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

DHT123 wrote:

One thing that jumped back out at me was this - 'One of the main drawbacks of the population based limits is that they are not appropriate for all individuals. The distribution of blood based variables such as HGB and reticuloytes and affected by heterogeneous factors such as age, gender and ethnicity and, therefore, not particular set of limits will be perfectly suited to each individual....... overcoming this caveat had been one of the main motives for developing the passport approach of calculating 'personalized limits' for each individual'.

So what were Paula's 'personalized limits' for the ABP? One assumes that the 2012 sample exceeded them, unless it wouldn't have needed to be followed up as 'suspicious'. Does this mean that the 2003 and 2005 also exceeded these 'personalized limits'? Which samples helped to form what these 'personalized limits' were ?

We can't calculate Paula's personalized limits because she wont release all of her data.

It is a well known drawback of the ABP, rather than a new finding. In theory they would be able to look at an individual athletes distribution of test results and determine if it is outside their individual 'normal' range. This is the premise for the ABP. The problem is individual athletes are not tested enough to build up statistically robust distributions, then they throw in confounding factors like altitude training. It's just not possible to be sure with the current state of play. The obvious solution is more testing = more data points = better statistics.

So instead they use a whole population distribution to set initial thresholds, one for females and one for males. This is not ideal because it doesn't account for ancestry, race and other variables, but it does give an indication if someone requires more testing/investigation.

As an example, if I was tested 100 times and always had an offscore between 110 and 120, I would trigger an investigation, but they would look at my personal distribution and see it was 'normal' for me and I may be spared targeted testing. How many athletes have enough data points to build up a reliable distribution?

The athletes exposed by the Sunday Times had large variations in their test results, as well as scoring over threshold.

The most important finding to come from the report is that the IAAF were extorting athletes, so you could give the doping agencies all the money in the world, you could be 100% certain of doping, and it wouldn't make a difference. Corrupt officials were covering up doping.

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...

Ross Tucker's did very little research. He knows almost nothing about the subject.

Sorry for typo. Ross Tucker only showed research that shows plasma at a more or less constant level. However we all know that sometimes, the heart rate drifts higher 10 beats or more. This indicates a reduction in stroke volume caused by a shift of plasma to the skin. And the figures we are talking about are not extreme at all.

It's possible some real human has some extraordinary performance trait, but WADA's process actually accounts for this in several different ways. Their extraordinary natural scores become a baseline by which future tests are analyzed using Bayesian stats. I'm a pessimist and believe the point is to confuse the reader.

Except, WADA has no authority to do anything with positive tests. WADA is a standards making and standards enforcing NGO, that's all. The WADA system specifies test handling.

Test results are shared with the testing authority and the athlete. It's up to the testing authority to pass the positives they want sanctioned to the athlete's national federation, then the national federation passes it to the National Anti-doping Agency. The only thing not-processing a positive means is the federation is not WADA compliant. No sanctions.

Except the whole point of National Anti-doping agencies is to manage ABP cases. The national federation should pass the positive off to the NADO and let the NADO work. More misdirection.

That's not going to happen. Rio press credentials would be at risk. Besides, it's a bunch of uninteresting policy that doesn't make a good story.

pops, blah blah blah. Enough of the politics, what about plasma shift.

Care to learn some actual physiology?

Yeah, plasma shift only happens to white distance runners named Paula Radcliffe.

She is a joke and an embarrassment. The truth haunts her as it did at Athens 2004.

THANK GOD SHE NEVER WON AN OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL.

plasma shift wrote:

pops, blah blah blah. Enough of the politics, what about plasma shift.

Care to learn some actual physiology?

Ahh, but the politics enable the doping.

Revisiting your claims that crazy off scores are possible due to altitude, you were wrong the first time and that hasn't changed. The changes in Radcliffe's scores were many multiples greater than the research you cited.

Your methods are to pollute the thread with nonsense like personal attacks. I'm not optimistic that's changing.

Personal attacks?

So my defence of Paula Radcliffe against your attacks makes me the troll?

Please shut up and go away. Or learn some real actual physiology.

Paula did not dope or take any blood transfusions. You can't accept that a woman can run so much faster than you.

Paula... The only athlete who has saturated the press for days with summed down info every time there has been a press conference. The only one who has come out so staunchly in support of Coe. An anti doping advocate sitting on an IAAF panel with Khalid Skah... It's ridiculous.

plasma shift wrote:

Ross Tucker only showed research that shows plasma at a more or less constant level.

This is exactly the point: he showed examples of somewhat comparable situations, and no plasma shift was observed. Then you conclude that Tucker doesn't know about the plasma shift, while I conclude that plasma is not relevant in such a situation...

1) "A group of well-trained women ran in moderate conditions (21C) for 80 minutes,"

"Note both the hematocrit and hemoglobin values – they actually go DOWN, not up. That’s the result of plasma volume expansion"

2) "Six men ran for 2.5 to 3 hours in moderate (22C) conditions,"

"So, on average, losing 4% of your body mass increases the hemoglobin concentration by 1.6 g/dL. The most extreme case (of this admittedly small group of six) increased hemoglobin concentration by 2.2 g/dL (Subject 3). Similarly, hematocrit increases by 1.6%, with a maximum increase of 3.2% (Subject 4)."

We know that Paula ran 67 minutes in 21 - 24 C, depending on the source, so I'd expect her case to be closer to scenario 1) than to scenario 2). Either way: no significant plasma shift.

Add to that that Paula had 60 - 90 minutes (again, depending on the source) after the race to re-hydrate, whereas the data above were taken directly after the run.

For her story to be true, she would have to be the most seriously dehydrated person of all the cases above, although her race was much shorter (67 minutes vs. 150 - 180 minutes), she had time to re-hydrate, she won the race, and she used to pride herself of never racing into dehydration. Or faulty equipment...

Finally, a graphic comparison of the off-scores of British female athletes:

Sorry, meant to write:

... plasma SHIFT is not relevant in such a situation...

It's not relevant, Jonny. You're the one with the phunny fizzyology. You better go back to hyping the neuromechanical efficiency.

Radcliffe is a doper. That is a fact. Everything else about this thread is just fog obscuring the fact that Radcliffe is a doper.

You don't know what plasma shift is. Neither does Tucker.

jon orange, you are hopelessly outgunned.

Just chanting plasma shift over and over again shows no understanding and does not convince anybody.

I gave a more detalied explanation several weeks ago on this thread. I'm not repeating it for ignorant people like so many who have posted their BS on this thread.

I gave wejo more information. I emailed him in December, he replied a few days ago and asked for more information, since he was hoping to meet up with Paula this week.

Has Paula said/tweeted anything in support of the Stepanovs? For somebody so much in support of clean sport you think she would honor this couple who have done so much, at great personal cost, to expose corruption and drug cheating.

#EPOCheatsOut

Grow up and stop trolling.

Yes. Vitaliy is "brave", but Yuliya is "a cheat who was caught and tried to make it better", who "regained credibility" by coming forward, but is "still a cheat".http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/11/paula-radcliffe-uk-athletics-world-records-rejectsExcerpt:Meanwhile Radcliffe says she strongly disagrees with the media portrayal of the Russian marathon runner Liliya Shobukhova andher agent Andrey Baranov as heroes after they went to the IAAF ethics commission to expose senior Russian Athletics and IAAF officials for extorting her of €450,000.“You guys are calling her a victim, that makes my blood boil every day,” she said. “She’s not a heroic whistleblower. It makes me angry. She didn’t do the right thing.“She should have been banned for life, not rewarded by the World Anti-Doping Agency with a reduction in her ban,” she added. “And her agent Andrey Baranov should be out for life too. having had 28 athletes that he manages banned. He should not allowed to be anywhere near the sport.”Radcliffe was more complimentary about Vitaliy Stepanov, a former employee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency Rusada, who also blew the whistle on the scale of the cheating in his country. But said she couldn’t completely forgive his wife and fellow whistleblower Yuliya, a former 800m runner, for doping during her career.“Vitaliy I get – he was a whistleblower and he was very brave,” she said. “But Yuliya was a cheat who was caught and tried to make it better. And yes, there’s some credibility regained coming forward the way that she did and giving the information that she did. But she was still a cheat.”

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Has Paula said/tweeted anything in support of the Stepanovs? For somebody so much in support of clean sport you think she would honor this couple who have done so much, at great personal cost, to expose corruption and drug cheating.

#EPOCheatsOut