Radcliffe blood values released

fred wrote:

And what class would that be? Would that be in the class of testing for drugs 1.5 hours after finishing a race at 24C, or would it be in the class of testing for drugs immediately after racing at 29C?

"it was collected immediately following a half marathon race run around midday in temperatures of approximately 30C."

Well, PR is more interested in PR than in the truth. What else is new?

And look at this:

"they were all conducted following prolonged periods of altitude training,"

No details! Given how quickly she changed 22 - 24 C (depending on the source) to "approximately 30C", how long were these "prolonged periods"?

And, why wouldn't she specify how closely these test were made "following ... altitude training"? Sounds like a long time has passed between these events.

edmajor wrote:

Show your work, please wrote:

What exactly are your calculations? And why should we believe them?

They are based on Table 2 of above mentioned paper. I simply interpolated Paula's scores against the test scores in the table vs logs of corresponding odds. Then I take an exponent of the interpolated value and out come Paula's odds. (If you don't understand this ask a friend who's good at calculus.) But most importantly you have to trust the academic paper...

Working from an incorrect axiom of the upper limit being constant. So regardless of whatever computation was done, it's a case of rubbish in rubbish out... unfortunately.

I'm an extremely jaded cycling fan , so i'm not objective at all. Just flinging that disclosure out there. There is simply not enough detail to make an informed decision. The problem is the protestations of the innocent sound the same as the guilty.

elflord73 wrote:

"Yes, or in other words, 1 in 100 cutoff means that if an athlete crosses the threshold we could be 99% certain that he's cheater and there's only 1% chance that he tested false positive and thus innocent."

Completely wrong. The false positive rate is not the same thing at all as the probability of innocence.

Strong words... Either you misunderstood me, or you don't know statistics/probability (I hope it's former.) 1/100 is by definition a probability of innocence conditional on testing above the threshold score. If you disagree please elaborate.p

""they were all conducted following prolonged periods of altitude training"

Oh yeah, where? Albuquerque?

wejo wrote:

2) Where has Dr Ashenden been smeared? I'd like to see that. I haven't seen him chime in specifically about Radcliffe.

Lord Coe referring to him as a "so-called" expert.

"Coe questioned their credentials, saying: “These so-called experts – give me a break.”

"The IAAF has a commission of three independent experts who have tested and checked thousands of blood samples, Coe said. “I know who I would believe,” he added."

Ask Ross Tucker about Michael Ashenden credentials as a scientist in this field. Calling him a so-called expert on blood doping/passport is like calling Francis Crick a so-called expert on the Double Helix. In my opinion it might be slight hyperbole, but that's arguable.

Interesting that Lance Armstrong's ABP was "normal" and he was doping and Paula Radcliffe's ABP is suspicious and... she's clean???

PR is going the way of LA. Sooner or later she'll be doing an interview with the UK equivalent of Oprah, crying on camera and saying she's sorry she cheated, that everyone was doing it, that she was racing in a level playing field, all the usual BS.

Here's his response to the accusations by Lord Coe I'll reproduce some of it below then provide a link.

" Since 2011 Robin Parisotto has been retained by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to review blood profiles of their elite track and field athletes. Consequently, he is currently providing expert opinion to multiple disciplinary proceedings involving IAAF athletes.

• Michael Ashenden was a member of the WADA Passport Committee that devised targeting strategies for international federations such as the IAAF to adopt.

• Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto were both founding members of the UCI’s Expert Panel, they have each provided expert testimony to disciplinary cases before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and have both advised anti-doping organisations on how to undertake target testing of athletes suspected of blood doping."

http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/blood-experts-michael-ashenden-and-robin-parisotto-respond-to-serious-reservations-expressed-by-iaaf/

fred wrote:

""they were all conducted following prolonged periods of altitude training"

Oh yeah, where? Albuquerque?

Right on.

The interview is painful to watch.

Almost like OJ...

The Brojo b.s. of 'i love Paula' has gotten very old .

Duping headlines on the website...so typical of the lrc brothers.

This woman is guilty.

The numbers tell the story.

Her story sounds like 'the dog ate my homework'

Three times ......

Cyclingfan wrote:

edmajor wrote:

They are based on Table 2 of above mentioned paper. I simply interpolated Paula's scores against the test scores in the table vs logs of corresponding odds. Then I take an exponent of the interpolated value and out come Paula's odds. (If you don't understand this ask a friend who's good at calculus.) But most importantly you have to trust the academic paper...

Working from an incorrect axiom of the upper limit being constant. So regardless of whatever computation was done, it's a case of rubbish in rubbish out... unfortunately.

In practice anti-doping agencies are using variable thresholds, but my calculations were exact tracings of numbers quoted by Sky News and there mentioned academic paper. So in that context, 1 in 70 likelihood that she's innocent given she scored 109.86 in the test is very much correct.

One thing I'm not sure is how the paper's testing variance compares to testing errors in practice, but one would assume it's comparable...

"Since 2011 Robin Parisotto has been retained by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to review blood profiles of their elite track and field athletes. Consequently, he is currently providing expert opinion to multiple disciplinary proceedings involving IAAF athletes."

Yeah, I'll bet its expert opinion. Every one of them was doped and the federation was taking bribes for not turning them in.

Yep, he's an expert, the kind that Coe likes.

edmajor wrote:

Cyclingfan wrote:

Working from an incorrect axiom of the upper limit being constant. So regardless of whatever computation was done, it's a case of rubbish in rubbish out... unfortunately.

In practice anti-doping agencies are using variable thresholds, but my calculations were exact tracings of numbers quoted by Sky News and there mentioned academic paper. So in that context, 1 in 70 likelihood that she's innocent given she scored 109.86 in the test is very much correct.

One thing I'm not sure is how the paper's testing variance compares to testing errors in practice, but one would assume it's comparable...

Yes under those limits of course, however they don't have a basis in reality. I can give variables on how fast a block will slide down a slope of a certain angle. Do the calculation and get the correct answer. However, inertia isn't taken into account, friction , the difference in materials, drag, any minor changes in gradient , the block will slide at different speeds in different locations because of localised differences in the gravitational field etc etc.

I'm not doubting the calculations precision but it's accuracy. Due to the limit changing as a function of time, which isn't accounted for in the calculation.

fred wrote:

"Since 2011 Robin Parisotto has been retained by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to review blood profiles of their elite track and field athletes. Consequently, he is currently providing expert opinion to multiple disciplinary proceedings involving IAAF athletes."

Yeah, I'll bet its expert opinion. Every one of them was doped and the federation was taking bribes for not turning them in.

Yep, he's an expert, the kind that Coe likes.

Coe doesn't like him called him a "so-called expert" so that's demonstrably false.

Every one of who? The doctors? Or are you speaking generically about all Russian athletes. I fail to see how making unsubstantiated claims about Russian athletes and federations taking bribes could have any causal relationship to the relative expertise of this persons to interpret the relevant data.

You're just doing the same to him Lord Coe did, bad company to keep my friend.

wejo wrote:

Cycling fan is correct from my talk with Ross Tucker today. Off-scores become highly individualized. The original Times piece talks about 1/1000 threshholds like they are static so people are responding to that but it's not that simple on either side.

See this article we just posted:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/09/wejo-speaks-paula-radcliffe-can-gain-credibility-with-more-transparency-science-of-sports-ross-tucker-says-paulas-explanations-are-plausible-but-more-info-is-needed-tucker-youre-not-dealin/

Both Ross and I think there needs to be more transparency.

A few other things:

3) Most of us already know doping is a problem in the sport but I'll reserve judgment until the facts come out. The Sunday Times hasn't even alleged anything yet.

Again, if you were not friends w/Paula would you feel the same? Or make this statement if it was Galen? Just curious b/c I feel like you are quick to defend her or at least make it known that you believe her until you're proven otherwise. Not trying to be an arse here just an observation from reading these boards. I try to read and gather information from a non bias poster. That's all.

Correction: I try to read and gather information "as" instead of "from" a non bias poster.

I really hope Paula is clean. She is one of my favorite runners I am no expert on this but, from what I gather, she is not releasing the full records. The three data points linked to sky seem to have come from her camp. It seems sectors. I also imagine the ST could have messed up their story just like Propublica presented a pretty biased picture and missed some points. I appreciate that Cram and her PT wrote strong statements. I respect them for doing so but I don't give too much weight to it. I have seen strong statments before from supporters of other cheaters. I have also seen other cheats (Gay) hold themselves out as antidrug or willing to engage in additional or long term testing - so I don't give to much weight to her willingness to have samples frozen.

I think all of the evidence should be disclosed to experts and leave it at that. The NOP story ended up there with results pending with USAdA ( what is the status of that anyway?). This site took a very different approach in those days. There we had innuendo and conjecture, here we have a debate on results interpretation. In both cases there was a delayed reply. Salazar's response seemed more thorough but I think Paula will get there and give the balance of the evidence to experts. I think we saw it's better not to jump the gun and let the process play out. Right now we can wonder about these tests like we can wonder about the disclosed testosterone test on AlSals son.

Paula is never testing positive. Coe won't authorize it.