Actovegin is somethin Healing Hans used a lot with his « special » clients liek Paula Radcliffe.... and what else???
He was workin with her for more than 12 years....
Athletes are clean but working with doctors such as Conconi, Fuentes, Rosa, Ferrari, Healing Hans..... don't you see a pattern here?
It screams « DOPING »!
rekrunner wrote:
I understand Bayesian statistics, and did conclude from the beginning the values are not suited for ABP purposes, and the ABP didn't work at all before 2009. There are other complications, like personal thresholds, I have avoided discussing to keep things simpler.
Posted by someone who has never used Bayesian stats. That sh!t is an effing miracle.
Apparently you are completely unaware how universal its use is in computing/Internet services. The Internet would be useless without it.
Very good post!
Actovegin was imo a useless calf's blood extract from cows, which never had any good research to support its use by athletes.
Meldonium is pretty much in the same category, with just a few studies on cardiac patients, one Russian study on people who did judo, with nothing published in real studies on athletes showing changes in VO2max, Lactate threshold, or time trial performance, etc. There is essentially zero published scientific evidence to support its use as a PED. Really pathetic evidence. It is no surprise that it is not approved as a drug in the US. No drug could ever be approved in the US with so little evidence!
Meldonium might improve aerobic performance or not, but we have no scientific evidence to know if it works or not. My total guess would be NOT!
Lots of athletes will try ANYTHING to try to improve performance, even if there is ZERO scientific evidence to support its use!!!
Your post shows you have a very good knowledge of the history of doping history and doping doctors.
Perhaps some readers would like to read this old post I made on this thread back in December about the history of blood doping........
I hope you will find it interesting!!!.........
Here is my old post on the history of blood doping.
rjm33 wrote:
Nobody has claimed Vilamoura was cool. We all agree it was 22-23C(71.6-73.4F) at the start, and rising during the race of one hour and seven minutes length by some unknown amount. It is the dehydration explanation plausibility that is open to question and doubt...but that explanation has recently been changed by Paula to LAB ERROR...try to keep up...
How about some history:
1972-B.Ekblum,et al. Response to Exercise after Blood Loss and Reinfusion.Journal of Applied Physiology.1972 Aug;33(2):175-80. publishes about hemoglobin changes and exercise performance changes after blood transfusions. In the same year, Lasse Viren wins the 5k and 10k gold at the Olympics, and repeats both wins in the 1976 Olympics. There were suspicions of transfusions by the Finns, but we will never know for sure...
1976-Waldemar Cierpinski cheats to win gold medal for East Germany over my hero Frank Shorter, who I believe deserves two gold medals, which really shows how great Frank was...
1980-Cierpinski again wins marathon. Kaarlo Maaninka of Finland wins silver in 10k and bronze in 5k, and is found to have done blood transfusions.
1982-Francesco Conconi of Italy publishes journal articles about the anaerobic threshold, with variations on the CONCONI test being done to this day on runners and cyclists...
1984-Allberto Cova of Italy wins 10k Olympic gold...rumors of blood transfusions...,Marti Vainio of Finland wins silver in 10k,but is caught with anabolic steroid metenolone, which was possibly in his old stored blood which he transfused before the race, but forgot he was on metenolone when the blood was withdrawn for storage...not very smart doper, was he...!
Meanwhile, it is discovered that one third of the US Cycling team at the Olympics, which won 9 medals, were doing blood transfusions...
1985-blood transfusions are declared illegal and banned...but there is no test for detection..
1987-New England Journal of Medicine publishes trial of recombinant EPO called Epogen, made by the biotech firm Amgen. Amgen ironically goes on to be a major sponsor of the cycling Tour of California, where many of the riders are using its EPO product...
1988-Salvatore Antibo from Italy..wins Olympic silver in 10k..more rumors about him..Gelindo Bordin, a product of the Dr. Conconi Italian group wins the gold medal in the marathon, and also wins Boston in 1990.
1989-Epogen approved by FDA for use in US
1989-1990-EPO moves into cycling in a big way. Belgian cyclists dropping dead..crazy stuff..
1990-1991- track has 3 to 5 sub 13:10 5k perfomers and/or performances per year..
1993-14 men break 13:10 a total of 21 times!!! while the Chinese women go on a rampage with Wang Junxia 29:31.78 10k WR, 8:06.11 3k WR, that still stand to this day!
Meanwhile, the first Italian coaches, led by Dr. Gabriele Rosa, arrive in Kenya....
1993 -2000-rampant EPO use..no test for detection..records smashed, huge depth of fast times by many people in track and cycling. Cyclists like Pantani and Riis pushing their hematocrits up to dangerous levels of 60 or 70%!!.. Cycling finally institutes a hematocrit cutoff limit max hematocrit of 50% or you can't race...cyclists respond by basically all of them then having hematocrits of 48-49.5%, just a coincidence that they are all just below the limit...right?
A protege of the Italian Dr. Conconi, mentioned previously, went on to become much more famous..his name was Dr. Michele Ferrari, and he was the doctor to the stars of pro cycling, most of all, he was doctor to Lance Armstrong, who is the prototype for a pharmaceutical experiment gone mad disguised as an athlete..They did everything...EPO,transfusions, the anabolic steroid testosterone, Human Growth Hormone, and probably other things we don't even know about. What a name! You can't make this stuff up...the mad genius Dr. Ferrari really did turn his riders into Ferraris, with extra horsepower!!!..., He also did a great job making sure that 1) he kept Lance alive and didn't kill him. and 2) that he somehow passed his drug tests. It was probably Ferrari that pioneered taking EPO by iv instead of subcutaneous injection, so that the EPO could be cleared faster, and the window for a positive epo test was then very small. A very smart guy who is presently in trouble with tax authorities for hiding large amounts of money in secret bank accounts, and he is also banned for life from cycling...
2000-first urine tests for epo appear around this time, not sure when, test improved by around 2005..The new test for EPO leads athletes back to the old method of blood transfusions, to avoid detection...
2004-Italian Stefano Baldini wins gold medal in marathon(Hmmm). American Tyler Hamilton is caught doing homologous blood tranfusion of someone else's blood at Tour of Italy( I think but not sure where,maybe Spain?) and at the Olympics, where he won gold medal. B test at Olympics had problems, kept medal on a technicality..but finally returned the medal in 2011. His lawyers used the famous "Tyler is a human chimera with a vanishing twin" defense to explain why he had blood from two different people in his bloodstream.. which wins the comedy prize for funniest doping excuse ever!!!
2008-CERA (Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator) , a new longer acting agent, with a much longer half-life 20x longer than epo, is appoved for use in Jan,2008 under the name Mircera. Rashid Ramzi tests positive for CERA at the 2008 Olympics, and loses his gold medal...
2009-2015-development of EPO mimetic peptides such as peginesatide and CNTO530 and development of orally active Hypoxia Inducible Factor(HIF) stabilizers. You can just take a pill which works like EPO. The Company Fibrinogen has compounds FG2216,FG4592, and FG4497, which stabilize HIF by inhibiting the enzyme prolyl-hydroxylase, which is involved in the breakdown of HIF by the ubiquitin proteosome pathway. HIF is a transcription factor which increases the gene expression of about 200 different genes, including the gene for EPO. So increased levels of HIF2alpha signals cells in the kidney to increase transcription of Erythropoietin(EPO), which travels to the bone marrow and binds to progenitor cells, and increases erythropoiesis, the production of new red blood cells, which is how HIF stabilizers work.
Another compound involved with HIF is cobalt chloride, which also acts as a HIF stabilizer, is orally active, but is not recommended, as it is toxic to the gastrointestinal system,thyroid, heart, liver and kidney and may cause cancer. There is now a blood test to test for cobalt levels.
Other recent research is looking at inhalation of the noble gases Argon or Xenon as HIF activators of erythropoiesis. They have both been used by Russian athletes, and both compounds have recently been banned, although I don't know if there is a test for them yet...The cheaters are always finding new ways to cheat and the testers are always trying to find new ways to test....
For further reading..check out: Simon Beuck,et al. Hypoxia-inducible factor stabilizers and other small-molecule erythropoiesis stimulating agents in current and preventive doping analysis. Drug Testing and Analysis 2012 Nov;4(11):830-45., from their special issue on Sports Drug Testing for Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents and Autologous Blood Transfusion... many interesting articles in this issue....
So that brings us to today, Dec 2015. Dr.Gabriele Rosa from 1993 in Kenya now has a son Dr. Frederico Rosa, who still works with top Kenyan runners today in Kenya, And Claudio Berardelli(sp.?) ... and Rita Jeptoo, and other Kenyans......
And we forgot Turkey(Altepkin in 2012 Olympic 1500m gold-gone now) and all the Russians, and all their positives ,and all the destroyed samples, and the leaked 12 year database of blood tests that nobody can see, and Paula's tests that nobody can see...and Dr. Saugy turning up over and over, from Lance to Paula(her"blood test expert") to destroyed Russian samples .... and Seppelt's documentary, which Lord Seb Coe says he hasn't seen!!!....to the 26 missed doping tests by the Italians (just an administrative error I have heard!...) to IAAF corruption, bribes at IAAF and in Kenya, head of anti-doping at IAAF arrested, and head of IAAF arrested, and maybe covered up tests... or just no testing at all or no followup in other cases...and Lord Coe tells us he doesn't know ANYTHING about any of this while he has been vice-president under Lamine Diack for like eight years.... and he calls Ashenden "a so-called expert--Give me a break"...
I say give us.... the people who value integrity and honesty...give us a break... from this perpetual game of How to win in track and field by cheating, which has been going strong for over 40 years... and shows no signs of slowing down any time soon....
To infinity and beyond........
Here is some more history on the use of EPO:
Some athletes probably began EPO use with the beginning of large clinical trials of EPO in 1986. The New England Journal of Medicine published a clinical trial in Jan. 1987, and it was approved for use in the US by the FDA in 1989. EPO use was banned by the International Ski Federation in 1988 and by the IOC in 1990, so they were well aware of its use at that time.
From the May 19,1991 article in the NY Times titled "Stamina-Building Drug linked to Athletes' Deaths":
1987- 5 Dutch riders died suddenly.
1988- 1 Belgian rider and 2 more Dutch riders died.
1989- 5 more Dutch riders died.
1990- 3 more Belgian riders and 2 more Dutch riders died.
That is 18 deaths in 4 years among young, healthy cyclists. There were a lot of casualties in the early days before the correct EPO dosing schedules were worked out!
And look at this paper on serum EPO levels in cross-country skiers that Dr. Francesco Conconi published in 1988. Gelindo Bordin from Italy won gold in the marathon at the 1988 Olympics and won the 1990 Boston marathon. He worked with Dr. Conconi. Salvatore Antibo, also from Italy, won the silver medal in the 10k at the 1988 Olympics, as well.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3384528
When did EPO use first enter track and road running?
We know that there was no use of EPO by any athletes before 1986.
First use of EPO by runners could of been in 1987? 1988?, 1989?, 1990? 1991?.... almost certainly by 1992......... and we know what happened with the Chinese women and many track times in 1993!
Rumors of Dr. Fuentes (and the 200 blood bags, EPO and thousands of doses of anabolic steroids from Operation Puerto in 2006) go all the way back to the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, where Fermin Cacho won 1500m gold. And then there was the success of Abel Anton and Martin Fiz, and Marta Dominguez (former World Champion in 3k steeplechase, was involved in Operation Puerto and Dr. Fuentes and she is now banned).
There is also a Nov. 22,2006 Independent story about Jos Hermens (the manager of the great Geb and Bekele, and Abeba Aregawi, recommending that 3 German athletes (one who soon after tested positive for doping) should go see the Spanish doctor Dr. Miguel Angel Peraita, because his methods, which included homeopathy, were revolutionary.
Dr. Peraita was found to be involved in Operation Puerto. "I was maybe a little dumb". Hermens said " I should have asked more questions about what Peraita exactly does."
Of all the doctors in the world, Jos Hermens recommends that his 3 German athletes should go see this Spanish doctor, who just happened to be involved in Operation Puerto.
Jos Hermens was just "maybe a little dumb" in recommending Dr. Peraita.
Jos Hermens just had really bad luck in choosing a doctor.
It is just an interesting coincidence, right??????????
Nothing to see here........move along now........
Ashenden/Parisotto are primary sources of science that quantify these random process errors. These new statements seem to contradict a decade of their own science. They can't have it both ways. So how to reconcile this seeming contradiction in "reliability"? Reliable for what purpose? They didn't use these values to reliably compare them to other values collected under different conditions, but argued that some of the values were so absolutely high, that own their own, they constituted compelling evidence of an anti-doping rule violation, and that the IAAF should have done something, and sooner. This would have been a waste of valuable anti-doping funds (and counter-productive to anti-doping) to pursue a case in arbitration based on rules that did not yet exist.Was "lab error" an excuse for one of the 3 extreme points? No (and yes). I actually never saw where Paula ever said "lab error". This looks like the invention of a Daily Mail reporter. The point that Paula said was low "not right", "artificially low", was the pre-race Oct. 2003 value with an off score of 82. This is not one of the 3 initial extreme values highlighted by the Sunday Times. But then again, before 2009, many process errors were uncontrolled, and "lab error" may be a factor in all 14 samples collected between 2001 and 2008.I don't understand your correction. First I don't really recall you correcting me, but that fact is that only one value exceeds the "population" altitude threshold of suspicion. You seem to correct me by saying the same thing.I agree with your intent, just not the target. I'm all for independent review by experts, but not by public review by non-experts. This because of the high cost of getting it wrong: the reputation of the athletes, and a question mark on the entire lifetime of achievements. By demanding public review, you aren't doubting Paula so much as all of the experts at UKAD/IAAF/WADA who have deeply investigated this.
preciously jaded wrote:
...
However, the IAAF and Ashenden and Parissotto feel that the data were more reliable than you give them credit for:
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/iaaf-coe-argue-with-experts-over-analysis-of-blood-data/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. ‘ "
...
rekrunner wrote:So while some errors (like calibration) can go both ways, this is not relevant for the extreme points that the journalists selected..
Was not lab error/machine calibration used as an explanation for at least one of the three extreme points that the journalists selected?
rekrunner wrote:
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.
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.
Huh? I'm not sure what you understood. I'm not doubting the usefulness of Bayesian statistics in blood profile analysis, or the internet. I'm saying 1) I understand Bayesian statistics, and 2) the pre-2009 blood values are not suitable for an ABP analysis based on post-2009 probabilities.Sorry if my brief response was confusing.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:I understand Bayesian statistics, and did conclude from the beginning the values are not suited for ABP purposes, and the ABP didn't work at all before 2009. There are other complications, like personal thresholds, I have avoided discussing to keep things simpler.
Posted by someone who has never used Bayesian stats. That sh!t is an effing miracle.
Apparently you are completely unaware how universal its use is in computing/Internet services. The Internet would be useless without it.
rekrunner wrote:
Ashenden/Parisotto are primary sources of science that quantify these random process errors. These new statements seem to contradict a decade of their own science. They can't have it both ways. So how to reconcile this seeming contradiction in "reliability"? Reliable for what purpose? They didn't use these values to reliably compare them to other values collected under different conditions, but argued that some of the values were so absolutely high, that own their own, they constituted compelling evidence of an anti-doping rule violation, and that the IAAF should have done something, and sooner. This would have been a waste of valuable anti-doping funds (and counter-productive to anti-doping) to pursue a case in arbitration based on rules that did not yet exist.
Was "lab error" an excuse for one of the 3 extreme points? No (and yes). I actually never saw where Paula ever said "lab error". This looks like the invention of a Daily Mail reporter. The point that Paula said was low "not right", "artificially low", was the pre-race Oct. 2003 value with an off score of 82. This is not one of the 3 initial extreme values highlighted by the Sunday Times. But then again, before 2009, many process errors were uncontrolled, and "lab error" may be a factor in all 14 samples collected between 2001 and 2008.
I don't understand your correction. First I don't really recall you correcting me, but that fact is that only one value exceeds the "population" altitude threshold of suspicion. You seem to correct me by saying the same thing.
I agree with your intent, just not the target. I'm all for independent review by experts, but not by public review by non-experts. This because of the high cost of getting it wrong: the reputation of the athletes, and a question mark on the entire lifetime of achievements. By demanding public review, you aren't doubting Paula so much as all of the experts at UKAD/IAAF/WADA who have deeply investigated this.
preciously jaded wrote:...
However, the IAAF and Ashenden and Parissotto feel that the data were more reliable than you give them credit for:
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/iaaf-coe-argue-with-experts-over-analysis-of-blood-data/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. ‘ "
...
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.
When Paula protested against Yegorova, did she consider the fact that it could have been a lab error?
rjm33 has won this thread.
[quote]rekrunner wrote:
I don't understand your correction. First I don't really recall you correcting me, but that fact is that only one value exceeds the "population" altitude threshold of suspicion. You seem to correct me by saying the same thing.[quote]
http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/
You say that only one value exceeds the altitude population value of suspicion: all three values were over the 1 in 10 threshold (1 over the 1 in 100 threshold) even for altitude adjustment (bottom graph in the link I posted). OK you can say that the threshold values are of limited usefulness without deeper context etc but we have not been provided with that context hence the need for more transparency: the values could be less or more "suspicious" regarding doping in this context . To further clarify the problem with the value over the 1 in 100 threshold: the plausibility of the severe dehydration/hemoconcentration explanation is very debateable going by the information presented and is one of the main reasons this thread is now almost 60 pages long.
Now whose the 8 year old? Imagine no one going for your "yet another conspiracy/coverup" bait.
rjm33 wrote:
I am just going to keep posting this one until there are some comments on this little find...
The WADA IC found no issue with the IAAF anti-doping strategy, or testing. WADA acknowledged that 2011 testing of Shobukhova would bring no new information, and that an optimal anti-doping strategy might have to wait long periods of time for the next blood test to occur, to get an value expected to be anomalous. Similarly, in 2002, the IAAF tested Paula many times already, and tested her again pre-race, under pressure from the French press. A favor from the IAAF would be not testing her at all, rather than testing her many times already in 2002. Maybe the IAAF similarly thought it wasn't strategic, and testing would have been a waste of scarce resources. If it wasn't a story then, it's not a story now. If it's not a concern now raised by the WADA IC, then I'm not concerned either. The "doing Paula a favor" looks like a colorful conclusion from the Scottish newspaper reporter.
I see why you see scandals everywhere. You HAVE to fabricate a massive web of scandals, conspiracies, and cover-ups to maintain your position. While it's all very interesting, like an American made for TV story based on true events, it is not real data of value, and seems unlikely that it would have gone on for so long, unnoticed. None of this was exposed by the WADA IC.
Your SIMPLE FACT is factually incorrect. A bad pre-race measurement and hemoconcentration influenced post-race measurement can also more than explain a huge 2.8 and 3.6 g/dl change. We see now (and knew then) that these things were not controlled, because ABP was not the purpose. Altitude and plasma shift can transform all of Paula's suspicious values into non-suspicious values. That's what my posts in this 1100 post thread is about. This is the SIMPLE FACT you ignore, which turns your SIMPLE FACT into TOO SIMPLE to be a FACT.
I asked you not to get me wrong, but you did it anyway. 12.0 is a bad value. 12.8 is also bad value. 82 is a bad Off-score. I don't want to use any of these values, because they are not real. The pre-race value needs to be confirmed by supporting documents before any computations can begin. You computed anyway, maybe because you don't understand or don't want to admit that simple pre-requisite. Do doctors ask patients to write a book, so they can buy the book, and read it to get their blood values? You said RET was important to show blood tranfusions versus EPO. Now you say it is really not that important anyway. You said you did these calculations a year ago, and yet still concluded blood transfusion is the best explanation (to explain 12.0-15.6) despite the big increase in RET you told us should go down with transfusions, before telling us RET change is not important anyway. When educating us about RET, you assumed (for illustration) Paula's normal RET was 0.77 (which for an off score of 82 gives 13.5 Hg), and that a drop from 0.77 to 0.47 is consistent with blood transfusion. That's a very good explanation, and looks like a reasonable example. But we know her pre-race measurement was very far from 13.5 and 0.77. As we see, 12.8 seems less consistent (than your both your illustrative assumption which aligns better with the Runner B example), and 12.0 is completely inconsistent. But it is entirely consistent with a bad pre-race measurement.
How can you know so much about blood, but get that so wrong? Now I see why -- you gave it less than 10 seconds of thought.
rjm33 wrote:
I am just going to keep posting this one until there are some comments on this little find about the IAAF and Paula's COZY relationship back in 2002. So far, rekrunner has had NO COMMENT!, since it does not support his view that the corruption at the IAAF only started after 2010. Wrong again, rekrunner. But he must be comfortable being WRONG AGAIN, since it keeps happening over and over and over and over and over again................
...
It is like having an argument with an 8 year old. He can't understand that NOTHING CAN CHANGE HEMOGLOBIN VALUES BY 2.8g/dl or 3.6g/dl IN 2 DAYS EXCEPT A BLOOD TRANSFUSION. IT IS A VERY SIMPLE FACT.
That is the one sentence fact that Paula, the IAAF, Dr. Martial "Plan B" Saugy, and rekrunner can't explain...... which sums up over 1100 posts on this thread......... which has now reached the point of complete absurdity!
After reading that part of Paula's biography, and looking at her blood test results when they were published, it took me less than 10 seconds to decide she had done an autologous blood transfusion in 2003, and that she was telling LIES and COVERING IT UP!!!! No information that has come out since then has led me to change my mind, so far. All of the information coming out since then also points to the IAAF and Dr. PLAN B SAUGY being INVOLVED in the COVERUP FOR PAULA. This article here shows a history going back to 2002 of the IAAF doing FAVORS FOR PAULA!!!!!!!!
You can also look at Paula's face in the video interviews at the time the story came out. See and feel if you think she is telling the truth, or if she has something to hide.......... like her blood test results from her 2:15 and 2:17 world records. She could release those results, show normal OFF scores and hemoglobin values, and completely destroy the critics and doubters. But she does not release any scores...... Why not? Since the abnormal scores have already been made public which make fully transparent Paula look guilty, she should release normal scores from her world record races to show everyone that fully transparent Paula is actually innocent. It would take about 2 minutes!!!!!!!
NO. Instead, the LIARS AND FRAUDS at the IAAF and Dr. Plan B Saugy have declared Paula innocent with a whitewash report which has so many holes, omissions, and false statements (which I have pointed out in detail) in it that it is a complete JOKE!!!
GO.... pure....... innocent..... fully transparent.........PAULA!!!!!
rekrunner wrote:
I agree with your intent, just not the target. I'm all for independent review by experts, but not by public review by non-experts. This because of the high cost of getting it wrong: the reputation of the athletes, and a question mark on the entire lifetime of achievements. By demanding public review, you aren't doubting Paula so much as all of the experts at UKAD/IAAF/WADA who have deeply investigated this.
This is the view of many of the posters: the IAAF/UKAD/WADA have just given some sort of a "whitewash explanation" (to quote rjm33) of the test results.
The Times' revelations have already put a question mark over the achievements of the athlete - being more transparent and showing the data that prove you are "clean" is a way of reducing this suspicion.
Did Paula race marathons and semi-marathons on a bike? Did you see these publications?Schumacher et al, "Diurnal and exercise-related variability of haemoglobin and reticulocytes in athletes", In J Sports Med 2010;31;225-30"The most relevant confounder is physical exercise, which significantly increased Hb. This increase can be explained by exercise induced plasma volume concentration. Many previous investigations have highlighted this issue. The data of our investigation demonstrates that Hb returns to values around pre-exercise baseline within approximately 2h after the cessation of physical activity"Hey look -- Ashenden/Parisotto writing their opinion on plasma reduction impacting compelling evidence:Parisotto, Gore, Emslie, Ashenden et al, "A novel method utilizing markers of altered erythropoiesis for the detection of recombinant human erythropoietin abuse in athletes", Haematologica, 2000; 85:564-572"hemoconcentration could cause false positives by artificially elevating blood markers such as sTfr and Hct. Hemoconcentration can be caused by dehydration associated with prolonged exercise or by posturally-induced shifts in plasma volume, and may be in the order of 10-20%"This is why we have a two hour rule.
Plasma rubbish wrote:
I think rekrunner is referring to this Schumacher paper, Haemoglobin mass in cyclists during stage racing, 2008? Which states like every publication I have seen regarding plasma volume, that during prolonged exercise plasma volume goes up.
Time for a new defence I think.
Absolutely. No way the public should know intermediate values, easily explained and dismissed by a knowledgeable panel of experts. As we have seen in this thread alone, there are too many arm chair experts who prefer to believe in lies, scandals, cover-ups, rather than the less sexy uncontrolled process errors, effects of altitude, plasma volume loss, medical conditions, etc.Give the high cost is the loss of a lifelong reputation, there is no way I would entrust the public to objectively evaluate all data made public. We should campaign for independent policing by experts, not the public.
Accountability wrote:
Now can I just ask what you would demand if we substitute Paula for a Russian athlete in exactly the same situation. Would you be sticking up for their privacy?
Thanks. I didn't start defending Paula, so much as the science. Paula might actually be guilty of something, but the certainty doesn't improve from the pre-2009 leaked blood data.I have patience, but don't really have the time. There are a few topics I post like this, like Lydiard, Daniels VDOT, "aerobic mythology", and doping threads. I think all have a similar theme about what science and data shows, and for whom, but also doesn't show.
cleans wrote:
...
Credit to Rekrunner for continuing to defend Paula, at least it has produced something of a balanced debate. Hell, though, I have no idea where you find the time or the patience to do it. Do you post on other threads to this extent? (I tend only to read the blood doping ones...)
I don't mind. I have patience.
Jon Orange wrote:
rekrunner wrote:She's not.
rekrunner, you do know that you are being trolled to hell on this thread don't you?
Probably nothing since it is not banned by WADA.
Cockerels crest Wolfhart wrote:
Given her statements last week about medication if love to know what her fellow competitors think of her use of actovigen, which is banned by the IOC.
Paula Radcliffe
Perfect Marathon record pre-Athens 2004 Olympics.
Pressure from executives/doping agency of her red flag failed doping tests. She is told they will be kept quiet but she needs to change her program.
The mental stress of not having her "sauce" weakens her mental resolve and she starts falling apart mentally.
Fully manifests itself in Athens where she cracks and DNFs crying. From WR holder and undefeated to not even being able to finish the marathon distance in the most important race of her career.
Finishes career without OLYMPIC CHAMPION title.
Wait... You do not have a medical or science background?
I thought this was a group of people with some knowledge of the field debating this. No wonder I have been frustrated trying to follow this.