rekrunner wrote:
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".
^This.
But I disagree with Paula's statement
"“She should have been banned for life, not rewarded by the World Anti-Doping Agency with a reduction in her ban,â€"
because confessions/coming forward etc. should imho be encouraged and rewarded.
The scope of the reports is not exonerating Paula's career, but discussing the 12000 blood values in the database, and the IAAF's related actions/inactions. The reports, and the organisations, will not exonerate suspicion of Paula completely, but only to the extent suspicion is based on the blood values between 2001-2012. People think I'm a fan of Paula, but I'm more a fan of science, and a correct interpretation of data. Scientists have already told us a lot about how to interpret the data, and potential sources of errors pre-2009.While you wait for journalists to ask, and Paula to answer, and Paula to publish the remaining values, there is a great deal of information already provided. One good starting point is the IAAF rebuttal (Nov. 27, 2015) -- not the rebuttal itself (if you think they are too much of a failed organisation to be trustworthy), but the many footnotes that point to the scientific papers. If you want answers, many already exist in the rebuttals, and in the supporting papers. This context can only improve the ability to interpret any new, or existing data.For example, we already know from several papers, that there is a fundamental scientific problem interpreting pre-2009 data using the post-2009 (1-in-100 and 1-in-1000) thresholds. The "sea-level" and "altitude" thresholds were calculated by scientists to give a certain predetermined acceptable low rate of "false positives". Since pre-2009 rules (for collection, transport, and analysis) did not prevent some effects known by scientists, and published in papers, to significantly impact the data, the rate of false positives will increase, and likewise, the cause for suspicion should decrease proportionally, when interpreting this data not conforming to the assumptions. These effects "break the model" created by scientists. They need to be estimated and cancelled, or an alternate model should be created, with new corresponding thresholds, or more simply, the data points should be rejected as unusable. These are things that scientists would do (and the Sunday Times did not do) to maintain the desired certainty of any conclusions.It should be noted that the IAAF rebuttal remains unchallenged by Ashenden/Parisotto and the WADA IC report. While it would have been stronger to address the Paula's case explicitly, and it's surely disappointing for Paula that they didn't, these experts had an opportunity to respond, and did not chose to contradict the IAAF's explanations, and determination that there is no case for her to respond to, and that the Sunday Times analysis was deficient and incomplete. This is not a very strong defense for Paula, but it least this supports that the case of Paula was not of sufficient interest to them.
DHT123 wrote:
Aggghhh, so frustrating to see so many people and some parts of the media treat the recent IC report as if it exonerated Paula from all suspicion. Yet again, as someone else posted, she has used the report to unilaterally clear herself from any suspicion. But nothing has changed, no more data has been released. Wejo - you have always said that you were certain more data would be released. Where is it?
What the IC report did do, is clear the IAAF from charges of inaction, and of not following up suspicious blood test results.
...
Sure there are other things to ask but this is taking too much time already!
For a change, I completely agree. I think Shobukhova was a victim multiple times: first forced to dope in order to complete, then forced to pay to cover it up, then sanctioned anyway. After reading about her treatment, I felt sorry for her, and the situation she was in. I think we cannot criticise her choices without fully appreciating the circumstances.Her cooperation helped ban 3 people for life, and 1 for 5 years. We should reward this, even if the Shobukhova's only came forward after they had nothing more to lose.Sanctions from testing have such a low success rate, and organisations have very little ability to compel witnesses and evidence, that we should reward as much "evidence" as we can from other voluntary means.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote: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".
^This.
But I disagree with Paula's statement
"“She should have been banned for life, not rewarded by the World Anti-Doping Agency with a reduction in her ban,â€"
because confessions/coming forward etc. should imho be encouraged and rewarded.
If the information could be explained innocently she would have published it.
Anyone with half a brain knows that
It's also readily apparent that she was being targetted and there were major doping suspicions behind the scenes for years
If the published suspicious values have plausible non-doping explanations, there is no value added in publishing the remaining blood values that even the Sunday Times did not find suspicious. Anyone with a full brain knows that.
Of course she was targeted like all the elite athletes in any event or sport are targeted.
Can you shed more light on these "apparent" "major doping suspicions" "behind the scenes"?
Where are are the famous frozen samples, paula?
EPO cheats out.
Off with her bobblehead wrote:
Where are are the famous frozen samples, paula?
EPO cheats out.
Good question, where are they?
Has it ever been reported if they are still available or been destroyed?
Wondering the same thing. wrote:
Good question, where are they?
Has it ever been reported if they are still available or been destroyed?
Or did they even exist in the first place?
The Telegraph:
"Then there is athletics. A promising junior himself, Fuentes worked with Spanish track and field in the Eighties, marrying the former *Olympic hurdler Cristina Pérez in 1988, shortly after she had tested positive. Pérez gave a rare interview in 2008 in which she described herself as a “Pandora’s Box†which, if opened, “could bring down sportâ€, hinting darkly at the truth behind Barcelona 1992."
Off with her bobblehead wrote:
Where are are the famous frozen samples, paula?
EPO cheats out.
Wondering the same thing. wrote:
Good question, where are they?
Has it ever been reported if they are still available or been destroyed?
Rekrunner got rid of them.
Times Live - January 12, 2016
"In the coming days - it is unclear when exactly, but some time this month - Madrid's Provincial Court will release its verdict on the appeals lodged by, among others, the World Anti-Doping Association and the International Cycling Union against the destruction of the almost 200 blood bags that have been stored here as part of the Operación Puerto anti-doping probe."
rekrunner wrote:.... there is a great deal of information already provided. ...
No, not really. There are carefully selected points... That Paula's official rebuttal explicitly misrepresented. Good thing Saugy thinks her scores are just fine...
If we are to believe her own biography, it is as simple as permitting discussion of her very frequent and carefully tracked scores..... Why wouldn't she permit discussion of her scores? She's clean, right?
Although Paula famously asked for the samples to be frozen and re-tested in 2002, it's not clear to me that any organization went out of their way to accomodate the request, specifically for her. But eventually they adopted the strategy generally for all. It looks like the IAAF only started the strategy of long-term storage and retesting in 2005.The IAAF retested the 2005 Helsinki samples in 2012, catching 6 athletes, and again in 2015 (along with Osaka 2007), catching 28 more athletes.Paula's sample from the world championship on 14 Aug. 2005 was thawed and re-tested in Nov. 2012. It came back negative.
They're gone but not forgotten wrote:
Off with her bobblehead wrote:Where are are the famous frozen samples, paula?
EPO cheats out.
Wondering the same thing. wrote:
Good question, where are they?
Has it ever been reported if they are still available or been destroyed?
Rekrunner got rid of them.
Huh? The information that has surfaced in the past year looks quite broadly comprehensive. Just the scientific papers alone, many authored by Ashenden and Parisotto, we learn:- how the off-score model was developed- factors that can influence off-scores, like gender, and altitude- how something as simple as machine brands can lead to inter-method bias, and how to compensate for the bias- even the same machine can produce fluctuating values if not quality controlled (Ashenden observed in the "intermethod bias" study that the Sysmex machine produced bad values between weeks 34-39, until the machine was recalibrated in week 40 -- these values were discarded)- how drawing blood sitting versus standing can impact blood values- how racing or intense workouts, especially in warm weather, can impact plasma, leading to a 2-hour rule- the many steps in the ABP process, and the external set of data that must be considered in addition to the blood values, like doping control forms, quality control and calibration data, and ultimately athlete explanations, before an expert panel.Do you have any examples of glaring omissions from these "carefully selected points"?I just re-read Paula's official rebuttal, and was unable to find any example of explicity misrepresentations of the science. Can you be more specific?Saugy didn't actually comment on the scores (which anyway did not exist in 2003, and were only put into place in 2009). If anything, he thinks the scores are "not fine" due to nonstandardized processes. He observed "confounding factors" in the 2003 samples. Any analysis ignoring the confounding factors would be "abusive". The data was collected using several technologies. Any longitudinal analysis over the periods 2001-2008 would be "intellectually dishonest" and "scientifically biased". These observations are not wrong. This is why a discussion of scores (a post-2009 measure) between 2001-2008 (before standardized procedures were in place) would be meaningless, if not unfairly counter-productive.Paula advocated publishing expert test results, not raw data, unfiltered by experts.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:.... there is a great deal of information already provided. ...No, not really. There are carefully selected points... That Paula's official rebuttal explicitly misrepresented. Good thing Saugy thinks her scores are just fine...
If we are to believe her own biography, it is as simple as permitting discussion of her very frequent and carefully tracked scores..... Why wouldn't she permit discussion of her scores? She's clean, right?
rekrunner wrote:
Huh? The information that has surfaced in the past year looks quite broadly comprehensive. Just the scientific papers alone, many authored by Ashenden and Parisotto, we learn:
- how the off-score model was developed
- factors that can influence off-scores, like gender, and altitude
- how something as simple as machine brands can lead to inter-method bias, and how to compensate for the bias
- even the same machine can produce fluctuating values if not quality controlled (Ashenden observed in the "intermethod bias" study that the Sysmex machine produced bad values between weeks 34-39, until the machine was recalibrated in week 40 -- these values were discarded)
- how drawing blood sitting versus standing can impact blood values
- how racing or intense workouts, especially in warm weather, can impact plasma, leading to a 2-hour rule
- the many steps in the ABP process, and the external set of data that must be considered in addition to the blood values, like doping control forms, quality control and calibration data, and ultimately athlete explanations, before an expert panel.
What this demonstrates is that Ashenden and Parisotto are very well aware of potential confounding factors yet still found the pre-2009 values to be highly suspicious and potentially dangerous to athlete health.
These are the two leading experts, highly reputable, and you think they have put their names to something without context. If that was true you would have heard them criticize the Sunday Times reporting a long time ago and admitted their analysis was performed with insufficient information. Shobukhova had a crazy off-score of 150, if ever there was a time to claim faulty equipment surely that would be it! Sorry but If the data is good enough to implicate the Russians then it's good enough for Paula.
[quote]rekrunner wrote:
Paula advocated publishing expert test results, not raw data, unfiltered by experts.
[quote]
You're new to science, right?
The essence of science is you publish the raw data in full so others (which can include academics and citizen scientists) can verify that they reach the same conclusions.
rekrunner wrote:
Paula's sample from the world championship on 14 Aug. 2005 was thawed and re-tested in Nov. 2012. It came back negative.
You just made this up!
just sayin wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Paula's sample from the world championship on 14 Aug. 2005 was thawed and re-tested in Nov. 2012. It came back negative.
You just made this up!
I won't go that far, but a link to prove this claim would be nice.
Paula gets an on-air F2F apology from the MP who, during a UK parliamentary enquiry on doping and the IAAF, indirectly suggested that she was one of the athletes with suspicious off-scores:
This was a claim I was able to make after a 5 minute google search trying to answer "where are the frozen samples?". Everyone is able to do this research on their own.IAAF rebuttal, Nov. 27, 2015, page 20:"5.6.6 Furthermore, the urine sample collected from Ms Radcliffe when she became marathon world champion on 14 August 2005 was re-analysed by the IAAF seven years later, in November 2012, using the then most up-to-date techniques for rEPO detection. Once again, it tested negative for rEPO."Link to the report can be found in this announcement:http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/iaaf-response-blood-testingin case this link to the PDF doesn't work:www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=e07852d9-7ae6-4452-96d0-e0924baf6940.pdf&urlslug=%20IAAF%20blood-testing%202001-2012%3A%20IAAF%E2%80%99s%20response%20to%20allegations%20of%20blood%20doping%20in%20athleticsAlso:http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/positive-retests-helsinki-2005-osaka-2007
Evidence please wrote:
just sayin wrote:You just made this up!
I won't go that far, but a link to prove this claim would be nice.