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

Here's the actual quote:

"The following year, 2004, she went to Athens [for the Olympic Games] as a massive favorite in the marathon. What exactly went wrong?

GH: Three weeks before the Olympics, down in Portugal, Paula did a 16-mile run and a car with joyriders going too fast came in onto the gravel trails. A stone or something hard flung from the back tire, hit her knee, and she got a blood abscess deep in her knee. We flew the following day to Munich to see Dr. Müller-Wohlfahrt. Unfortunately, she was in trouble. For the last two weeks before Athens, she was in her best physiological shape, much better shape than London 2003, about a minute and a half better than she was when she ran 2:15:25. We went to Athens, had an MRI done by the British Olympic medical staff. They tried to syringe out more blood from the clot and inject it with cortisone, and three days before the race she ran for about 25 minutes with Gary and myself in the Olympic village and made the decision to go to the start line. She went to the line having lost the last two and a half weeks of training, and was psychologically down."

Seriously? Joyriders and a stone causing a blood abscess?

Then from Paula's biog:

"On Sunday 8 August we did our last training session..... Warming up, I felt a little tightness in the vastus medialis muscle in the quad in my left leg.....As soon as the run was completed, everything changed for the worse. The leg seized up and we couldn't get back to Gerard quick enough"

I agree with the other posters, I don't think that anything will be proved. And certainly not under the pre-2009 ABP situation. Still think the 2012 score is interesting for that reason. But things like this above just don't smell right. Follow your instincts. That's what we learnt from years with Lance. Too many questions.

"'My hematocrit and volume of red blood cells doesn't really change that much at altitude. My usual haematocrit is 39-42 no matter how long I spend at altitude and red blood count cell count never goes above 4,250,000'.

Then why train at altitude if it has no effect on red blood cell count. What is the purpose of training at that elevation.

Runners drop down in elevation to do speedwork.

You're right. It's always been clear that the pre-2009 samples can't be used for sanctioning purposes. All of these threads are more about the anonymous public determining Paula's legacy.What WADA can decide is whether the IAAF should have rightly considered the blood suspicious, and done more at that time to follow up the blood results.

1000 wrote:

“Let me be clear and reiterate what has already been stated by the Independent Commission as it relates to the ARD and Sunday Times reports regarding athletes’ blood values: no information in the leaked database from before 2009 – which was before the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was introduced – could ever be considered as doping, legally or otherwise.” -

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-09/statement-from-wada-director-general

Then you can't single out Paula. If it's all the data, then it's all the data for everyone (and not just clean Brits for example).I don't think it's necessary to make it public, in order to get an "independent group of multiple experts" to decide.

No, don't take anything personally. I don't think your views are so much extreme, as just not supported by the data and facts as much as you think. The set of facts you think you have to convict Paula, still (for me) carry a certain degree of uncertainty.I wish Ashenden and Parisotto would/could come forward and say, what Ross Tucker said, that Paula's "excuses" are plausible, or not. When I read their rebuttals, it seems to me that they are only talking about the health of the Russians (and who knows maybe Kenyans), and the lack of response of the IAAF. As scientists they could have at least agreed (or not) with the IAAF that the non-standardised approach before 2009 could lead to important measurement errors in the various blood parameters.

pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The problem with making the data public (besides the fact that it's personal health data) is the public is blood-thirsty for any semblance of evidence that "proves" their prejudices.

This is a typical personal attack suggesting anyone who disagrees with rekrunner's views is not credible because their views are "extreme."

If Ashenden and Parisotto state the likelihood doping were low, then that is fine. We're done. End of thread. More respect to Ms. Radcliffe as a once in a century athlete, likely GOAT.

Instead, we get a collection of misrepresentations and factual errors.

This is the viewpoint of WADA/UKAD/IAAF:

“…no information in the leaked database from before 2009 – which was before the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was introduced – could ever be considered as doping, LEGALLY or otherwise”

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-09/statement-from-wada-director-general

This is the viewpoint of Dr Michael Ashenden:

“Q20 John Nicolson: You are saying that not only is the science unambiguous since the passport system came in but the pre-2009 data, as I understand it from your paper, you say the previous methodology was also reliable. In other words, we have had hard evidence for a long, long time.

Dr Ashenden: There is no question in my mind. The IAAF deliberately set up a blood-testing protocol that was designed to establish longitudinal blood profiles. That is what it was for. There is no question that it was fit for purpose and so, yes, there has been this data that they could have acted on. I am aware of their comments where they do not believe that they could have but, frankly, that does not correspond with the evidence. The IAAF themselves have used data from before 2009 in support of the sanction. There are other examples where other federations have used blood data before 2009 to impose a sanction. So it is possible and it requires a will and requires a dedication and, as far as I can see, that has not been evident from the IAAF so far.”

“Q53 Chair: To be clear, you have been very specific and in your evidence, which we are going to publish, you have been clear that the IAAF’s position, which is that the pre-2009 blood values have no legal standing, is incorrect and indeed the IAAF itself have relied on those values in enforcement or legal proceedings?

Dr Ashenden: That is correct. I can elaborate for you a little if you would like, but what you are saying is correct.”

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/blood-doping-in-athletics/oral/21309.html

There will not be any sanctions. Records will stand. But from now on we will question her accomplishments. In 20 years, she will be viewed like Lasse Viren at best or Cierpinski at worst.

Reposting for rekrunner so he can find it.

How did she get 1 million pounds??????

The corruption is at an extremely high level.

During any interogation, when a person changes their story, they have basically admitted guilt without knowing it. The interviewer will then ask them to start the story over from scratch, so he can gather all the discrepancies from the initial story. its also a bad idea to go back and add on to a story at the end. That also signals a higher probability of guilt. Paula has changed her story and added on to it after her initial story. She's probably confident that she can manipulate and dodge her way out of this. Let's hope the envelope keeps being pushed. That's less likely with that fraud master Coe at the helm of an already corrupt organization.

This is amazing testimony, indeed.The WADA/UKAD/IAAF is correct that the rules were not there.Ashenden testifies that the IAAF lacked the will to prosecute anyway, beyond the rules, because the evidence was strong enough to stand on its own, perhaps in the hopes of setting new legal precedents, because they used the values before in other cases (not on its own).Both are right, the WADA/UKAD/IAAF with the facts, and Ashenden with his passionate opinion that nothing is ever enough.I note again, he's speaking generally, and not necessarily about Paula.If we prosecuted Paula using post-2009 ABP rules, it's likely in Paula's case:- It would be flagged in a first expert review, the kind of review that Ashenden and Parisotto did (maybe not even that, if altitude was marked on external forms)- Then dismissed in subsequent reviews, as explanations of dehydration, less than 2 hours post-race, previous altitude or oxygen tent, calibration and brand of test equipment, introduced plausible uncertainties.Recall Paula's samples are marginally below the "altitude" threshold (in 2 cases) and marginally above in 1 case. This is not like Shobukhova, whose values ranged from 137 to 155, while dropping drastically off-season.

Thanks for that. Sorry I went to bed...

Pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:

Reposting for rekrunner so he can find it.

You make a few good points about looking at the values of other athletes and seeing if they had errors as well.

But I would not say Paula's story changed in regards to the lab error. When I talked to her in Beijing and/or her husband before Beijing one of the thinge they said to me was that some of the values were so low they didn't make sense, that the equipment had been off. So I had heard that before the Sunday Mail story. I got the impression some of the tests were just done at a local hospital back then (maybe the Portugal one). .That things weren't as standard.

As for Paula saying these weren't important races I had interpreted that to be more these weren't her most impressive performances ( her WR marathons stand out for me).

As for the 2005 World Championships from a layman's perspective I don't see how the evidence means she blood doped instead of just getting tested when she was dehydrated. If the Sunday Mail is correct Paula has a normal off score of 92 on August 5th. The 10k final was the next day and afterwards when she was blood tested (which is not something WADA does now) and had an off score of 109.

So people supporting the blood doping scenario would believe she was clean the day before the race, but sometime between that blood test and the race the next day, she blood doped and still finished 9th in 30:42. I have no idea when the best time to do a transfusion would be but would it be that close to a race? Mabye so. But if that's the case, then when she was racing a week later she had a much more normal off score of 102 and won the marathon. So all of the people saying she had to be a doper do you think she didn't dope up again before the marathon where she ran much better? Or does it stay with you for a while. I have no idea.

This is why I think a scientists needs to look at all of this, but from a layman's perspective what Paula told me passes the plausibility test. She said she was tested before Worlds and had a normal score. After the 10k, she didn't medal and was pissed off and was tested immediately after the race (she wouldn't have to go to a medal ceremony). After the marathon, she would have had a medal ceremony and what not and more interviews and been tested longer after the race so I could believe that score being lower than the 10k if being tested close to the race leads to a higher score. I'm just saying to a non scientist that is totally plausible. Both tests were taken after the race and higher than her test the day before the 10k. Plus when you throw in WADA doesn't use blood values within 2 hours of competition, there must be a reason they don't test during this time period.

The 2009 test doesn't concern me. She was injured I believe and coming off of altitude. If she was doping then, she'd likely have a high off score a ton of the time.

I'd like to hear thoughts on the specific tests and dates and when the optimal time all of the detractors think would be to dope for the 10k/marathon double.

So what are you saying? That Paula was afraid of getting busted in 2004 so she faked an injury? But in 2003 and 2005 at World Championships she had no concerns and doped her way to glory. That isn't a consistent story unless the Olympic drug testing in 2004 was completely different than 2003 and 2005.

***I mispoke I said the 2009 test didn't conern me. The last high score was in 2012 not 2009, which doesn't concern me. Paula wasn't in shape then so much less of a concern.

I'm really just making an observation that this is another case of stories that don't match and then being changed. We all know people who are 'economical with the truth' and this is the pattern of their behaviour. Why is Gerard Hartmann telling this story when Paula has a completely different history about her injury pre-Athens? It's not something you would forget about. It's exactly the kind of things that makes me suspicious. Does it not make you just a little bit suspicious Wejo? (Just like using one story ('altitude') and then suddenly not using that story or like the score of 82 was due to being ill, weak & dehydrated due to food-poisining and taking antibiotics and then now it must be a faulty machine.)

And yes, it is something that would provide cover for her, if down the line, people were questioning her blood values. It's a factor that compllicates and blurs the situation. Obfuscation is classic behaviour for people who do not tell the truth. It means that she goes to visit Hans, and gets 'anti-inflammatory' injections. Looking back through her history there are lots of these type of things. The spider bite that she had pre-Olympics in 2008. A dog bit her at some point. Crashing into the kid on the bike etc.

As for her 'regular' off-score, we have no idea what this is, as she has not released her values. Is 82 super low? We have no idea. If her regular scores were in the mid-90s then perhaps her high scores are then not so high? Similarly we have no idea what her scores were 'normally' after periods of altitude training.

We always have to remember that Lance never failed a drug test, even when he was doping the whole time. That's why the ABP was introduced, to use something which showed indirect evidence of doping, rather than direct proof of EPO use. In 2003 & 2005 she was tested before the events - did she expect to then be re-tested a few days later? Perhaps not.

And no way can you discard the score in 2012. She was desperately trying to get herself fit for the 2012 Olympics. Whether she was in shape then or not is totally irrelevant.

rekrunner wrote:

- Then dismissed in subsequent reviews, as explanations of dehydration, less than 2 hours post-race, previous altitude or oxygen tent, calibration and brand of test equipment, introduced plausible uncertainties..

Not necessarily because the explanations are now being changed and are inconsistent and may in themselves not be a plausible explanation for the abnormal tests. This is especially so for the Portugal tests if it is proven that the lab equipment was not faulty with test results from other athletes in the race.

rekrunner wrote:

Recall Paula's samples are marginally below the "altitude" threshold (in cases) and marginally above in 1 case. This is not like Shobukhova, whose values ranged from 137 to 155, while dropping drastically off-season.

These are only for the very limited number of samples that we know about. PR has straight up refused to release all of her blood data to the public (unlike Farah and some other British athletes). This in itself is suspicious and for all we know many of PR's other samples may be more incriminating.

P.S. You have stated in other threads that you remain to be convinced that EPO/blood doping is particulalrly effective for improving distance running performance. So why are you posting so much on this thread? I would have though that it would not really matter to you as distance runners doing such things would not be gaining any unfair advantage.

Altitude training was not a factor for her abnormal test results.

“Sportsmail learned that some of Radcliffe’s blood data, not in the public domain, appeared to contradict any assertion that altitude was an explanation for her three unusual off-scores.This newspaper established that the three unusual scores had been recorded on October 4, 2003 at the half-marathon world championships in Vilamoura, Portugal (the 115 reading, or 114.87 to be precise), on August 6, 2005 at the athletics world championships in Helsinki (109.87), and in an out-of-competition test in Monte Carlo on February 7, 2012 (109.35).

Sportsmail also discovered Radcliffe had given blood samples on October 2, 2003 in Portugal and on August 5, 2005 in Helsinki that effectively ruled out altitude being a primary factor in the high off-scores very soon afterwards.

The interpretation of blood data in athletes in an immensely complicated and technical business, but an off-score of 82 recorded on October 2, 2003 meant an off-score of 115 two days later wasn’t down to altitude (or else the 82 would have been far higher); and an off-score of 92 on August 5, 2005 meant an off-score of 109 the next day wasn’t down to altitude for the same reasons.

Radcliffe believes, and the IAAF report agrees, that testing too close to the end of a race can give an elevated off-score."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3337824/Paula-Radcliffe-explains-innocence-blood-doping-allegations-says-testing-fault-unusual-results.html

“P.S. You have stated in other threads that you remain to be convinced that EPO/blood doping is particularly effective for improving distance running performance.”

https://youtu.be/m38WqCxEaLk?t=42m4s

I played this game last night with my girlfriend. I had her read out loud one of Paula's interviews (in a proper British accent). Every time she said one of these phrases, I'd yell "EPO" and she'd have to remove an article of clothing.For some reason I had thought this would be sexy. It wasn't.By her third "Lord Coe," she was down to her panties, but I was totally revolted. I fled the room before I puked, and then went and yanked it to that video of Michelle Jenneke.

Bobble Head Bingo wrote:

This is brilliant. Bobble Head Bingo. A new drinking game to play every time she's interviewed.

just sayin wrote:

To summarize:

Prevent dopers getting valuable info

Protect other athletes

My children

Paris terror attacks

Dehydration

Blackmail

Faulty equipment

Bad timing of test

Sickness

Altitude

MRI lie detector test

Data is complicated

Data can be misunderstood

Lord Coe

IAAF