.
I don't know if the how you can obtain blood values from an urine sample...
Man Overboard wrote:
Coach Cookie wrote:Here's all the data you need to see:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COkE1MZUAAAwJj7.pngBecause Freya Murphy, Hatti Archer, Lisa Dobriskey , Emma Jackson and Jennifer Meadows are in the same class as PR?! LOL!!
You mis-understand the point, the table isn't an indicator of performance it's an indicator of blood values specifically the Off-score. Thinking there is causation or even correlation between that graph and how anyone would fare in the race is non-sequitur.
Man Overboard wrote:
Coach Cookie wrote:Here's all the data you need to see:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COkE1MZUAAAwJj7.pngBecause Freya Murphy, Hatti Archer, Lisa Dobriskey , Emma Jackson and Jennifer Meadows are in the same class as PR?! LOL!!
And what class would that be? Would that be in the class of testing for drugs 1.5 hours after finishing a race at 24C, or would it be in the class of testing for drugs immediately after racing at 29C?
Man Overboard wrote:
differs wrote:She said the test was immediately after the race while he said it was 90 minutes after the race. Not sure who is right, but that's quite a difference.
I'd say that being pulled into the doping control right out of the finish chute fits any reasonable definition of "immediate".
.
Immediate -occurring or done at once; instant.
So done in an instant means 90 minutes later for you.
Your definition of reasonable is quite unreasonable. You must be one of those Freud-type truth stretchers.
Man Overboard wrote:
Coach Cookie wrote:Here's all the data you need to see:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COkE1MZUAAAwJj7.pngBecause Freya Murphy, Hatti Archer, Lisa Dobriskey , Emma Jackson and Jennifer Meadows are in the same class as PR?! LOL!!
Hopefully you're getting paid to write that, otherwise I'm sure that being this stupid hurts you in life on a daily basis.
Show your work, please wrote:
emajor wrote:Based on my calculations odds of her results are nowhere close to 1 in 1000, they are 1 in 63 for 109.3, 1 in 70 for 109.86, and 1 in 207 for 114.86.
What exactly are your calculations? And why should we believe them?
They are based on Table 2 of above mentioned paper. I simply interpolated Paula\'s scores against the test scores in the table vs logs of corresponding odds. Then I take an exponent of the interpolated value and out come Paula\'s odds. (If you don\'t understand this ask a friend who\'s good at calculus.) But most importantly you have to trust the academic paper...
"I understand how a lot of folk feel, pretty heart-breaking to find out your sport is not what it seems"
I don't feel heart-broken. The sport is dirty, and it's run by crooks.
fred wrote:Immediate -occurring or done at once; instant.
So done in an instant means 90 minutes later for you.
Oh, please. She was pulled into doping control immediately after the race. Any reasonable observer with no axe to grind (i.e. the general public reading Paula's statement and watching their nightly news) can see that. People trying to catch PR in a "gotcha" on this one are simply grasping at straws.
Cyclingfan wrote:You mis-understand the point, the table isn't an indicator of performance it's an indicator of blood values specifically the Off-score. Thinking there is causation or even correlation between that graph and how anyone would fare in the race is non-sequitur.
I don't misunderstand the point whatsoever. That chart is no more relevant if you put your off scores, or mine, or Barack Obamas' on it.
There is no causation or correlation between Paula Radcliffe's off scores and Hatti Archer's. Or Lisa Dobriskey. Or whomever.
Cycling fan is correct from my talk with Ross Tucker today. Off-scores become highly individualized. The original Times piece talks about 1/1000 threshholds like they are static so people are responding to that but it's not that simple on either side.
See this article we just posted:
Both Ross and I think there needs to be more transparency.
A few other things:
1) Renato Canova posted on here it was very hot int he sun that day. The IAAF recap of the race says,
https://web.archive.org/web/20071211152829/http://www.iaaf.org/WHM03/news/Kind=2/newsId=23335.html
"From the beginning, the world best seemed to be on the cards. Radcliffe after less than two minutes was forging ahead and until an unexpected burn-out before the 15k marker, it seemed Meyer's mark set in Tokyo, was destined for the dust bin.
But the scorching Algarve weather with temperature rising rapidly from 22 degress after the start, seriously blunted any ambitions Radcliffe may have had in that direction.
Radcliffe cheered by around a thousand British tourists said: "It was a very tough race and I was surprised everyone dropped back so quickly.
"The support was fantastic but I knew at 10K with the conditions being what they were, the record was not going to happen.""
2) Where has Dr Ashenden been smeared? I'd like to see that. I haven't seen him chime in specifically about Radcliffe.
3) Most of us already know doping is a problem in the sport but I'll reserve judgment until the facts come out. The Sunday Times hasn't even alleged anything yet.
Man Overboard wrote:
Cyclingfan wrote:You mis-understand the point, the table isn't an indicator of performance it's an indicator of blood values specifically the Off-score. Thinking there is causation or even correlation between that graph and how anyone would fare in the race is non-sequitur.I don't misunderstand the point whatsoever. That chart is no more relevant if you put your off scores, or mine, or Barack Obamas' on it.
There is no causation or correlation between Paula Radcliffe's off scores and Hatti Archer's. Or Lisa Dobriskey. Or whomever.
That's a different point you're making now, you stated
"Because Freya Murphy, Hatti Archer, Lisa Dobriskey , Emma Jackson and Jennifer Meadows are in the same class as PR?! LOL!!
Which is an irrelevant point. As the table says nothing about relative "class" now you're saying the chart isn't relevant. These are separate points.
However I don't have times to follow disparate arguments around so i'll just move on.
