Nobody talking about Ross Tucker v Paula radcliffe on twitter.... spat central!

In this context, it is interesting to recall what you cited from Paula's book:

DHT123 wrote:

To quote from her biography.... 'My hematocrit and volume of red blood cells doesn't really change that much at altitude. My usual haematocrit is 39-42 no matter how long I spend at altitude and red blood count cell count never goes above 4,250,000'. Hb this time of 16.2......

That is actually in line with Canova's observation that athletes used to altitude don't see a significant change in Hb concentration at altitude (but rather its oxygen "affinity" - that of course being the wrong explanation).

Just from memory, it was a fair number of points forming a fairly flat line in the 90s.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

This is was what I saw earlier in the day, no data on the page. Just wondering what his off score was.

Lauren Fleshman's insufferable.

Paula gets away with a lot because she's the "great white hope."

We'll never find out the truth.

rekrunner wrote:

It was published here -- I'm not seeing any data now though:

http://features.thesundaytimes.co.uk/web/public/2015/the-doping-scandal/index.html#/data-transparency

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

I never saw Mo's data, did he actually release it? Anyone got a copy?

Call Coach Jama for any further specific info on Mo. He's in Font Romeu...or is it Sabadell?

Karl Hungus wrote:

Lauren Fleshman's insufferable.

Paula gets away with a lot because she's the "great white hope."

We'll never find out the truth.

thought they were friends. guess not.

Stopwatch Holder wrote:

Call Coach Jama for any further specific info on Mo. He's in Font Romeu...or is it Sabadell?

An update on his tests would be nice. After all, he landed on the IAAF list of likely dopers!

Karl Hungus wrote:

Lauren Fleshman's insufferable.

Paula gets away with a lot because she's the "great white hope."

We'll never find out the truth.

yes we do know the truth!!!

EPO AND PEDS DONT WORK!!!!!

rekrunner wrote:

Just from memory, it was a fair number of points forming a fairly flat line in the 90s.

A little too flat for some.

rememberer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Just from memory, it was a fair number of points forming a fairly flat line in the 90s.

A little too flat for some.

Yet he provided all his data. If the UK had a leader in anti doping , it would be Jo Pavey, not Paula.

East vs West wrote:

Yet he provided all his data. If the UK had a leader in anti doping , it would be Jo Pavey, not Paula.

After he got flagged two years ago because of his anomalous blood passport ("likely doping"), he doesn't provide his data anymore either. Might be the Aden influence, who is also crystal clean like all his athletes (with 1 or 2 coincidental exceptions) and Paula etc. , but agrees with the anti-transparency stance of Seb and Paula and Co.

casual obsever wrote:

In this context, it is interesting to recall what you cited from Paula's book:

DHT123 wrote:

To quote from her biography.... 'My hematocrit and volume of red blood cells doesn't really change that much at altitude. My usual haematocrit is 39-42 no matter how long I spend at altitude and red blood count cell count never goes above 4,250,000'. Hb this time of 16.2......

That is actually in line with Canova's observation that athletes used to altitude don't see a significant change in Hb concentration at altitude (but rather its oxygen "affinity" - that of course being the wrong explanation).

Hemoglobin concentration at altitude is one of those areas full of misunderstanding. It's normal for a big change in Hb concentration in just two days, but it's plasma volume going down, not Hb mass going up. If physiologists don't understand this basic concept, what hope is there that they can give you any reliable information about oxygen delivery?

In your ideal world, exactly what kind of transparency would you like to see? You want the raw blood values and off scores? Intermediate reports that prioritize who to test? Or just the experts' final reviews? Should they go to the general public, or to some newly appointed "independent" reviewer? What is it that you would like to see with your own eyes? What should be the trigger for making data public? Should all data become public, or just the data of athletes accused by the press? I wonder why you wonder, because the IAAF explained in great detail why they don't. Two main reasons are to protect the athletes: - Wrong interpretations can irreversibly damage reputations - Blood values are in fact medical data, something which many countries consider private Generally making raw values and off-scores public, before expert evaluation, would be irresponsible. The IAAF spelled out six or seven factors, if not more, that need to be considered by an expert who understands anti-doping, before considering an analysis including these raw values. This is only more true for values before 2009. Specifically regarding 2012, the IAAF already told us, that an expert panel looked at the anonymous profile, and noted that altitude was a plausible explanation, before concluding that there was no basis to pursue a case. The reasons they don't release the experts' final review are many: 1) It is improper to release any private details regarding athletes who are plausibly innocent; 2) No one has asked them to release this, or any expert's final review; 3) the matter, if it was ever open, was closed in 2012; 4) the matter, if it was ever re-opened, was again closed with the IAAF rebuttal in 2016; 5) the matter has remained closed.

casual obsever wrote:

This anti-transparency philosophy is quite annoying. I wonder why the IAAF won't ever release the experts' final review.

rekrunner wrote:

Specifically regarding 2012, the IAAF already told us, that an expert panel looked at the anonymous profile, and noted that altitude was a plausible explanation, before concluding that there was no basis to pursue a case.

Well, we know that the first expert looked at her profile and concluded 'likely doping'. That's why it got put to an expert panel of three. Then we don't know what happened whether a) the three experts concluded unanimously that the profile suggested 'likely doping' and it proceeded to the next stage of the investigation which includes receiving an 'explanation' from the athlete or b) whether the three experts weren't in agreement and 1 (or 2) of them concluded there could be another reason for those levels. Page 49-55 for people who can be bothered.

BUT don't forget that as the athlete has already declared about being at altitude etc on the testing form, it seems weird that one expert could see all this evidence and conclude 'likely doping' and the next not. That kind of inconsistency would be the kind of reason why you have measurable limits and not subjective judgements (which also allows for greater risk for corruption)

Wherever you look, more little untruths emerge with Paula's story. Here's another. In this interview -

https://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/listen-paula-radcliffe-on-her-legacy-and-the-state-of-running

- the most detailed one she did post-doping story, she says about her 2005 test after the 10,000m final in Helsinki (at 7.30):

'I wanted to get out there and do my cool down as soon as possible so I was through there (the mixed zone) in 20 minutes and gave my blood sample'

Then you read the account of the same race in her autobiography:

'I did a 30 minute warm down and took an ice bath before clearing Doping Control' (how does that affect blood values by the way?)

So how long was it post-race that the test was taken? Like in 2003, apparently it was within 2 hours of the race, but we have no idea and in the meantime the story is being embellished by Paula to suit her story.

DHT123 wrote:

Wherever you look, more little untruths emerge with Paula's story. Here's another.

...

So how long was it post-race that the test was taken? Like in 2003, apparently it was within 2 hours of the race, but we have no idea and in the meantime the story is being embellished by Paula to suit her story.

I am not surprised - she just says whatever sounds best at the moment, and no one dares to correct that.

So, was it within 2 hours?

The IAAF wrote about 2003:

"Ms Radcliffe has confirmed that the sample was collected just after she had just completed the IAAF World Half Marathon Championship in Vilamoura, Portugal in 29° heat."

And about 2005:

"Ms Radcliffe was notified of the doping control after finishing the 10,000m final at the 2005 World Championships in Helsinki, and provided her blood sample within two hours."

I notice that no evidence was provided for these repeated statements of "within two hours". Just like no evidence was provided for the "29° heat".

Always a fun read from 2002:

https://www.iaaf.org/news/news/freeze-my-doping-samples-and-test-them-again

"I was disappointed and saddened by whispers that others believed I was using drugs in some way."

"I have asked the IAAF to conduct random blood and urine tests on me in the build up to Chicago and at the competition itself. I would like these samples to be frozen and tested again in the future as new detection tests become available. This is the only way I can think of to prove that my results are the result of over 10 years of hard work, pain and dedication."

Well, so go ahead and prove it!

Staff IAAF writers .

rekrunner wrote:

I wonder why you wonder, because the IAAF explained in great detail why they don't. Two main reasons are to protect the athletes:

- Wrong interpretations can irreversibly damage reputations

And yet, some athletes have published data and nothing came from it.

rekrunner wrote:

- Blood values are in fact medical data, something which many countries consider private

Yet, international sports federations, NADOs, all NGOs, require athletes to share their health data, maintain and manage "private" health data across international borders. What's good for the sports federation is bad for everyone else?

Try again.

casual obsever wrote:

In this context, it is interesting to recall what you cited from Paula's book:

DHT123 wrote:

To quote from her biography.... 'My hematocrit and volume of red blood cells doesn't really change that much at altitude. My usual haematocrit is 39-42 no matter how long I spend at altitude and red blood count cell count never goes above 4,250,000'. Hb this time of 16.2......

That is actually in line with Canova's observation that athletes used to altitude don't see a significant change in Hb concentration at altitude (but rather its oxygen "affinity" - that of course being the wrong explanation).

Or EPO. Naaaah!!! It couldn't be!