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

Sensible post Larkimm. Agree that she will never be 'tried' for any doping offence. But Paula is trying to spin it so that she was never in that 'suspicion threshold'. Most sensible people on here understand that she was. If she wants to get herself removed from the aura of suspicion then, contrary to what she has said, then she has to release more data and clear up some of the questions I posed above, to be convincing.

I understand your interpretation of the 'suspicion threshold' but when you see Shobukhova's off-scores of 150, before she could get prosecuted under the ABP (remember she never failed a test for EPO) do you really have the same generous conclusion about her (that she needs to be talked to and tested more) or do you come to a conclusion? Don't forget that USADA could never actually pin Lance down on failing any tests but had to come to a 'reasoned decision' - if they had been timid enough to just keep with the rules Lance would still be a 7 time TDF winner.

Has anyone stopped to think that the reason that the IAAF data was leaked was in order to prompt the enquiries into Diack / Russia etc etc (surely it was)?

That it wasn't designed to "out" Paula as a doper, its main aim was to ensure that the stalled, covered up, delayed etc sanctions against Russian athletes (caused by corruption) was actually discovered?

Paula's data, much as this thread might think otherwise, is a sideshow and probably wasn't the reason why this data was leaked. No doubt I'll get accused of being a Paula sympathiser, but if the intent of this report was to "get" Paula, the investigative journos and whistle-blowers would have done a much, much better job of it.

Much to many people's annoyance, I know, the IC report has effectively done something to restore some faith in the IAAF's practices, and the WADA experts (according to the report) have confirmed that the IAAF's approach to following up blood anomalies was very thorough. To my mind, that includes the way that they handled Paula's situation. It doesn't exonerate her (all athletes live in that world - they can only say they haven't taken anything, and haven't tested positive; there is nothing else they can do to exonerate themselves).

I'll continue to lurk on this thread, but I think I'll sign off now. I continue to remain of the belief that Paula is clean, but I know I'm in the minority of posters in this thread that believe that. Not much I can do about that though, is there?

Who's paying rekrunner to troll this thread?

That's all i want to know

You wrote "ALL" in capital letters. When we are talking about the possibility of an athlete doping I take this to mean all values over the entire career of the athlete. That is the best one can do to. Besides it is still not clear whether all of the parties you state have seen all samples over the time frame you specify- when you have referred to the Sunday Times you have talked about them having just 10 values which is not very much for an 11-year time frame.

Preisdent Lord Coe used the term "failed organization" and he was not more specific. If you look at the IAAF, there has been extortion of money from athletes to cover up drug test results with the treasurer of the organization involved and the former president apparently being aware of this. The former president and his family have been involved money laundering, corrupt sponsorship deals among other things. There has been corruption and bribery involved in the bids for major championships. The list goes on and I think you can stretch the term "failed organization" to the entire organization in this case.

Wherever these pesky investigative journalists seem to snoop in the IAAF, they find yet more cases of corruption. You have been critical of the press in this thread but if it wasn't for these pesky journalists or French police (remember that it took French police to start kicking in doors of the homes and hotels of riders to reveal the extent of doping that was going on in cycling), we would know nothing about all this.

You seem to feel satisfied that the IAAF have dealt with the doping issue satisfactorily. As you say they seemed able to detect doping all right. The problem lies in what they did about it: they used positive tests as a means of making more money via extortion. When journalists such as Seppelt started to uncover what was going on, the IAAF started banning more Russian athletes. This move looked like they were papering over the cracks. If you feel satisfied about this, then you should be asking yourself these sorts of questions: For how many years was someone like Shobukhova allowed to compete while flunking biological passport tests? How much money was she effectively cheating others out of during this time? Have there been any moves to pay this money back?

In my opinion (and I don't think that I am alone here), the regulation of anti-doping by the IAAF has been a disgrace.

Lance’s story is relevant because it was at first seen as a trial by French journalists if you go back to 1999 (which was touted by the UCI as clean start for the sport after the 1998 Festina affair). And the journalists were ridiculed by some –remember all the jokes about French police and soap and deodorant being banned in France? Eventually team mates talked. Doping is a very private and intimate practice but cycling is a sport where you have teams of a few very close nit riders sharing hotel rooms for several weeks during an event such as the Tour de France. Furthemore, because the performance of the riders in the team is crucial to the outcome of the race there will be pressure not on just an individual rider but on the whole team to dope. Thus due to the very nature of cycling you will have more people who can directly witness doping going on in other competitors if it is happening. So it is no surprise that many people did eventually start talking about Lance (especially given his behavior towards others). But even then he would still have got away with it if he did not come back in 2009.

Running in comparison is a far more individual sport, and doping, if it is happening, can take place pretty much at an individual level, and you will have far less people who will have directly witnessed it happening. Even for distance runners who have tested positive you do not hear anywhere near the same amount of allegations in the press or from competitors in the years prior to the bust.

Have other endurance athletes also produced such values only through altitude training/dehydration?

So you seem to be suggesting that it is likely there are also other issues in PR’s blood test data besides the 3 unusual/borderline values, and this is why these data are not being released to the public.

impetus wrote:

Who's paying rekrunner to troll this thread?

That's all i want to know

Grow up kid.

larkimm wrote:

(all athletes live in that world - they can only say they haven't taken anything, and haven't tested positive; there is nothing else they can do to exonerate themselves).

Think I will do the same as you Larkimm, and sign off for now so I don't spend too much time on this thread. But just to take you up on the point above - there is WAY more that Paula could do to exonerate herself (see all the questions I raised above). If you're not guilty, release everything.

Fuentes, Hartmann and Ealing Hans really had that magic touch!

2:15...

Fair enough. I hope PR is clean but there are questions. Some posters like to imply that all experts have cleared Paula but that seems to overstate it and is a bit disingenuous.

Nothing will come of this.Time to let it go of the whole era and focus on current runners. Due to the incompetence and corruption, there will always be questions about the era.

Not the last name I used wrote:

Some posters like to imply that all experts have cleared Paula but that seems to overstate it and is a bit disingenuous.

.

No experts have cleared Paula, other than Saugy, and his job was covering up

Guardian:

"In the TV programme, Tygart said he asked Saugy: "Did you give Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel the keys to beating EPO tests?"

"And he nodded to say: 'Yes,'" Tygart said. "He explained to them, just the two of them. As far as I know, it's unprecedented. It's completely wrong to meet an athlete with a suspect result and explain to him how the test works."

Paid by anyone?

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

Not Radcliffe. Not paid by Radcliffe.

wejo emailed me last week asking for more information about plasma shift. Hopefully he will pass this on to her this week.

This is a subject that none of you self appointed experts have taken any serious interest in.

This shows your bias against PR.

There are some serious personality disorder types on this thread, not interested in facts, just made up stuff.

fred wrote:

Not the last name I used wrote:

Some posters like to imply that all experts have cleared Paula but that seems to overstate it and is a bit disingenuous.

.

No experts have cleared Paula, other than Saugy, and his job was covering up

Guardian:

"In the TV programme, Tygart said he asked Saugy: "Did you give Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel the keys to beating EPO tests?"

"And he nodded to say: 'Yes,'" Tygart said. "He explained to them, just the two of them. As far as I know, it's unprecedented. It's completely wrong to meet an athlete with a suspect result and explain to him how the test works."

Papa Diack email to Coe's assistant describes Saugy as a "fix it" guy should their other plans to keep Russia in competition fail. Positives have been reviewed by the "Lausanne lab" (Saugy) before and miraculously found to be false positives for whatever reason someone dreamed up.

BTW, Saugy was unnamed in Radcliffe's official statement/excuses marathon that failed basic fact checking. I thought that was odd, but the official response was very poorly planned and that fits right into it.

Interesting that Saugy was also the IAAF representative when bernies B sample was struck out

Seems a little suspicious in hindsight

plasma shift wrote:

wejo emailed me last week asking for more information about plasma shift. Hopefully he will pass this on to her this week.

This is a subject that none of you self appointed experts have taken any serious interest in.

This shows your bias against PR.

There are some serious personality disorder types on this thread, not interested in facts, just made up stuff.

I would be very surprised if he did that, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I await your referenced studies demonstrating hypovolemia in endurance athletes. Indeed, the actual reason or purpose for blood plasma volume 'shift' is not fully understood, anyone who claims otherwise is clearly no expert.

But lets entertain your concept of blood plasma shifting to the extravascular space, thereby concentrating haemoglobin and causing Paula (and only Paula, nobody else experiences this) to give elevated and false measurements.

The negative consequences of hypovolemia include:

Decreased endurance capacity

Diminished stroke volume (cardiac output)

Decrease in aerobic performance

Hardly the sort of physiology that allows someone to win the world half marathon championship.

Furthermore, from

"Expansion of blood volume (hypervolemia) has been well documented in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies as a consequence of endurance exercise training"...

"The hypervolemia may provide advantages of greater body fluid for heat dissipation and thermoregulatory stability as well as larger vascular volume and filling pressure for greater cardiac stroke volume and lower heart rates during exercise"...

This article, like so many others contradicts your point of view. If you are such an expert please educate us.

plasma shift wrote:

wejo emailed me last week asking for more information about plasma shift. Hopefully he will pass this on to her this week.

This is a subject that none of you self appointed experts have taken any serious interest in.

This shows your bias against PR.

There are some serious personality disorder types on this thread, not interested in facts, just made up stuff.

Ok, Jonny, keep saying the key phrases plasma shift and efficiency.

Maybe she can rewrite her biography with the new catch phrases.

"Hey man, it wasn't the drip line, it was the plasma shift."

plasma shift wrote:

This is a subject that none of you self appointed experts have taken any serious interest in.

This shows your bias against PR.

There is no special interest in the plasma shift because that effect was already included in the measurements discussed here and by Ross Tucker. Those data were the result of all processes happening under various conditions, just like Paula's data after 67 minutes of running at 21 - 24 C under scattered clouds. Nobody magically excluded the plasma shift from those hct/ret determinations!

The bias here is shown when people - including the IAAFs committee - pretend that it was 29 C or 30 C during that run, or when they compare her dehydration/plasma shift to that of other runners after running for three hours in real heat.

Note also Paula allegedly always drank so much that she'd never dehydrate...

I couldn't stay away.......

Wasn't it a mail from Coe's assistant (Nick Davies) to PMD, rather than the other way around, or am I missing something? I note what the IC first report said about Saugy and other suspicions, but I actually think that this 'plan B' quote in that email can be read in different ways - i.e. that they have somewhere else to test the samples if the WADA lab in Russia is discredited.

casual obsever wrote:

plasma shift wrote:

This is a subject that none of you self appointed experts have taken any serious interest in.

This shows your bias against PR.

There is no special interest in the plasma shift because that effect was already included in the measurements discussed here and by Ross Tucker. Those data were the result of all processes happening under various conditions, just like Paula's data after 67 minutes of running at 21 - 24 C under scattered clouds. Nobody magically excluded the plasma shift from those hct/ret determinations!

The bias here is shown when people - including the IAAFs committee - pretend that it was 29 C or 30 C during that run, or when they compare her dehydration/plasma shift to that of other runners after running for three hours in real heat.

Note also Paula allegedly always drank so much that she'd never dehydrate...

One test result that would be interesting as a comparison is after Paula's first world half marathon champs win in Vera Cruz, Mexico in Nov 2000. Very hot (30oC) and humid conditions.

Not sure if blood tests were done then by the IAAF (I have read that they started doing them regularly from 2001 onwards) but if there was a sample taken there, it would be interesting to see how that compares to the 2003 'suspicious' result.

Not the last name I used wrote:

Nothing will come of this.Time to let it go of the whole era and focus on current runners. Due to the incompetence and corruption, there will always be questions about the era.

In some ways I share your sentiments but I think that if someone has cheated then they should be outed even if they have long retired from competition. It was better that Armstrong was eventually outed rather than not being pursued at all after his retirement. Even if not much is done about things in terms paying back stolen prize money than at least people know that person was cheating.