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

I've heard these arguments, yet there was enough control to catch 40+ Kenyans, without blood testing in Kenya.I'm prepared to listen to more arguments that go beyond speculation and conspiracy.

Clerk wrote:

...

The argument being made is that doping is more prevalent in East Africa because the controls are weaker; more athletes have access to epo from more rouge doctors, there is less deterrence from agents/coaches from doping. (Other arguments argue that the 2012 10k is a perfect example of the new fangled varieties. And even more arguments say that more top athletes can get away with these new fangled varieties more readily in East Africa because even there is even less risk due to weak controls.)

Huh? What smoking gun? I've already said twice that every athlete gets their results. It's not a secret. Renato just told us it's all available to the athlete in ADAMS -- the WADA online database.

Accountability wrote:

Yes, very nice, but how did Paula know the score of the test? Please address the smoking gun Gary.

Pathetic that the Paula camp has to put puppets like you on this thread.

Renato Canova wrote:

Cleans, China had for the national team a good budget for medical situations.

...

Thanks for the response, Renato. Very informative, and helps me to understand better these scenarios.

rekrunner wrote:

What I meant (and what I said) is that the relatively low scores around 110-115 looks like she is more guilty of altitude training, than doping, something we know she did regularly, and in 2003, 2005, and 2012, and many other years.

I get what you are saying, and it just re-inforces my earlier-stated belief that the ABP will only catch athletes who are amateurish and unsophisticated in how they blood dope.

Those who properly understand 'the process' can ensure that they don't register such whack scores. So the ABP won't draw attention to, let alone implicate, the blood dopers who know what they are doing.

One might reasonably argue that 1 ABP-related ban = 1 less doper on the track but, looking at distance running at large, the ABP has indirectly led to a bright light being shone on blood-change concepts such as the off-score, and I think Paula might have a view on how good that has been for her public image in particular, and the credibility of distance running as a whole.

Again, it's back to the sliding scale. If 110 is 'completely innocent' and 120 is 'guilty', the what is the cut-off value between the two judgements? And who decides it?

Is 115 'completely innocent' and 116 'guilty'? Brick-wall filter or sliding scale?

The altitude explanation has already been discounted for the highest off-score in 2003 ,after it was pointed out by journalists

that there hadn't been a spell of recent altitude training

Her latest explanation is the timing of the test,which is also open to doubt as an eyewitness account gives it at 1hr 30 post race

cleans wrote:

Again, it's back to the sliding scale. If 110 is 'completely innocent' and 120 is 'guilty', the what is the cut-off value between the two judgements?

Well, we have learned that 80 - 90 is normal, and that "the Russians" had 120 - 150, who were judged to have been blood-doping. Looking at Paula's 110 - 115 from far away, she appears as guilty, but not as the worst offender.

Looking at Paula's situation more closely, we find that her values can only be possible by a combination of the following:

- measurement errors

- she suffered much more from dehydration + plasma shift in 67 minutes than others after a marathon in comparable conditions, yet still dominated the world championship

- even a 10000 m race in Finland was long enough for her to suffer from severe dehydration

- she did not start rehydrating in the 60 - 90 minutes between race and test

- altitude stays, not doping, caused her HGB to skyrocket above 16 g/dl - literally unprecedented among female runners - without reducing RET-%, which stands against the references cited by IAAF.

Now, while all of the above may hypothetically be possible, I can't view that as plausible. It also stands against the claims that Paula was so superior because - among other things such as hard training - she always kept herself perfectly hydrated. And to suggest that her situation is not even "suspicious", because those things may be possible, is just laughable.

On top of that comes the suspicious behavior of Paula with her varying stories and outright lies a la "I raced at 30 C" (documented are 21 - 24 C) and "it was right after altitude" (now admitted to a few weeks) and "I was tested right after the race" (while that happened 60 - 90 minutes after). What's just plain outrageous here is that the IAAF supports these lies (e.g., "Ms Radcliffe has confirmed that the sample was collected just after she had just completed the IAAF World Half Marathon Championship in Vilamoura, Portugal in 29° heat"). Moreover, the IAAF document is full of statements a la "Ms Radcliffe has confirmed..." and "She noted that..." instead of providing evidence, such as "the weather station recorded..." or "Ms Radcliffe's airline tickets proved..."

or "witness xyz certified that...".

And the IAAF president? He had the audacity to declare that

a) he couldn't have known about the destroyed Russian samples and that coverup;

b) he can guarantee that none of Paula's samples were destroyed and that there was no coverup and that Paula was clean.

Evidently at least one of Coe's two statements was a lie.

rekrunner wrote:

What I meant (and what I said) is that the relatively low scores around What I meant (and what I said) is that the relatively low scores around 110-115 looks like she is more guilty of altitude training, than doping, something we know she did regularly, and in 2003, 2005, and 2012, and many other years.

OK.

Then why have there been so far no reports of other British female distance runners (who have also trained extensively at altitude) having at least one of those sorts of values in their blood readings?

testing wrote:

The altitude explanation has already been discounted for the highest off-score in 2003 ,after it was pointed out by journalists

that there hadn't been a spell of recent altitude training

Her latest explanation is the timing of the test,which is also open to doubt as an eyewitness account gives it at 1hr 30 post race

Aaaaaaand we're back to Paula's fundamental problem with facts and the truth.

Paula where are the famous frozen samples? And when exactly is the lie-detector test?

I've read through all the evidence presented here, and the fact is that Paula is guilty of doping.

British journalists got it wrong, because it makes a better story. Low RET% supports a claim of a recent stay at altitude. Unchanged RET% with an increase of RBC supports hemo-concentration.Whether you debate "immediately" versus "1h30", they both are too soon, and today the value would be completely discarded. You need to wait 2 hours.

testing wrote:

The altitude explanation has already been discounted for the highest off-score in 2003 ,after it was pointed out by journalists

that there hadn't been a spell of recent altitude training

Her latest explanation is the timing of the test,which is also open to doubt as an eyewitness account gives it at 1hr 30 post race

The ABP significantly raises the level of sophistication required, while at the same time reducing the magnitude of blood doping that is possible without detection, with much longer detection windows (weeks versus 12 hours). That's a big win-win-win situation. The drawback is it takes more time to develop a profile (therefore longer delays before bans). See the link I just provide earlier from the sports scientists:http://sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or-futile-failure/Scroll down to "Evidence of effectiveness – a fascinating graph", and look at the values after 2007 (for cycling).ABP bans are not the only benefit. Even if athletes are not caught, in cycling anyway, the ABP provided a significant deterrent effect, where all athletes are afraid to dope at the pre-ABP levels, just .Let's answer some of your questions:What is the cutoff? today's ABP uses an Adaptive Model (Bayesian statistical model) to determine the suspicious limits. The cutoff is different for everyone. But the higher you go, it becomes a question of probability. While plausible doubt can exist at the altitude threshold, for reasons "experts" know how to evaluate in context, that doubt shrinks significantly with multiple Shobukhova-like scores of 135-150, where even all errors in her favor cannot plausibly eliminate a strong likelihood. Shobukhova was caught by also analysing off-season scores, which dropped to "normal" levels.Who get's to decide? A panel of 3 blood-doping experts must unanimously agree.If you want to learn how to use the ABP, properly, read the IAAF response here, particularly section 2.12:http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/iaaf-response-blood-testingor if this works:http://www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=e07852d9-7ae6-4452-96d0-e0924baf6940.pdf&urlslug=%20IAAF%20blood-testing%202001-2012%3A%20IAAF’s%20response%20to%20allegations%20of%20blood%20doping%20in%20athleticsHighlights:- pre-2009 values were collected under different regulations (for a different purpose not requiring ABP accuracy), making them much less reliable for the kinds of comparisons done by the British journalists at the Sunday Times and amateurs at letsrun. Because of the looser regulations, the chance of false positives increases dramatically.- one or two points in isolation, even if they exceed the "suspicious" threshold, is not enough to make any determination. This threshold is not a "red flag" like an EPO test, where the bands can be clearly observed, but a "yellow flag" that indicates closer inspection of this point, within a profile, by experts is required. A panel of experts must determine if the blood was collected and tested "reliably", then look at these points in the context of the athlete (their blood profile formed by many points), and also consider all the external, non-doping factors that can impact both RBC and RET%, for all the points in the profile.- altitude training has predictable effects on both RBC and RET%. Transfusions have predictable effects. EPO has predictable effects. Heavy exercise in heat has predictable effects. This is part of the context necessary to evaluate the credibility of explanations.- there are many gates required to evaluate whether the values you are looking at are "true", and whether they are in fact "suspicious", and whether non-doping factors (supported by external documentation regarding both the process and the athlete) can explain the deviation. This is where the Sunday Times analysis falls far short.In case you don't read the links, here are some extracts:"There was an important improvement in the regulatory landscape for blood testing from 2009 onwards.""A number of blood samples are collected from an athlete over time; they are sent to a laboratory, where various parameters in the samples are measured (including haemoglobin concentration (HGB) and percentage of reticulocytes (RET%), which combined together produce an OFF-score); a longitudinal profile of that data is created; and a standardised Bayesian statistical model (the Adaptive Model) is used to predict the range into which the athlete’s future values would normally be expected to fall, assuming the athlete is healthy and not blood-doping. The Adaptive Model calculates the likelihood that future values falling outside that range would be observed in the absence of a medical condition or blood-doping, and if that likelihood is sufficiently small (e.g., no more than 1 in 1,000), then the profile is reviewed first by one and then by three experts, (i) to ensure that the samples have been collected, transported and analysed properly and consistently, so that the values reported are reliable and may be fairly compared from one sample to the next; and (ii) to consider the likelihood of other potential causes of the abnormal deviation from the other values in the profile (such as chance, altitude, recent exercise, a medical condition, etc.). If (but only if) the experts conclude that the values in the profile are reliable and fairly comparable, and that it is highly likely that the abnormal deviation is due to blood doping, and any other explanation is unlikely to be right, then the athlete is contacted and given an opportunity to raise any potentially relevant medical issues. If a medical explanation is offered, then it is sent to the experts to consider whether it is a plausible explanation for the abnormalities in the athlete's ABP profile. If (but only if) the experts consider any medical explanation given to be implausible, the athlete will be charged with blood doping."

They are all important.

Yawn wrote:

For him, 'Winning' the thread has become more important than being accurate, correct or informative

Do you have a list in mind of other British female athletes with samples in the pre-2009 timeframe that trained extensively at altitude, then being blood tested within two hours after a post-race effort?Generally speaking, training at altitude is a non-story. The Sunday Times selectively singled out one "famous British athlete" that was a "household name" for their own sensational reasons. No other British female athlete would generate this kind of sensation.

preciously jaded wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

What I meant (and what I said) is that the relatively low scores around 110-115 looks like she is more guilty of altitude training, than doping, something we know she did regularly, and in 2003, 2005, and 2012, and many other years.

OK.

Then why have there been so far no reports of other British female distance runners (who have also trained extensively at altitude) having at least one of those sorts of values in their blood readings?

rekrunner wrote:

ABP bans are not the only benefit. Even if athletes are not caught, in cycling anyway, the ABP provided a significant deterrent effect, where all athletes are afraid to dope at the pre-ABP levels, just .

This is a good point actually, I hadn't considered this.

cleans wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

ABP bans are not the only benefit. Even if athletes are not caught, in cycling anyway, the ABP provided a significant deterrent effect, where all athletes are afraid to dope at the pre-ABP levels, just .

This is a good point actually, I hadn't considered this.

This effect is overstated. There are probably some more points from the original posts, but just regarding the quotes pieces, there is as much statistical evidence that the ABP is a deterrent as the emergence of EPO improved performances. (take that for what you will rekrunner).

Still, cyclists are getting caught for EPO without tripping the passport. Still, investigations show that cyclists are working with doctors and their doping techniques without tripping the passport (Padova investigation, Leinders, et al)

Well The Mail inadvertently outed another of the three British athletes on that list by talking about another story from a previous Olympics in relation to that athlete. That athlete has g come out and given an explanation of her values yet. As for British runners not having similar scores, almost ALL the British endurance athletes of national level now have long periods at sltitude. The London Marathon/uka has 40 athlets in Kenya at the moment, and they d done this for several years yet nobody has comparable values to Paula.

She is protected by numerous people in the sport, the president of the IAAF, the relationship of her major sponsor and the governing body, her relationship with the broadcaster of athletics in the UK, her relationship with the 'establishment' of athletics here... Cram, Foster, BBC, Coe, etc...... This story will disappear because too many people have too much at stake.

Uk nafletics wrote:

Well The Mail inadvertently outed another of the three British athletes on that list by talking about another story from a previous Olympics in relation to that athlete.

Any link for this? I had a good search on the Mail website but couldn't find it. Thanks in advance.

Paula Radcliffe has been elected IAAF athletes' commission vice-chairwoman.

Well, well, well. Looks like there was a clear reason she avoided further investigation. The inside ring of Coe's favourites are untouchable. What a sham. We need to keep the pressure firmly on.

only off-scores that matter are for 2 fastest times, cud be into 170's

but long gone.

Cera cover-up is wat take coe down