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

rerunner is Gary!

Even though no pre-2009 scores actually count for you, they do for me.

I would like to discuss one more score that was a postrace OFF score from August 14, 2005. This was the day Paula won gold at the 2005 World Championship marathon in 2:20:57, with Catherine Ndereba second in 2:22:01, (and Rita Jeptoo was 7th in 2:24!).

Paula's postrace OFF score was 102, with no hemoglobin or reticulocyte score released with it, so I can't do any algebra problem to discover actual scores. However, a normal OFF score of 102 implies a normal hemoglobin score that goes into the calculation of that normal 102 OFF score. My guesstimate of her hemoglobin level would be around 14.2 to 14.4g/dl (normal range for a female is 12.0 to 15.0g/dl). If the hemoglobin value is not high, then who cares what the reticulocyte score is, as it does not matter.

Now, does this result show any evidence of EPO use? No, the hemoglobin level is not high. Is there any evidence of transfusion? No, the hemoglobin level is not high, and there is no rapid, large change from prerace to postrace. Her OFF score is not only below the altitude cutoff value (111?), it is even below the sea level cutoff value of 103. Altitude training is not needed as an explanation, since the hemogobin value is at a normal sea level value. Paula also shows absolutely zero evidence of any dehydration and/or hemoconcentration in this postrace value, even after running 26.2 miles! No lab error explanation is needed either, because the OFF score and hemoglobin value are both normal!

So, for all the Paula critics and doubters (including me) about other races, here is clear evidence that Paula won the 2005 WC marathon race in 2:20:57 with an ABSOLUTELY NORMAL AND NOT SUSPICIOUS AT ALL BLOOD TEST RESULT!.............. and for me......... IT COUNTS!!!

This blood test result is also clear evidence that a female has run a world class marathon in 2:20:57 with NORMAL BLOOD VALUES!!!!!.... CLEAN! CLEAN! CLEAN!.......(and I am not joking this time)..........GO PAULA!!!!!....

And that is a useful piece of information for everyone.

Since ALL (suspicious and not suspicious) of the pre-2009 scores count for me, I would like to state that, in my opinion, this 2:20:57 WC marathon gold win by Paula was a LEGITIMATE and GENUINE performance...............

....................Well done Paula!!!.....................

Miopic fan wrote:

that it's hard to believe you are who you say you are and actually have links to pr.

Did he actually claim this? I'm not doubting you, I just don't recall that he ever said that he has links to Paula.

Maybe 12 out of 12 can be explained. Paula was the worst one, and altitude and plasma loss can completely explain it.Who did I say I am?

Miopic fan wrote:

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.

I don't like or dislike it. Yeah that's weird, as it contradicts what is supposed to happen with blood transfusions, and here there were actually two in between the tests. I note there is no timeframe indicated for the infusions or tests. Probably have to read the study to see if they explain this.The problem is to understand what is a significant RET change, and if 0.59 to 0.47 can rightfully be called significant, or if we should call Dr. Saugy and the IAAF liars. If 44% is typical and comparable, then 20% doesn't seem so much.

Ndereba's knitted brow wrote:

rekrunner, you aren't going to like this but from your own "example B" athlete rubishes your post. There is another transfusion data point:

Between tests 7 & 8 the Hb goes up 1.1 g/dl and the Ret% goes up from 0.50 to 0.61. Such is human variability.

http://sportsscientists.com/2011/03/the-biological-passport-legal-scientific-and-performance-views/

Of course before 2009 ABP didn't exist, and the blood was not collected for reliable long term profile analysis.I can't talk about overall success, except that they probably achieved similar results for less money. But it seems that even for screening purposes, it failed often, especially with the Russians. Probably the best value was a large database to help develop the ABP, and the prevalence study to show by country, who are the worst offenders.I'm actually not sure what your "errors go both ways" point is. The journalists picked extreme values. Of the many "normal" points they ignored, there can be small errors, canceling errors, and even false positives masked by errors. But among the extreme points they published, we can have large single errors (including doping), or maybe multiple smaller ones, in the same direction (including doping). It's less likely to have canceling errors, but still possible. So while some errors (like calibration) can go both ways, this is not relevant for the extreme points that the journalists selected.One last point, don't make the mistake of assuming the 1 in 10, 1 in 100, etc. thresholds are probabilities of being clean, or indicate a probability of doping. Professor McClaren explains it, and Dick Pound reiterated it, the expected number of clean athletes at 1 in 1000 threshold can be much higher than 1 in 1000. That's why they need experts to evaluate the readings and context, to understand how the athletes fit in the model.

Fair enough. For all my talk of privacy, I would like to see her Chicago 2002 and London 2003 values. Presumably they are also at or below 103, or else the Times would have added them to the list. But then again maybe someone will accuse these of lab/process errors...

You tried to change to the new prerace hemoglobin value of 12.8. I said fine, and did all new calculations and analysis.....and now you don't like how that turned out!!!....... and you quickly want to change back to the old value of 12.0, which came from Paula herself in her biography, but you just said that the 12.0 value was not reliable, so we should switch and use the 12.8 value from the IAAF report and Dr. Saugy, with the 2.8g/dl increase in hemoglobin to 15.6g/dl postrace.................. So which is it, rekrunner?Maybe you would like to combine the hemoglobin changes from one with the reticulocyte changes from the other to possibly explain away everything?...........Sorry, but that is not allowed.You made the exact response I anticipated you would make, coming back with......Wait!!!..... I want to go back to the old score!!!!!!.... with an increase of Hb from 12.0 to 15.6, but then the increase is 3.6g/dl, and Dr. Saugy said it was only a 2.8g/dl increase, so you can't go back. You need to stay consistent. If the increase is 2.8, then you should use the 12.8 as the prerace value, which shows the reticulocytes decreasing by 20% from 0.59% to O.47%. If we start from 12.0 and increase it by 2.8 to 14.8 (which was the original number in an old Russ Tucker article, which was the hemoglobin value I used in an original analysis before the new Hb number of 15.6 was published), then we get the reticulocyte score decreasing from 0.4% to 0.3%, a 25% decrease again consistent with transfusion.If we go to 12.0 to 15.6 for Hb, we get the reticulocyte score increasing from 0.4% to 0.47%. Your calculation solving for reticulocytes is correct (I did the same calculation myself about a year ago). I anticipated you would make this argument, and if I was you, I would make the same argument. Well done finding the reticulocyte score increase!!!However, it doesn't really matter. Hemoglobin scores are what really matters, not reticulocyte scores (which really just become a dead end). Hb scores and reticulocyte scores are not linearly related. Just because one changes a certain percentage doesn't mean that the other must have the same relative percentage change, or that different people should have the same relative percentage change in reticulocytes. Not correct. In fact, sometimes the reticulocyte score can actually increase with a transfusion, as shown in this example, even though it "should" decrease. That is because so many variables can affect the reticulocyte score from transfusions, to altitude, to EPO use, frequently with all of these variables interacting at the same time. For example, reticulocyte scores can also be manipulated by athletes, just like hemoglobin and hematocrit scores can be manipulated. Some athletes actually use EPO in combination with the blood transfusion to increase the reticulocyte score to counteract the decrease in reticulocytes from the blood transfusion, so that the transfusion is masked with a normal reticulocyte score, while still stopping the EPO soon enough to have a negative EPO urine test! In fact, this method was used by Dr. Fuentes and is used today to beat the ABP! See how the athletes are always ahead of the testers!There was a show where the journalist cyclist orders EPO over the internet, injects himself for weeks, gets performance enhancement, and then has his ABP blood tests done, which are looked at by an expert who says he would pass the ABP test. And this is a guy by himself with no help, no doctors, and no sophisticated methods like I just outlined. The ABP is not hard to beat at all. Imagine what sophisticated methods can get away with!!!So basically any reticulocyte scores can be "explained" away. They are most useful only in a general way, as in what is causing high hemoglobin values; transfusion (generally lower range reticulocyte values, which Paula's are) or EPO (generally higher range reticulocyte values, above 1.5%), or to show that Dr. Martial Saugy is not telling the truth...... as he has shown that pattern over and over in the past.So Paula still has either:1) a suspicious 21.8% Hb increase of 2.8g/dl from 12.8 to 15.6g/dl in 2 days, which is 75% more of an increase than a known blood doper, with reticulocytes that decrease.OR2) a suspicious 30% Hb increase of 3.6g/dl from 12.0 to 15.6g/dl in 2 days, which is 125% more of an increase than a known blood doper, with reticulocytes that increase. Which one would you like to pick? I would guess..........neither!!!!...none of the above!.....lab error!... ...all pre-2009 scores are null and void!....etc......etc..........etc.......................It doesn't matter, as both are suspicious, and are best explained by an autologous blood transfusion. Go Paula!!!........Go Dr."Plan B LIAR AND FRAUD" Saugy !!!!!!!!!.................

rekrunner wrote:

I don't like or dislike it. Yeah that's weird, as it contradicts what is supposed to happen with blood transfusions, and here there were actually two in between the tests. I note there is no timeframe indicated for the infusions or tests. Probably have to read the study to see if they explain this.

The problem is to understand what is a significant RET change, and if 0.59 to 0.47 can rightfully be called significant, or if we should call Dr. Saugy and the IAAF liars. If 44% is typical and comparable, then 20% doesn't seem so much.

Ndereba's knitted brow wrote:

rekrunner, you aren't going to like this but from your own "example B" athlete rubishes your post. There is another transfusion data point:

Between tests 7 & 8 the Hb goes up 1.1 g/dl and the Ret% goes up from 0.50 to 0.61. Such is human variability.

http://sportsscientists.com/2011/03/the-biological-passport-legal-scientific-and-performance-views/

It is always so fun when you decide to chime in Jon, to call me an idiot for the 30th time. You always do your best to make everyone feel good with your posts, which always show your incredible intellect and joy for others! Are you yelling at yourself in the mirror again?Did your plasma shift too much?Your ankle efficiency is a lot better than your mental efficiency.And it is way past your nap time, Jon. Come on now......off to bed.Nighty night..............sleep tight............

Jon Orange wrote:

Stop it already! wrote:

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.

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.[/quote]

Wejo, Where do we stand on more I formation coming out? As you noted, IAAF has no credibility here. WADA refused to weigh in on Paula. Can you follow up on the MRI, too? Thanks! Or are we only ever going to here for. Rekrunner?

Wrong. You cited me. I cited IAAF. IAAF talked about a possible increase in haemoglobin concentration/hemoconcentration of 10 - 20%, which I calculated to be 30%.

You can talk about plasma shift all you want, but measured was not the plasma shift, but the HGB, and discussed was not the plasma shift, but the HGB.

Evidence:

You are spending an awful lot of time and effort obsessing over what is really hemoconcentration, but in your overactive imagination the numbers are all related to blood transfusion.

Look how much you have written on this thread about the subject. Tell me, do you really think that is the product of a sane mind?

Can someone actually explain this plasma shift theory and how it is relevant to Paula. It's been thrown around but I must be missing something. Blood plasma volume increases in endurance athletes, it doesn't decrease.

Rekrunner claims to be good with numbers and statistics but doesn't understand Bayesian statistics or how the ABP works. If he did he would've concluded a long time ago that we don't have enough values to make a valid conclusion. He also has admitted that he doesn't have a medical background. His posts are vacuous, mostly uneducated waffle.

rjm33 has provided a solid case for autologous blood transfusion which despite many pages of text remains unchallenged. The only rebuttal is 'inaccurate devices', of which there is no evidence (other athletes have not been shown to have had dodgy readings). rjm33 has a medial background and his posts are based on fact.

You decide.

Plasma shift is water going from the blood plasma into the blood circulation.

This happens for two reasons.

1, When you go from warmer, more humid air to cooler drier air, such as altitude. And contrary to what rjm33 says, this is very noticeable after just 2 days.

This happens because your body doesn't need the extra fluid retention, and so the kidneys, which regulate sodium balance and water retention, adjust the balance to less water retention in the body. The reverse happens when you go from cooler drier air to more warm humid conditions.

2, When you are extremely dehydrated plasma shift happens to aid sweating.

This also causes heart rate to rise, known as cardiac drift.

This is what happened to Paula. She could easily demonstrate this in similar condtions.

You got it wrong with your first explanation. Plus, we all know Paula is « always » coming down from altitude with the extended use of her tent! How convenient is that?The doping is so obivous!I can't believe there are still so many people tihinking Paula did it the clean way... It was so obvious years ago and even more since Seppelt, along with Asheden et Parisotto, came on the scene last year! Jon Orange and rekrunner are delusional miopic Paula's little groupies!

Jon Orange wrote:

Plasma shift is water going from the blood plasma into the blood circulation.

This happens for two reasons.

1, When you go from warmer, more humid air to cooler drier air, such as altitude. And contrary to what rjm33 says, this is very noticeable after just 2 days.

This happens because your body doesn't need the extra fluid retention, and so the kidneys, which regulate sodium balance and water retention, adjust the balance to less water retention in the body. The reverse happens when you go from cooler drier air to more warm humid conditions.

So we agree that the pre 2009 data were a precursor in the development of the APB.

However, the IAAF and Ashenden and Parissotto feel that the data were more reliable than you give them credit for:

From the article (emphasis mine):

"The pre-2009 data IS reliable, in fact by their own admission the IAAF has relied on those data to extend sanctions against athletes’, read Ashenden and Parisotto’s statement. ‘ "

If you have several small sources of error in a measurement and they are all independent it is likely that they can each influence the measurement one way or another. The question is whether you have too much "noise" to have an accurate a measurement. It would be less likely, (but not impossible) that you have all of these independent sources of error all working in the same way to influence the measurement. You could also have something like a batch of faulty lab reagents (due to poor storage conditions for example) each erroneously influencing the measurement in one way but they would not be independent sources of error.

Was not lab error/machine calibration used as an explanation for at least one of the three extreme points that the journalists selected?

You commented that only one blood value was above a certain threshold and I corrected you pointing out that this was not true: there were 3 values over a 1 in 10 theshold and 1 of these was over the 1 in 100 threshold. Now you say that thresholds in themselves and not so relevent to the probability of doping without the appropriate context. This justifies why many posters have called for more transparency. Besides, there is no reason why these things cannot work both ways and not just the way you presented them; the number of dirty athletes over the 1 in 10 threshold may be higher than 1 in 10 when looked at in the appropriate context.

2/10

Jon Orange is well known as an idiot on these boards, he had an argument several years ago that he would beat an athlete with his 'kick' despite being 2-3 minutes slower over 10k. He couldn't grasp that he might not be in striking distance and also tried to argue that his 'kick' was unrelated to his 'speed'. The guy is a numpty and doesn't deserve a response.

His brain's full of orange pulp! So sad, he can't accept the fact that his little running hero has been a cheat throughout her career! Which is obvioux to almost everybody else!

Orange fruit wrote:

Jon Orange is well known as an idiot on these boards, he had an argument several years ago that he would beat an athlete with his 'kick' despite being 2-3 minutes slower over 10k. He couldn't grasp that he might not be in striking distance and also tried to argue that his 'kick' was unrelated to his 'speed'. The guy is a numpty and doesn't deserve a response.