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

rekrunner wrote:

It's easy for me to believe that in the process of writing a book, someone got the number wrong

[/quote]

I never post here but dang, Rekrunner, this is hilarious!! You've outdone yourself in the desperation department with this one. But go ahead, rewrite it all to fit your agenda, if that makes you feel better.

Go rjm33!!! Your posts are gold.

Too many questions to quote them, and many were already addressed.

- Public opinion matters, it should just be informed. But not by sacrificing the rights of innocent athletes.

- The Sunday Times told us that a dozen British athletes had values like Paula.

- All of the other explanations are relevant to show that many factors were not considered by Ashenden/Parisotto. There's your transparency.

- Pre-2009 blood testing to screen for target urine testing was a money saving strategy recommended by Ashenden. It probably helped save the IAAF money.

- Altitude and hemoconcentration can only bias values in one direction, towards false positives. If values are extremely high, or extremely low, it's more likely multiple errors in the same direction, rather than canceling errors. By focusing on outliers, we might miss some false negatives. The selection of interesting values was made by journalists.

- If you only correct for altitude and hemoconcentration, then all 3 suspicious values become non-suspicious. The Sunday Times would not have reported them, and no expert would have looked more closely.

- Everyone seems to have ignored that the newly formed IAAF Ethics Commission (a structural changed made by the VPs) was already investigating for 8 months before the first ARD documentary aired. They were working with whistleblower Shobukhova. We would have found out about the IAAF/Russian scandal without the journalists.

- I don't hate the journalists, but think they grossly misrepresented the significance of the leaked blood values. The only story here is the delay in Russian sanctions, and the bribery/extortion.

- Let's see what happens the next few years.

rekrunner wrote:

But what was the purpose? What can any possible outcome be? What if Bubka were president? Who would they grill?

"Rule, Britannia!" In other words, to show how great the UK is. Including Coe. And the parliament. Fighting against doping instead of cheating like the other nations.

Without Coe, no grilling. I suppose they didn't expect Coe to give questionable and misleading statements.

rjm33 wrote:

Paula should be more careful with who she hangs out with. Associating too closely with liars and frauds like the IAAF and Dr. Martial "Plan B" Saugy could reflects poorly on pristine Paula's absolutely clean, clean, clean reputation................Go Paula!!!...............................

Lol. Obviously she has no other choice...

(I know you meant that too, but lots of people here don't get sarcasm.)

In general, reticulocytes are not as important as hemoglobin levels, but if they are below normal range that can be suspicious with a high hemoglobin level at the same time (like Paula). Reticulocytes are most useful for detection of blatant EPO use, where they can go very high, like 2.0 to 2.5%. None of Paula's blood test results so far indicate any blatant EPO use.

Reticulocytes are also useful to show that Dr. Martial Saugy and the IAAF are not telling the truth. I think for Dr. Saugy to claim no significant change in the score and then not release the score (Remember, I had to calculate the non-released reticulocyte score, from the OFF score and hemoglobin values. I don't think Dr. Saugy was planning on anybody actually doing that!) when there is in reality a 20% decrease in the non-released score, is not telling the truth and covering things up..........big surprise!!!

If you don't want to accept a 20% decrease in reticulocytes as a significant change, that's up to you.

Increased hemoglobin levels are most important, since that is what transports the oxygen and can increase aerobic performance. The levels do not change quickly. It takes weeks to correct anemias and weeks for EPO to be effective, not 2 days.

In your example, the known blood doper increased their hemoglobin value by 1.6g/dl.

Paula's hemoglobin increase of 2.8g/dl in 2 days is 75% HIGHER than the KNOWN BLOOD DOPER!!!!!!!!!!..................

Maybe that wasn't such a good example to use to help Paula's case........

Do you think that a hemoglobin increase in 2 days by Paula that is 75% HIGHER than a known blood doper is a significant increase? I do.

Thank God, for Paula's sake, that none of these scores actually count!!!

Go Paula!!!!!!!!!

Both altitude training and EPO take weeks to work and become effective, and also both take weeks to wear off. Altitude training for 3 to 6 weeks will typically increase hemoglobin levels by only about 3 to 6%, and that is usually about the most you can get even after a longer stay, with a rare outlier and super- responder maybe up to about a 10% increase after many weeks an altitude.

So if you are going to use high altitude training to explain your high hemoglobin level at the race on Saturday, you should also have a high hemoglobin level 2 days earlier on Thursday. There should be little change in hemoglobin or OFF scores from prerace to postrace in 1 or 2 days from altitude training (or EPO). The large and rapid change in hemoglobin value is what raises suspicion of a blood transfusion. All erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and methods take time to make more RBCs with hemoglobin, and RBCs have a lifespan of about 120 days.

Both hemoglobin and hematocrit levels can also be manipulated down, by dilution, through increasing blood volume by the use of iv saline and iv plasma volume expanders. They can be used at the same time as the transfusion of RBCs, but must be before the blood test.

For example, Lance Armstrong and other cyclists would compete after EPO and/or blood transfusions with a "true" hemoglobin value of 18.0 g/dl and hematocrit of 55% or higher, but would do iv saline and/or plasma volume expanders before the blood test so that the blood test would have a Hb result of 16.0g/dl and the hematocrit would have a result of 49%, to get under the 50% hematocrit cutoff score.

Lance Armstrong's coach/doctor Dr. Michele Ferrari was the master at all of this stuff including transfusions, EPO iv microdosing,, passing tests, avoiding tests, training and most important of all, keeping his gravy train riders ALIVE and NOT KILLING THEM! I actually stumbled upon his website while researching the whole Lance saga. Dr. Ferrari is a very smart guy for being a mad scientist! What a name! He made Lance into a Ferrari!!!

Lance also had a friend in Dr. Martial "Plan B" Saugy, when he had an EPO positive test that needed to go away. Dr. Saugy is Paula's blood test expert as well. Gosh, it's a small world......... I guess it is just an incredible coincidence..........

Rekrunner, the Sunday Times didn't say there were a dozen athletes with similar values, they said there were 3, but they also didn't give the other two a chance to have anywhere near the 'explanations' Paula has come up with and most people in the sport know who one of them was.

You simply change the facts to suit your agenda, your posts are a joke.

Agree but innocent athletes also should have the right to know that are not or were not competing against dopers.

This is misleading. They singled out Radcliffe because she had the highest score among the British athletes:

Here is the relevant quote from the article (emphasis mine):

"The newspaper claimed that, OF NEARLY 500 TESTS ON BRITISH ATHLETES between 2001 and 2012, RADCLIFFE PRODUCED THE HIGHEST SCORE ABOVE THE THRESHOLD."

Some transparency, and nowhere near the "level of transparency" that other British athletes have volunteered or what the Sky team and Chris Froome have produced. If you claim to have campaigned throughout your career for a clean sport you should be more transparent to back up that claim.

Saved money maybe but this be could just from not carrying out as many urine tests for EPO! You do not answer the question about whether the pre 2007/9 data were useful to perform effective targeted testing for EPO. I ask this because you try to say that the 2007/9 were not really optimal for the ABP but then how useful do you think they were?

This is not necessarily true. They could be extemely high/low because of a single large error such as miscalibration. Multiple errors all going in one direction is more unliklely than multible errors going in different directions assuming those errors are independent from each other.

Again this is not true. Two of the values were above the 1 in 10 threshold even for altitude. The other value was above the 1 in 100 threshold. This highest value was explained by extreme dehydration (causing hemoconcentration) as well as lab error, illness etc and the plausibility of these claims is debateable.

I agree to wait and see but I would expect that there is more to the story than the delay in Russian sanctions. Hopefully the investigative journalists will do their job.

Agree but innocent athletes also should have the right to know that are not or were not competing against dopers.

This is misleading. They singled out Radcliffe because she had the highest score among the British athletes:

Here is the relevant quote from the article (emphasis mine):

"The newspaper claimed that, OF NEARLY 500 TESTS ON BRITISH ATHLETES between 2001 and 2012, RADCLIFFE PRODUCED THE HIGHEST SCORE ABOVE THE THRESHOLD."

Some transparency, and nowhere near the "level of transparency" that other British athletes have volunteered or what the Sky team and Chris Froome have produced. If you claim to have campaigned throughout your career for a clean sport you should be more transparent to back up that claim.

Saved money maybe but this be could just from not carrying out as many urine tests for EPO! You do not answer the question about whether the pre 2007/9 data were useful to perform effective targeted testing for EPO. I ask this because you try to say that the 2007/9 were not really optimal for the ABP but then how useful do you think they were?

This is not necessarily true. They could be extemely high/low because of a single large error such as miscalibration. Multiple errors all going in one direction is more unliklely than multible errors going in different directions assuming those errors are independent from each other.

Again this is not true. Two of the values were above the 1 in 10 threshold even for altitude. The other value was above the 1 in 100 threshold. This highest value was explained by extreme dehydration (causing hemoconcentration) as well as lab error, illness etc and the plausibility of these claims is debateable.

I agree to wait and see but I would expect that there is more to the story than the delay in Russian sanctions. Hopefully the investigative journalists will do their job.

That is not how plasma shift is measured. Read what I wrote. I didn't cite anyone. I did a simple calculation. I used 12.8 to 15.6 hemoglobin counts.

Stop it already! wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It's easy for me to believe that in the process of writing a book, someone got the number wrong

I never post here but dang, Rekrunner, this is hilarious!! You've outdone yourself in the desperation department with this one. But go ahead, rewrite it all to fit your agenda, if that makes you feel better.

Go rjm33!!! Your posts are gold.[/quote]

No, just no. rekrunner is standing up against the liars, bullies, misinformers and internet weirdos such as rjm33. To actually support this lunatic is testament to your own lack of integrity and sanity.

preciously jaded wrote:

Some transparency, and nowhere near the "level of transparency" that other British athletes have volunteered or what the Sky team and Chris Froome have produced.

This is not true. Sky's data is as selective as anything Ms. Radcliffe produced.

Particularly, Froome and Wiggin's stories are as implausible as Rasmussen's only perfectly timed to the London Games. Why the London Games? Because the UCI is paid a portion of all IOC revenues based on viewership.

What better way to boost interest in cycling before the IOC's big payday than have British cyclists podium at the world's most well-known event outside the Olympics by never testing them positive?

"A dozen top British athletes have recorded abnormal blood scores"http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1588410.ece

UK not OK wrote:

Rekrunner, the Sunday Times didn't say there were a dozen athletes with similar values, they said there were 3, but they also didn't give the other two a chance to have anywhere near the 'explanations' Paula has come up with and most people in the sport know who one of them was.

You simply change the facts to suit your agenda, your posts are a joke.

pops, are you one of those people who thinks that all top athletes must be 'on something'?

But your blood transfusion scenario looks a lot less plausible. Significant is relative, and we need a frame of reference.For a 75% Hg HIGHER Hg gain, Paula's RET% drop was 120% LOWER than the KNOWN BLOOD DOPER!!!!!!!!!!..................Paula's RET% drop is about 26%, per g/dl Hg gain, of the KNOWN BLOOD DOPER.Compared to 44%, for 75% less gain, 20% doesn't seem very significant. Maybe Dr. Saugy isn't lying.If we calculate using the same relative SIGNIFICANCE of the KNOWN BLOOD DOPER, her RET% should have dropped to 0.34%.If we go back and examine your original scenario (the one that led you to assert that blood transfusions are the best plausible explanation) of 12.0 g/dl, then her RET% starts at 0.4% (with an off-score of 82), with her values ending up at 15.6 g/dl and 0.47%.This scenario, with the higher Hg 3.6 g/dl change, makes blood doping even less plausible, as her RET% doesn't drop at all, but actually increases (SIGNIFICANTLY!!!) by 17.5%. Instead of rising to 0.47% from 0.4%, it should fall to about 0.22%

rjm33 wrote:

If you don't want to accept a 20% decrease in reticulocytes as a significant change, that's up to you.

Increased hemoglobin levels are most important, since that is what transports the oxygen and can increase aerobic performance. The levels do not change quickly. It takes weeks to correct anemias and weeks for EPO to be effective, not 2 days.

In your example, the known blood doper increased their hemoglobin value by 1.6g/dl.

Paula's hemoglobin increase of 2.8g/dl in 2 days is 75% HIGHER than the KNOWN BLOOD DOPER!!!!!!!!!!..................

Maybe that wasn't such a good example to use to help Paula's case........

Do you think that a hemoglobin increase in 2 days by Paula that is 75% HIGHER than a known blood doper is a significant increase? I do.

Thank God, for Paula's sake, that none of these scores actually count!!!

Go Paula!!!!!!!!!

You have just explained why transfusers also take a little bit of EPO on the side.

Jon Orange wrote:

pops, are you one of those people who thinks that all top athletes must be 'on something'?

No.

Are you one of those people who thinks PEDs don't work? Go back to your thread, please.

rekrunner wrote:

Paula's hemoglobin increase of 2.8g/dl in 2 days is 75% HIGHER than the KNOWN BLOOD DOPER!!!!!!!!!!..................

Blah, blah blah. Don't compare changes among athletes. That's not how it works. At all.

Yes, yes, Paula's published explanation did exactly that with some data points and that was wrong too.

You've just selected the info you wanted to see or read the headline. The article went on to say that 9 of the 12 could be explained but that 3 were highly unusual.

You come on here so often and your view is so miopic that it's hard to believe you are who you say you are and actually have links to pr.