OK, no tricks -- Both 16.2 and 0.77% are plausible values, in this context, for Paula, when combining both values together with her whole history, standing with all statements Paula ever made, including in her biography. Hb is high, but some doctors still consider it normal -- at SEA LEVEL. RET% is normal. Off-score, after 4 weeks at 2400m, followed by hypoxic device, is BELOW the altitude threshold of suspicion.It is an extremely high altitude sample -- higher than Paula had ever been trained when she wrote her biography -- which falls below the chosen criteria for suspicion.How are you seriously calling this "extremely high" or "extremely suspicious"? Is this why you are ROFL with each post? Because it's a joke?The 2012 sample review included this note: "the experts noted that this altitude exposure was a plausible explanation for the values reported for her 7 February 2012 sample, and so concluded that there was no basis to pursue the case".Despite your creative re-interpretation of a standard ABP protocol review, crafted to create the illusion of a stalemate within the panel of experts, the expert panel review conclusion agreed enough to note that "there is no basis to pursue this case".So in this light, where experts with access to all the data concluded "no basis to pursue", you creatively fabricate your own basis, by inventing a new way to establish a baseline for comparisons of Hb and RET%.Your 75% RET% difference is a comparison of a post-2009 (ABP controlled), post-altitude, out-of-competition value with pre-2009 (less stringent), post-altitude, in-season, end-of-season value.How can a relative comparison of these RET% values coming from completely different competition contexts, and ABP standards, possibly be meaningful?Given the normal range of 0.5%-1.5%, both 0.47% RET and 0.77% RET values are absolutely low values, something consistent with a post-altitude stay.0.47 was explained as being even lower than normal, because, besides post altitude, it was in-competition, at the end of the season, something well known to decrease RET% further.According to the two-hour rule, dehydration + strenuous exercise is only a factor for blood samples collected within two hours of the event.This was the case in 2003 and 2005 post-competition samples, with less stringent collection standards, but not for the out of competition sample in 2012.There is no connection, no implication, and no contradiction for me to "need it to be a huge factor" in 2003 and 2005, while it is a non-factor in 2012.Her anemia was something that was triggered by low-iron, something she addressed with exotic changes to her diet.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:D, E - What trick? I clearly considered both points. Do you just see half of what is written? Is that the whole problem here? Both 16.2 and 0.77% are reasonably likely, in this context, for Paula. I've given you references that show up to 16.5 g/dl is still considered normal "at sea level", and an adjustment for 2400m altitude can be "up to 1.4 g/dl" for female athletes. 16.2 is not extremely unlikely for females, but well within expectations for a female athlete, like Paula, after spending several weeks at 2400m. This is not only my opinion, but it was the conclusion of the analysis.
Let's start from the back. False, the experts in the end could not agree on a verdict, which by design let Paula off the hook. Fact. My guess: science against Saugy - but I'm curious to see other people's guesses. (At least that's the official version; she retired right after that decision.)
What trick? The trick that you write "Both 16.2 and 0.77% are reasonably likely, in this context, for Paula." without combining these two and her history.
First of all, 16.2 in itself is not "reasonably likely", because a) we know what Paule normally has, which is b) lower than 16.2 - 1.4 (the most extreme change you could find in one article), c) we know that Paula usually does not get about 15.6 after altitude + dehydration + strenuous exercise.
Low-15 is in line with the normal reaction to altitude, given there as an increase of 0.5 - 1.0. But then remember that Canova said that the best of the best don't get an Hb increase from altitude (but a migher affinity to O2), according to his measurements.
Second, we know that higher Hb caused by altitude goes along with lower ret-%, but this time is the record in Hb (by 4% despite the missing dehydration + strenuous exercise, which you need to be a huge factor to explain the other abnormal off-scores) and ret-% (by 75%!!).
So now, in order to have the 2012 values at least somewhat likely, you'd need to say that dehydration + strenuous exercise (I'm still laughing) are small factors, thereby admitting that Paula doped in 2003 and 2005.
And then don't forget her anemia. Lol.
