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

......and they said before it would be at the end of Jan....and today Spain was declared non-compliant by WADA and will lose lab accreditation.....

and CONI getting tough again with 0 sanctions so far for the 26 missed drug tests and 8 acquittals today, with the reason being faulty fax machines, dysfunctional cell phone apps and email login problems!!!.....Sure!............... ....Why not??.....

and Rio came within 1 day of losing their lab accreditation...and if they had.......all Rio Olympic doping samples would have to be sent to a different lab for testing.......I wondered if that lab would be the Lausanne lab run by Dr. Martial Plan B Saugy!!!!......Wouldn't that be convenient!!!...but it did not happen.....Thank God!

........(OK, so maybe I am a conspiracy theorist who acts like an 8 year old!)...........

.........and now Meldonium used by ice dancers! tennis players,volleyball, rugby,cycling,running,biathletes,speed skaters,wrestlers......everybody!!!...

....and it is only Tuesday for this week!!!!......

....the recent story of the manager Jos Hermens link to Operation Puerto was pretty much the last straw for me.....Geb and Bekele were my favorite runners......my heroes........now I am not so sure.....looking back.....2006... ...........I found that news article devastating.....maybe ignorance is bliss......

To change the subject a bit:

After all this doping news, I actually think the US distance runners (NOT SPRINTERS!) are in general tested a lot and pretty clean (I know...because I am naive and biased).....but can some people here help to come up with a list of top tier US male and female runners 800m to marathon, that have had positive doping tests in the last 10 years?

I'll start:

1) Mo Trafeh- although I don't think he had a positive test, he did get caught coming back from Morocco with EPO is his bags ... and won some national titles.

more?....

Great summaries. From them, one would get the impression, that, although hemoconcentration does exist, as I quoted Schumacher/Ashenden/Parisotto, on the order of 10-20%, taking two hours to return to normal, this is only for cycling, and other sports, where you are sitting or lying down, and not for running, or other upright sports. For running all hemoconcentration happens just by standing up before exercise begins. Is that really true? Note for this purpose, hemoconcentration by standing up is still hemoconcentration."rjm" just showed us the 1974 Dill and Costill study (which we can find at the sportsscientists) which shows that significant Hg increases (1.6 g/dl on average) did occur for runners, who I presume were not sitting or lying down or riding a bike, while running. 1.6 g/dl is 16 points in Off-Score. 1.6 to 2.2 g/dl is 10%-15% Hg difference. Although these are not plasma loss %s, "in the order of 10-20%" seems to be observable with running, at least under the conditions of this study. Note, I didn't read this study, but just Ross Tucker's brief summary at the sportsscientists blog, which says they ran.So:1) It seems it can occur also with running2) Schumacher demonstrated that Hg values return to pre-exercise baselines within two hours3) Ashenden/Parisotto's statement "in the order of 10-20%" can also be observed for runningOne open question is -- would Paula be more like the female study (mentioned by the sportsscientists) which observed hemodilution? Or the male study which observed hemoconcentration? She ran the same times roughly as the women, and certainly much shorter time than the men (but likely faster than both men and women in their studies). This was also discussed some 40 pages ago, with, in my opinion, one major oversight. Intensity plays a role in heat generation, and the women running 80 minutes surely did not run as fast as Paula. Maybe the men, although they ran longer, did not run as fast as Paula. If we assume just 24C for Paula is correct, both studies ran in slightly cooler conditions.The 1992 study you highlighted, compared running and cycling at 65% VO2max intensity. At 65%, they probably didn't even sweat.

Here you hit the nail on the head. The only reason I continue to talk about hemoconcentration is that the IAAF did not standardize posture during blood collection until 2007.

While science was working for Ashenden and Parisotto as early as 2000 and before, many of these procedures were not standardized by the IAAF until 2007 and 2009.

Even if we conclude that running cannot have caused hemoconcentration for Paula, her posture during blood collection can, and this was also uncontrolled in 2003 and 2005.

We cannot discard the POSSIBILITY that there was some PARTIAL hemoconcentration effect. 1.2 g/dl would be 12 points, dropping her worst score below the sea-level threshold, and would have kept her out of the newspapers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ashenden develop a new Off-Hr model in 2003?

I'm willing to compromise. rjm33: you seem to be good at math.I could accept that pre-2009 values count, but not with the current population threshold probabilities of false positives.Assuming the 2007 and 2009 rule changes were designed to effectively reduce false positives due to non-doping process sources, what should the "old" 2003 and 2005 population threshold probabilities be, without these rules?If we can find more accurate thresholds matching the same suspicious probabilities, we could form better opinions of suspicion.Then The Sunday Times should redo their series against these more accurate suspicion thresholds.

rjm33 wrote:

...

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).

...

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!)

...

J Appl Physiol. 1974 Aug;37(2):247-8.

Calculation of percentage changes in volumes of blood, plasma, and red cells in dehydration.

Dill DB, Costill DL.

In this publication they took blood pre-exercise whilst the athletes were in a reclined position then within 30 minutes post-exercise. It is not clear from the text that they were reclining post-exercise but we can give them the benefit of the doubt. But as you like to say, we know that a reasonable amount of time needs to be given before measuring post-exercise and 30 mins may not be sufficient.

In this study they took six trained athletes and had them run on a treadmill in controlled conditions (22 ºC, 45% humidity) for 2.5 - 3 hours at 60-75% VO2max, until they lost 4% body weight. Unfortunately they did not measure or account for the rate of electrolytes lost in sweat, which is known to vary massively between individuals - 4% body weight loss is not a good measure by which to normalize the experimental conditions so there was essentially no control in terms of exercise duration. This has substantial implications for plasma changes and likely contributed to the large variability in the overall results.

They used two methods to determine plasma volume, and came out with average decreases of 7.5% and 12.2%, quite possibly wholly attributable to the change that occurs from simply standing up.

The key to this publication is in the first sentence:

"When man is acutely dehydrated plasma volume (PV) decreases"

The study doesn't look at the effects in woman and attempts to mimic acute dehydration, I have assumed the men are not drinking over 2.5 to 3 hours, the study does not mention fluid intake.

To extend any of the findings to Paula's situation would be bad science, where she is a female, racing at 90-95% VO2max, but for only 1 hour with regular fluid intake. The professionals know what effect dehydration has on performance and account for it in their hydration strategies.

Ross Tucker, in his blog, did extend these findings to Paula. While he is a professor in sports science he also likes to embrace the media, I'm sure he's aware it's not applicable. He also describes the conditions as moderate, yet the study was performed in a 'Hot room', the whole purpose was to cause acute dehydration.

The (slightly) newer 1983 study that shows plasma volume expansion in endurance athletes (specifically woman), is more relevant and is the scientific consensus. Plasma volume expansion gives rise to greater stroke volumes, which is required to deliver the large oxygen requirements when performing endurance activities.

I feel like you're insulting the actual testers here. Do you honestly think they were unaware of the factors that effected results? Just because there wasn't a 'standardized IAAF issued protocol' doesn't mean standard procedures were not followed by expert testers. I'm sure rjm33 will be able to tell you that phlebotomists are well-trained in standard procedures. This was the original point I was trying to make.

You can almost certainly rule out hemoconcentration. Perhaps I should also mention there is some evidence that women sweat at lower rates than men (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20696786).

Yes they developed a second generation Off-hr (h= hemoglobin concentration, r = percent reticulocytes) and Off-hre (e = serum EPO concentration) models, the latter being slightly better. Both of these were superior to the 2000 models.

What has perplexed me somewhat is that the OFF-models are meant to indicate decreasing erythropoeisis, i.e., someone has used an erthropoeisis stimulating agent like EPO and is in the wash-out phase. For the most part nobody in this thread is suggesting she has used EPO or similar, yet that is what her OFF-scores are suggesting. If true I think it would put her in Lance Armstrong territory.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Fair point.

The 8 minute gap is still massive, though, even taking that into account.

Wrong again rekrunner! When they say "in the order of 10 to 20%", they are in reference to changes in plasma volume, not changes in hemoglobin(which only change by 10.6%average to 14.77%MAX in this study). Once again, after 1200 posts, you try to keep using the plasma volume changes as the possible hemoglobin changes, which is WRONG AGAIN!

Go back to the 1974 Dill and Costill study table at Tucker's website. Scan across the columns.... you will see columns for hematocrit, Hb, keep going past the column that says BV........Look at the next column!!!...It shows the results for DELTA PV,%....which means the CHANGE IN PLASMA VOLUME BY PERCENTAGE CHANGE.

You will see that due to the severe dehydration from this study conducted at 22C=71.6F (very close to the temperature of the half-marathon), they do show signs of SEVERE DEHYDRATION after running for 2.5 to 3 hours, with an average loss of plasma volume of 12.2%, and two of the men, #3 and #4, show plasma losses of 15.5% and 17.3%, respectively, which are in agreement with the "in the order of 10 to 20%" statement, which is in reference to plasma volume changes, NOT HEMOGLOBIN CHANGES (which only change by 10 to 15%). You keep trying to CONFUSE two different things to somehow once again justify Paula's MASSIVE hemoglobin change of 21.88% (or 30%). I went through all of this 40 pages ago and here you go again!!!!......Please stop your nonsense arguments!!!

............Go Paula!!!..........

Do you see what I mean when I used the simulated troll response of ......................."but it is possible Paula could of been standing on her head during the blood draw!" response???

I use the 1974 Costill study because when I looked through the medical literature about 1,000 posts ago, this study was the LARGEST hemoglobin changes from running and dehydration that I could find!!!

I posted several other studies including: the women who ran 1hr and 20 min study which showed no change or decreases in hemoglobin values after running for 1 hour and 20 minutes that you just used, another study of marathon runners which showed no significant changes, and another study of 149 people who completed either a marathon or half marathon and had an average hemoglobin increase of ONLY 0.3g/dl!!! (with a p=0.01) after the race. IT WAS NOT TOO SURPRISING THAT REKRUNNER DID NOT LIKE ANY OF THOSE STUDIES!!!!

Rekrunner will find many, many reasons for any study you post which shows decreases, no change, or small increases in hemoglobin values after running to be INVALID, NULL and VOID.....when evaluating SUPERWOMAN PAULA RADCLIFFE...who can get more dehydrated than any person on the planet while simultaneously winning the WC half-marathon by over a minute!!!

GET IT PLASMA RUBBISH?????

ANY STUDY you reference...rekrunner will have PROBLEMS WITH IT SUCH AS: it was men and not women, these runners are not world class, these are normal and/or slow people, these are people who were drinking water during the race to prevent dehydration (and it is possible Paula had no fluids during the race!), or Paula was running faster and harder at a higher percentage of VO2max, which could then lead to greater levels of dehydration than other normal, puny, regular humans can ever hope to ever attain in their lifetimes!!!......ETC...ETC..ETC.............

..........and he will repeat this to infinity...(This may also indicate that rekrunner is a troll).............

See how he also takes the only 0.45 g/dl hemoglobin change from the other study and in his discussion it somehow magically then becomes 1.6g/dl is possible!!! .....or 10 to 20% changes in hemoglobin are possible!!!

Rekrunner will also keep posting various combinations of explanations #1 through # 20 that I have already posted as a partial list, (so we can all keep track of all the many, many explanations Paula has used or could use in the future!).

..........You know.......a long thread on this discussion board EVENTUALLY EXPOSED MIKE ROSSI AS A CHEAT AND A LIAR!!!!...............

.....................IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS LONG THREAD MAY EXPOSE PAULA RADCLIFFE, THE IAAF, AND DR. MARTIAL PLAN B SAUGY AS CHEATS AND LIARS AS WELL!!!............LET'S KEEP IT GOING!!!.......

...........GO PAULA!!!!.....GO IAAF!!! ....GO DR. PLAN B SAUGY!!!.....

...........AND ......WRONG AGAIN!!!.... but.....GO REKRUNNER!!!...............

............................TRY AGAIN !!!!!!!!...............

Note also how rekrunner (with a science and math background) uses the symbol Hg to refer to Hemoglobin values!!!

Hg is the symbol for the element mercury!!!

.........CLOSE ENOUGH!!!!!......TRY AGAIN REKRUNNER!!!............

Here is another previous rekrunner argument from several hundred posts ago: because of all the possible variations/error in sample collection, procedures, transport, lab calibration errors, lab analysis variation/error, etc., etc.....which are all additive.....Hemoglobin values can have an error factor of:

.........................6.0 g/dl or more!!!!.....................

You didn't get the breaking NEWSFLASH in all the medical journals?

........ATTENTION!! ALL DOCTORS AND ALL LABS AROUND THE WORLD!!!.............

.................. Rekrunner has done exhaustive scientific research and the error factor in hemoglobin values may be 6.0g/dl!!!!!!!!..........

Even though I am a doctor who has ordered and looked at over 6,000 hemoglobin values over 26 years..........

.........after I got the newsflash from rekrunner... I IMMEDIATELY STOPPED ALL HEMOGLOBIN TESTS ON ALL PATIENTS!!!!!!..........

...........GOSH, THANKS REKRUNNER!!!.......I SURE WILL NEVER ORDER ANOTHER USELESS HEMOGLOBIN TEST EVER AGAIN IN MY LIFE!!!!.....

...............GO REKRUNNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................

Come Clean wrote:

Where are the famous frozen samples? When is the lie detector test?

Drug cheats out, Paula.

Crickets.

Neither the fMRI lie detector nor the regular lie detector test have been shown to be scientifically valid tests, so the test would be completely MEANINGLESS, anyway....and besides that, Paula may have had lots of practice telling LIES!

.....It was just another obfuscation and distraction by Paula.....

Maybe I should add it to my partial list of Paula's explanations:

Explanation #21)....Look, I'll put up over 1 million dollars to prove with a completely meaningless fMRI (sounds fancy!!...doesn't it???) that I am clean, clean, clean, and absolutely telling the truth!....

......and guess what?........ It was just a bluff, anyway! She never did it and everyone has forgotten about it!!!.........

.......and then nobody ever needs to see any more of my blood test results that would be really easy, fast, cheap and transparent to release!!!..........

..........Go PAULA!!!!.............

Here is the partial list of Paula explanations #1 to #18.......

.............the last remaining remnants of Paula's credibility and reputation

.............................. have been turned into dust.....................................

and explanation #19:

rjm33 wrote:

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!!!!....................................

and explanation #20:

rjm33 wrote:

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!!!!!!!!!............................

I said I'd stay away from posting here but I've been reading (skimming mainly!) since my last post.

I come back to what I said many moons ago on this thread. The issues and debate being tossed back and forth here need more scrutiny than by anonymous posters on a message board. There is science being tossed around on both sides (each side will argue that they are right and the other is wrong, or that one side isn't actually using science, they are misreading academic papers etc etc) which needs decent review and commentary in the public domain.

How about the following as something to be thought about - we've got non-establishment commentators (people like Tucker) who are taken seriously by print and broadcast journalists. They are generally receptive to reading something well written, sound in terms of fact and that puts out or consolidates new information.

How about either side of this debate do just that - publish a decent blog post without a cloak of anonymity which brings all of their arguments about Paula into a single document, and then try to get some traction about the conclusions from commentators like Tucker. If it is the case that the evidence in the public domain, when properly analysed, gives rise to a conclusion that Paula likely doped, that would be a bombshell that the mainstream press would love to hear about. Get it out there, get it tested by people other than anonymous forum posters and get some more answers. Otherwise this thread will just continue to be a tit for tat position, and (if Paula did dope) some of the content of this thread has the potential to be some of the most important discussions around doping in athletics which might be lost to the mists of time if it doesn't go any further.

I wondered if you would attempt to argue that because hemoglobin changes are not the same as plasma volume changes, that somehow changes the order. It was a kind of intelligence test.

1) I acknowledged that the hemoglobin increase was not plasma loss: "Although these are not plasma loss %s, ..."

2) I said the observed plasma loss changes seems to ALSO be "in the order of 10-20%"

You predictably accused me of being wrong, then "correct" me by pointing me to a column of numbers which are "in the order of 10-20%".

So by telling me they are not the same -- you AGREE with me.

And by showing me figures in the table on the order of 10-20% -- you AGREE with me.

If you want to show me I'm wrong, you should at least contradict me.

Yeah this thread has got dull with two sides trying to prove the minutae and a hell of a lot of repetition and trivial microanalysis.

+1 rekrunner and rjm33 set out their positions in blog posts and quit flailing around. Literally any detail either of you are trying to show is getting lost now.

And both of you have put forward a lot of valuable information, so recognise that your message is dying at the minute...

rjm33, is your real name George Malley, the Walter Mitty of letsrun?