Sorry for the length, but you asked me for it.
casual obsever wrote:
I am indeed not aware of any reason, other than extreme coincidence with a chance of less than 1 : 10.000, why someone would get a ret count of 2.7.
Many? Why don't you prove your statement by providing me with, say five such reasons from Ashenden's pre-2011 research, along with the respective sources.
So all we have is a Daily Mail article giving us one single RET% value. In order to have more context we need information about the athlete, that would appear on a doping control form, and about the sample measurement, which would appear in supplemental forms, and a longitudinal history of samples specific to this athlete.
The Daily Mail says "in the month of 2011 Athletics World Championships" but we don't know if it was collected as part of an official sample, according to ABP requirements and standards.
If it was, it would have been part of the scope of the independent WADA IC review, and in that case, this point has already been "dealt with".
Here are a handful of non-doping reasons:
Normal variation; Pathological condition; Ethnicity; Altitude; Machine brand; Machine calibration; Measurement error; Data input error; Recent blood loss or donation
Here is a sample of Ashenden papers:
2000 "A novel method utilizing markers of altered erythropoiesis for the detection of recombinant human erythropoietin abuse in athletes"
- Ashenden demonstrates the importance of daily checks against internal and external quality controls
- (Not RET%, but just for old times sake) Ashenden tells us about hemoconcentration causing false positives 10-20%
2002 "A strategy to deter blood doping in sport"
- Ashenden tells us the importance of quality control of each measurement to develop a longitudinal profile
2003 "Second-generation blood tests to detect erythropoietin abuse by athletes"
- Ashenden finds one subject with an abnormal 1 in 1000 off-score before EPO due to normal variation
- Ashenden suggests need to seek a genetic/environmental explanations
2003 "The effect of common hematologic abnormalities on the ability of blood models to detect erythropoietin abuse by athletes"
- Ashenden warns us about blood disorders and the need for a medical evaluation
2003 "Effect of altitude on second-generation blood tests to detect erythropoietin abuse by athletes"
- Ashenden explores how Altitude impacts blood parameters
- Ashenden notes that determining RET% with a FACScan analyzer produces higher RET% (n=7; RET%=2.7+/-0.6 pre-altitude)
- Ashenden lists many factors to consider like inter-individual variability, ethnicity, and altitude
2004 "Contemporary issues in the fight against blood doping in sport"
- Ashenden acknowledges large fluctuations in key parameters
2004 "Standardisation of reticulocyte values in an antidoping context"
- Ashenden tells us about the importantance of reticulyte calibration to avoid or quantify "intermethod bias"
2006 "A third generation approach to detect erythropoietin abuse in athletes"
- Ashenden notes that some machine brands give substantially different RET% values
- Ashenden says "the most obvious potential sources' of 'unusually large passport variations' were 'a particular group of athletes, measurement error or data input errors
- Ashenden tells us a subsequent step may be an evaluation to identify any congenital or hematologic disorders
casual obsever wrote:
That is wrong for the following reasons:
1) WADA's committee, hand-picked by WADA, and led by its former president, was not exactly independent, and directly involved in IAAF's shenanigans during the time in question, as the IAAF reported to WADA on those, with the very same now former president in charge.
2) WADA's committee, consisting of two lawyers and one cop or something, did not have the expertise to have "conducted an independent review".
3) WADA's committee could only see whatever IAAF handed over to them, however incomplete.
Sigh:
1) Despite your feeble and desperate attempts to suggest otherwise, WADA and IAAF are independent.
2) The independent audit was conducted by WADA experts provided to the committee
3) Regardless if the WADA IC had incomplete data, as you suggest without evidence, the WADA IC had all of the data Ashenden/Parisotto had, and they had enough data to determine that the allegations by Ashenden/Parisotto, based on their incomplete data set, were wrong. The WADA IC had access to the "leaked database" used by Ashenden/Parisotto, plus the more complete database from the IAAF, plus data in ADAMS since January 2009.
casual obsever wrote:
You don't stand up for their cheating, but you routinely stand up for them by downplaying the charges, in this case for example by changing:
AAA wrote:
Tampering and/or attempted tampering with NOP athletes’ doping control process
into:
rekrunner wrote:
for bad advice on something that was WADA legal
Unless I'm mistaken, the only finding of tampering with the process by the AAA panel was an email that said "infusions" were "injections". The AAA Panel also noted evidence existed showing a reduced infusion quantity was intended, and in some cases, referred to in the past tense as having happened, with no showing that the infusions were excessive. You mentioned doctoring medical forms, but this was not an AAA panel finding resulting in a tampering violation.
In that case, this is not downplaying, but an accurate summary of the AAA panel decision on tampering with the process. No email, no finding of tampering, and no finding of excessive infusions.
casual obsever wrote:
You also routinely argue that the cheat in question, whether Jeptoo or Kiprop or Sumgong or Salazar, didn't benefit from their violations.
Discussions of lack of proof or evidence of cause and effect is not a defense of cheating. It would be rather chilling if a discussion of the existence of evidence conclusively showing cause and effect were considered as supporting rule violations.