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

I find it interesting that the Olympic record for the women's marathon is around 8 minutes shy of the world record.

Some Olympic events attract record performances, but clearly the women's marathon isn't one of them.

Schumacher told us to wait two hours to return to normal.

Ashenden/Parisotto told us there can be up to 10-20% plasma loss.

Those were my claims.

Maybe there is an earlier study finding two hours, as the 2009 rule predates this 2010 study. Schumacher confirms two hours.

Around 40 pages ago, we found an Ex. Phys. textbook that teaches students about exercise/heat induced plasma loss up to 10-20%.

Yes, the loss can be less, like 3%, and can even increase.

Sportsscientists showed us two studies, one increasing plasma, and one decreasing plasma.

I'm surprised plasma loss is new to you.

Now you've seen two publications finding plasma loss.

If you go to the sportsscientists website, you can find a third.

Schumacher says there are many more.

Maybe Yegorova's B-sample was contaminated by Russian officials. I mentioned previously that that was suggested.I don't depend on Paula's explanations, for fluctuations in blood values.Her profile doesn't look like the Russians either. How much EPO would Paula need to run 2:15:25? Micro-doses to the altitude threshold?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

So, you are just going to ignore the simple fact Yegorova was in the Russian athletic system that is known to be completely compromised. She could have been positive, she could have had a sample swapped, there might have been failed bribes, the IAAF may have just accepted another forged admission.

Was Yegorova doping? Probably. Do we know with any kind of confidence? No.

As a foundation on which Paula claims she's clean, there's no confidence the sports administrators are providing some integrity. On top of that, Paula's explanations just don't work. On top of that, the facts we have regarding blood values just don't resemble a clean athlete.

Aren't the Olympics typically in summer? World record attempts are usually in spring or fall, on fast courses like London or Berlin.

cleans wrote:

I find it interesting that the Olympic record for the women's marathon is around 8 minutes shy of the world record.

Some Olympic events attract record performances, but clearly the women's marathon isn't one of them.

Of course, for Paula, there are many, many explanations to pick from to EXPLAIN ANY ABNORMAL OFF SCORES, HEMOGLOBIN VALUES OR RETICULOCYTE VALUES!!!

Here is a partial list:

1) I was at sea level.

2) I was at sea level with an altitude tent.

3) I had just recently arrived at altitude from sea level.

4) I had just recently returned to sea level from altitude.

5) I was at altitude and training hard 2x per day on rough roads in 2012 (in

an interview at the time).

6) I was at altitude but injured, which can lead to the loss of footstrike

caused hemolysis, which can then lead to an even higher hemoglobin

value than my normal at altitude and training hard at altitude value. This

can help to explain my very high hemoglobin value of 16.2g/dl in 2012.

(Paula has recently added this new category of blood value explanation,

which also contradicts her interview at the time....Maybe Paula got

injured after the interview, so they could both be true....right???).

7) I had massive dehydration after a half-marathon and 10k (yet she had

absolutely no signs of dehydration/hemoconcentration in her blood

results after winning the marathon 8 days after 10k--still in the IAAF

report as an explanation for the 2.8g/dl increase postrace after the

half-marathon, even though Paula is not using it now.)

8) I had been sick and on antibiotics. (in her biography)

9) I had just competed. (but it had no effect on blood results after her

marathon win)

10) I was tested too soon after the race.(but had no effect on the marathon

blood results)

11) Possible testing procedure variations causing big changes( shown very

unlikely by plasma rubbish just recently).

12) Lab procedure/analysis variations (which seem to affect only Paula's

results, with no evidence of other athletes also being affected).

13) LAB ERROR!!!...........MASSIVE LAB ERROR!!!!!!!!! (not mentioned in

biography).

14) The IAAF and my blood test expert Dr. Martial Plan B Saugy says I AM

CLEAN and you can's see any more of my blood test results! (even

though Paula had no problem talking about her 12.0 hemoglobin level

in her biography and also mentioned in her biography that her

hemoglobin values were usually around 14 something and NEVER

VARIED MUCH EVEN WHEN SHE WAS AT ALTITUDE. PAULA ALSO

LEFT OUT THE MASSIVE HEMOGLOBIN INCREASE TO 15.6 IN 2

DAYS IN HER BIOGRAPHY!....I guess it was not important information.)

15) No score from pre-2009 ABP counts! ....(ha! ha! ha!).

16) Any blood test result that may look suspicious is simply not real.

(rekrunner's favorite explanation!)

17) Call my lawyers, IAAF, and my blood test expert Dr. Plan B Saugy to

get more and/or better explanations!!!

18) Repeat almost infinite number of combinations of explanations 1 to 17

from now on................until hell freezes over!!!........................................

.....................GO PAULA!!!!!!!!!!!!...............................

Oh my.........I forgot to include my favorite explanation:

I have a history of anemia, which has either:

a) not been treated in a very effective way(to explain low hemoglobin values).

or

b) treated in a very, very, very effective way with ostrich meat, venison, and wheatgrass (to explain high, above normal range hemoglobin values)!!!

..............but it depends on what day it is!!!.........................

.........................GO PAULA!!!!....................................

I forgot another explanation:

20) The hemoglobin value in my biography may not be correct because of possible book editing procedure variations/error (from rekrunner).......

.........................GO PAULA!!!!!!!!!............................

Anyone reading who has direct experience with the EPO test can correct me if they feel that what I am writing here is wrong or misleading but very basically, in the early 2000s, the principle of the urine EPO test is based on comparing the distribution of protein bands on an electrophoresis gel in the sample with those of positive and negative controls – “artificial” EPO has a slightly different isoelectric point from “normal” EPO. The positive result is not quite an “on” or “off” type of result as you could have some “normal” EPO as well as “artificial” EPO in the sample of someone taking EPO.

In Yegorvoa’s case, from what I read, the A sample looked “suspicious” on the gel going by the distribution of the protein bands, I assume. However the lab announced that the B sample could not be interpreted. The lack of transparency, again, made it difficult to understand what happened. I read varying possible explanations: there was a problem with the” B” sample storage, the “B” sample was contaminated/tempered with in some way, there was a problem with the gel (a bubble?) in which the “B” sample was run (would not the lab have another aliquot of protein from the sample to test when things like this happen?).

Yegorova was tested about 2 weeks later at the 2001 IAAF world champs both a blood test and a urine test. The blood test looked “suspicious” (I have not read any details about the values of the blood test) but the urine test was “negative” in both A and B samples.

I think that the urine test works the same way today with some refinements to the protocol used 15 years ago. It still has the problem of being expensive and has a short window of detection after administration of EPO.

For those who have time, this article gives a decent review, better than I am able to do in a MB post:

In 2008, Yegorova was implicated in the bust of several Russian athletes who had been switching their urine samples.

You are right it's not an on/off test. Running these gels can be like a black art, some days they come out awful, other days perfect, even if you do everything the same. Just flick through any Phd students lab book and see what a mess most of their Western blots are.

With EPO and synthetic EPO, they have the same amino acid sequence, they are virtually identical, the only difference being the degree of glycosylation. However, this difference means you can tell them apart based on their charge. Sounds great, but the reality is they aren't homogenous, so instead of getting two distinct bands in the gel, you get a multitude of bands, sometimes overlapping. To make matters worse, the antibody they use to detect EPO is not very specific; cross reacts with loads of other proteins. The test is rubbish.

Is it expensive? Yes, because antibodies are expensive, the rest of the procedure is pretty cheap. If they had the hybridoma then they could make their own antibody quite cheap but what's the point when it's such a rubbish antibody.

I imagine with such a terrible antibody they are doing 4º overnight incubations so the whole procedure start to finish might take 2-3 days. Awfully laborious and frustrating.

CERA and the next gen erythropoeisis stimulating agents require slightly different tests and are better detected in blood plasma due to the longer half life. Now you can start to see what sort of challenge the testers have! This is also why there is a drive for an indirect detection method such as the ABP. It's cheap, fast and effective.

To give you an example, a female endurance athlete with a blood hemoglobin level of 12.8 pre-race going to over 16 post race doesn't just suggest blood transfusion, it Screams it!! I can't think of any explanation for that level of change other than transfusion. The only question is are those values real? Will we ever see the data?

I have a decade of bench experience in infectious disease, immunology and cardiovascular research. None of which is necessary to understand that she's a cheat.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Lets clear this up then, Ashenden/Parisotto reference two papers with this statement:

Physiol Rev. 1985 Jan;65(1):149-209.

Effects on thermal stress and exercise on blood volume in humans.

Harrison MH.

"Exercise too causes hemoconcentration, but only if the exercise is performed in a supine or seated, not in an upright (standing), position. Hence cycling is almost always associated with a reduction in plasma volume, as is arm exercise and swimming. Bench stepping, walking, and running, on the other hand, are associated with an extremely variable intravascular volume response. If allowance is made for the reduction in plasma volume that occurs when moving to an upright position from a supine or seated position, the initial rapid hemoconcentration seen at the onset of cycling exercise is absent with bench stepping, walking, and running."

and,

Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1992;65(4):302-10.

Plasma volume, osmolarity, total protein and electrolytes during treadmill running and cycle ergometer exercise.

Gore CJ, Scroop GC, Marker JD, Catcheside PG.

"Plasma volume decreased similarly (approximately 6.5%) in both exercise trials, but while that with cycling was initiated by exercise itself and was essentially maximal within 5 min, the reduction in plasma volume in the running trial was induced by adopting the upright posture and was complete before exercise began."

So we can see from both of the papers that you have indirectly quoted, specifically regarding running, any change in plasma volume occurs when going from a seated position to a standing position, during exercise there is no change. I have no idea why Parisotto has quoted 10-20%, the quoted text sounds like something you would write to appease a reviewers' comment.

If we go back to the Parisotto and Ashenden paper, under study design you can see they have standardized procedures,

"All blood was collected in the morning at the same times to control for diurnal variations. Posture was standardized with each subject seated for 5 minutes before assuming a supine position for venipuncture."

Furthermore, they standardized their equipment,

"Erythrocyte and reticulocyte parameters were analyzed within 4 hours of blood collection...

...All analyzers were calibrated against appropriate reference materials and checked daily against internal and external quality controls."

So now we know that even as far back as 2000, 9 years before officially endorsing the ABP, the experts and testers were well aware of confounding factors and they used standardized procedures to reduce the variation. Excellent! Science at work.

Finally, this is a scientifically sound publication and highly relevant to our discussion since the only data we really have are OFF-scores (as in the weeks after the athlete has stopped using EPO), and this paper explains their thinking behind it. It also reports how good the ON and OFF-models are at catching the cheats (albeit in a small sample)

"The ON-model was able to correctly identify 94-100% of r-HuEPO group members during the final 2 weeks of drug administration, and produced a single false positive measurement in a member of the placebo group"

"While the OFF-model had zero sensitivity during r-HuEPO administration it correctly classified 67-72% of r-HuEPO users at days 12-21 of wash-out and identified 33% at 28 days post (Figure 4). Importantly,it produced no false positives in the placebo or athlete reference groups."

So the OFF-score actually underestimates EPO use but importantly it doesn't generate many false positives. If you have an abnormal OFF-score you better have a good excuse!

Hey, this is weird.....Science talks agrees with me (rjm33) that there is no other plausible explanation for the massive increase of hemoglobin of 2.8g/dl or 3.6g/dl (take your pick, it does not matter!) in 2 days except for a BLOOD TRANSFUSION!!!!

You better be very careful Science talks and plasma rubbish..... because soon the true 'experts' here at LRC such as Jon Orange=Plasma shift and rekrunner will come to tell everyone the real truth about all this science nonsense we keep promoting...

I have been described here as: an idiot many times, a lunatic, crazy, insane, a liar, a bully, a conspiracy theorist who acts like an 8 year old, and an internet weirdo ......who does not know anything that he is talking about..........

I also have tried to post in response to some Renato Canova posts on another thread about EPO use in middle distance vs. long distance.

I considered that much of what Renato was saying about EPO use and blood transfusions was complete nonsense. I tried multiple times to post several extensive posts in response to his nonsense arguments.......and ALL OF MY POSTS WERE DELETED BY THE LRC MODERATORS!!!.......

It is hard to present any opposing argument to Renato Canova when it is DELETED!!!

However, the moderators never seem to delete any of the nonsense posts by J.O.= J.R.=plasma shift or Renato Canova...........

.........so in terms of freedom of speech, transparency, and access to valid scientific information on these boards........not very much!!!..........

Good luck to you here!!!........YOU WILL NEED IT!!!!!!!!!!.............

................GO PAULA!!!.............. Go "COACH" RENATO CANOVA!!!.........

Plasma rubbish wrote:

So the OFF-score actually underestimates EPO use but importantly it doesn't generate many false positives. If you have an abnormal OFF-score you better have a good excuse!

And it's specific to the athlete. If i am recalling correctly, Paula tried to compare off scores as a way to define her change as normal. You can't do that.

Otherwise, along with "Science talks" excellent posts that clearly know more than I do, but matches my amateur understanding.

So that you can see what kind of response you may receive from your post, I will give you a simulation of a typical response you may receive here:

.........That science nonsense you posted is all very interesting Plasma rubbish..............................but completely irrelevant..............as it is possible that Paula was standing on her head during the blood draw.......which makes all of your statements completely null and void........and by the way......you are a complete idiot!!!...............

...................Fun stuff......isn't it???......

.........and from me.........once again......VERY WELL DONE!!!...BRILLIANT!!!

...........Go Plasma rubbish!!!!!!..........Go Science talks......Go Paula!!!!!!!!......

The BBC made some interesting comments in hindsight back in 2002 - The murky world of doping and denial:

"If athletics governing body, the IAAF, had had its way, the world would still be none the wiser about Boulami."

"The thinking is that a sudden dramatic jump in class is unlikely beyond a certain age, and that the less you race, the less doping tests you are likely to undergo. "

"The French media are currently convinced that Paula Radcliffe must be doping. They point to her huge improvements this year (2002) and the very limited number of races she has run. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/2223775.stm

Radcliffe progression:

Age 21: 14:49 (5k)

Age 22: 14:46 (5k)

Age 23: 14:45 (5k)

Age 24: 14:51 (5k)

Age 25: 14:43 (5k) 30:27 (10k)

Age 26: 14:44 (5k) 30:26 (10k)

Age 27: 14:44 (5k) 30:55 (10k)

Age 28 (2002): 14:31 (5k) 30:01 (10k) 2:17:18 (Marathon)

Age 29 (2003): No 5k, No 10k, 2:15:25 (Marathon)

Using VDOT tables, the 2003 equivalent times would have been 14:06 (5k) and 29:20 (10k).

9 days until we find our whether Fuentes' blood bags will be destroyed or not.

I fully expect them to be flushed away, sparing the blushes of dozens of footballers, athletes, boxers, cyclists, tennis players...

If the blood is flushed away, then I personally will give up all hope of professional sport ever cleaning up its act.

Long live drugs! Long live cheating!

How soon before the Olympics ceases as an event, because it can't find sponsors...?

Many thanks for your reply.

I went into a bit of detail on the Yegorova 2001 case because it was not really just a simple case of someone testing positive in the urine EPO test and then being let off because a blood test was not performed. Based on the testing procedures, Yegorova could not be branded as a "drug cheat" in 2001 because of technical issues, strange though this may seem today.

The case highlights at least 2 problems which we have seen in other cases of EPO testing and these have not been helped by a lack of transparency from the sports governing bodies:

1. We had a suspicious finding on the A sample analysis which was not corroborated by analysis of the B sample - this also happened with Marion Jones, and Bernard Lagat in the early 2000s. Why were there these discrepancies? - a problem with regarding the samples storage/preparation? a problem due to sample tampering? a problem with the lab's interpretation of the protein band distribution on the gels?

2. We had a "suspicious" blood profile at the 2001 world champs (the full details of which I have not seen) but a negative finding on the urine EPO test - sound familiar?

Overall it looks as though the urine test for EPO in the early 2000s was a fairly crude tool for detecting EPO abuse in sports, despite the best efforts of the scientists and labs who developed and refined the test.

rekrunner wrote:

In the real world, the plausibility of hemoconcentration is not seriously debated on any merits, but a generally accepted effect. Even Asenden/Parisotto wrote about the dangers of not accounting for it. For Paula, it's only debated here and in UK newspapers.

I would say instead that most of the "real world" does not care about this case to look at it in detail. My impression in Europe at least is that most people have a resigned belief that most top professional sportsmen/women use some sort of PED(s) and that is pointless to question things in detail that they cannot change.

Of the small proportion from "the real world" who are actually interested in the details of this case, many will be working in the UK newspapers or reading specialist forums such as letsrun so it is natural that the details will be debated mainly through these media.

Plasma rubbish wrote:

"The ON-model was able to correctly identify 94-100% of r-HuEPO group members during the final 2 weeks of drug administration, and produced a single false positive measurement in a member of the placebo group"

"While the OFF-model had zero sensitivity during r-HuEPO administration it correctly classified 67-72% of r-HuEPO users at days 12-21 of wash-out and identified 33% at 28 days post (Figure 4). Importantly,it produced no false positives in the placebo or athlete reference groups."

So the OFF-score actually underestimates EPO use but importantly it doesn't generate many false positives. If you have an abnormal OFF-score you better have a good excuse!

It is worth noting again that, even when correcting for altitude, PR has had at least 3 off scores close to the 1 in 100 threshold cut off: 1 just over, 2 just under.

Rekrunner has pointed out that the individual context could explain these high scores but without any transparency or consistent explanation of context being given, we do not yet know whether such a credible context exists in this case.

The link below at sportsscientists.com has the 1974 Dill and Costill study, which has the largest hemoglobin increases in any study I could find. In this study six men ran for 2.5 to 3 hours, got dehydrated to the point that they lost 4% of their bodyweight(6 lbs. for a 150 lb. person), and they measured pre and post run blood values. While plasma volume changes can be 15 to 20% with severe dehydration , hemoglobin changes are much less and DO NOT CHANGE BY THE SAME AMOUNT OR PERCENTAGE AS PLASMA VOLUME.In the study, the average increase of hemoglobin for the six men was from 15.1g/dl prerun to 16.7 postrun, which is an average increase of 1.6g/dl or a 10.6% increase.The maximum increase of one subject(#3) was from 14.9g/dl prerun to 17.1g/dl postrun, which is an increase of 2.2g/dl or a 14.77% increase.Paula's hemoglobin value from prerace to postrace after only 1 hour and 7 minutes of running at the half-marathon in 2003 went from 12.8g/dl prerace to 15.6g/dl postrace, which is an increase of 2.8g/dl or 21.88%!!!Paula's 21.88% increase is 106% more of an increase than the average in the study and 48.14% more of an increase than the maximum increase of subject #3, and Paula did it in only 1 hour and 7 minutes instead of 2.5 to 3 hours of running!Using the 12.0 g/dl prerace hemoglobin value from her biography would give an increase of 3.6g/dl to 15.6g/dl postrace, which is an even larger increase of 30%!!!!Paula also shows a similar pattern, but less extreme, after the 10K in 2005 and eight days later she shows absolutely no signs of dehydration/hemoconcentration(normal 102 OFF score) after winning the 2005 WC marathon.That is strange that Paula could have an unprecedented dehydration/ hemoconcentration after a half-marathon but none after a 26.2M marathon!, but we are all used to lots strange things with Paula by now!!!So a 2.8g/dl and 21.88% increase of hemoglobin in 2 days from prerace to postrace may be plausibly explained by dehydration/hemoconcentration according to Paula, Dr. Martial Plan B Saugy, the IAAF whitewash report statements, and rekrunner..........But for me and many others...this is NOT a plausible explanation!Autologous blood transfusion is still the most plausible explanation!!!! In my opinion, the statements in the IAAF report and by Dr. Plan B Saugy have been shown to be absolutely FALSE!..........which backs up my previous statements that the IAAF and Dr. Plan B Saugy are.........................LIARS!!! and FRAUDS!!!.............................TRY AGAIN IAAF, DR. PLAN B SAUGY, AND REKRUNNER!!!......................GO PAULA!!!!!!!!...........