Corrupt IAAF wrote:
Wake up and ban this dirty cheat "Paula."
Just the opposite. Coe declared her clean. She's been promoted.
Corrupt IAAF wrote:
Wake up and ban this dirty cheat "Paula."
Just the opposite. Coe declared her clean. She's been promoted.
rjm33 wrote:
A hematocrit score that goes from ~37% to ~47% in 2 days........
I can't recall if this was the launch point for personal attacks under the guise of "plasma shift" only the science provided was documenting low single digit changes.
Or was it "altitude camps" and plasma shift followed with more personal attacks.
Fair play to rekrunner who does not stoop to personal attacks. Improbable explanations aplenty from rekrunner though.
I'm so pleased at the results of this thread.
Does anyone know if there is any evidence that Dr. Saugy was involved in the IAAF report?
Do Paula, Lord Sebastian Coe and Lamine Diack now all live in Monaco?
...and we are still waiting for the Fuentes decision on the 200 blood bag identities......April now...
Here is another coincidence. I just found out yesterday that Marco Pantani, the 1998 Tour de France winner, was a client of Dr. Conconi and Dr. Fuentes.
Guess what year it was when Pantani was a client of Dr. Fuentes?
...............2003..........just another conspiracy theory coincidence....
Here is a list of the documented substances used by Marco Pantani while a client of Dr. Fuentes in 2003:
1) EPO
2) anabolic steroids
3) HGH
4) IGF-1
5) insulin
6) Thyroid hormone (T4)
7) hormones used by females in menopause
8) not documented with Pantani are the use of blood transfusions, but Dr.
Fuentes is well known for using blood transfusions as well, with the 200
bags of blood in his freezer.
Who won the Tour de France in 2003?
Lance Armstrong won in 2003.
For further reading of some real tabloid material:
No comparison wrote:
Not even a close comparison to running at your max in a half out on the black ribbon where it's at least high 20s.
It's *at least* high twenties? Maybe it was higher then? In the thirties? Can't rule that out, eh?
24 isn't hot or particularly unusual for marathons (and this was a half), but hey, let's not get distracted by the facts.
Anyway, on a more interesting note, who needs Spain's Eufemiano Fuentes and his soon-to-be destroyed blood bags when we now have Dr Mark Bonar:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/35952566"The [Sunday Times] says it has secretly filmed the medic claiming that he has prescribed performance-enhancing drugs such as EPO, steroids and human growth hormone to 150 elite sports professionals from the UK and abroad over the past six years, including:
several Premier League footballers
an England cricket international
British cyclists
tennis players"
Another link, just in case those of you outside the UK can't access the bbc.co.uk link:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-03/doctor-mark-bonar-claims-he-gave-athletes-banned-drugs/7295178
For the doping apologists, here is a link instead to some fluffy bunnies. Quite relaxing and reassuring.
I'm not sure you understood my post. Your calculation of 1.2 seems to agree with "not more than 1.4-1.5". I'm actually open to the possibility of any value from 7% hemodilution, to less than 1.4-1.5 g/dl for Paula's specific case, pending more specific facts regarding the context of the two measurements. To explain 2.8 or 3.6 g/dl requires other causes, and both doping and significant non-doping possibilities still exist.You seem to be confusing hemoconcentration in exercise with dehydration -- there is a connection, but they are not the same.In a 2003 "Exercise Endocrinology" textbook (Katarina T. Borer, PhD), page 67, I find:During brief exercise too short (6 minutes) to show water loss through sweating, hypovolemia develops in proportion to exercise intensity- at 40% VO2max, we find a plasma shift of 3.7% to interstitial, or cellular compartments, caused by systolic pressure- at 90% VO2max, we find a plasma shift of 12.4% to interstitial, or cellular compartments- osmolar concentration increases in proportion to exercise intensity as a consequence of the efflux of water out of the plasma compartment- effects of exercise-induced hemoconcentration and water deprivation are additiveHere's another study where 30 minutes of exercise was enough to induce a 13% PV loss:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3170400So the exercise duration difference (67 minutes versus 80 minutes versus 2-3 hours) doesn't seem to be an interesting distinction or limitation. 67 minutes seem long enough to produce a significant effect.I didn't find anything about how long it takes to recover more exact than "within 2 hours". Any assumption on your part about the nature of gradual restoration needs to be better supported before I can consider your assumptions and calculations.I'm not ignoring any facts, but only insist we need many more facts before jumping to conclusions.As a point of fact, I do not suddenly "start to invoke" measurement errors. This argument was invoked from Day 1 in Dec. 2014, and multiple arguments can co-exist in an additive way. It's not me ignoring these facts.As another point of fact, potential process errors were included in the IAAF report, for every point in the database before 2009, and emphasized that attempting to compare two points collected under different conditions, is simply not valid. The IAAF did not attempt to explain the pre-race data points specifically, as they were not part of the allegations of the ARD or the Sunday Times.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Yes -- using hemoconcentration/dehydration alone to explain 2.8 (or 3.6) in 2 days is ridiculous no matter how you slice it.
What then, is a good "maximum" upper bound?
If we assume a maximum 10-20% plasma volume loss, and do the math (I leave that to you), I guess we would find something less than half, surely not more than 1.4-1.5.
You really should include not only that Paula ran harder, but also the following differences of the 10 - 20% experiment done also around 22 C, where:
1) The participants ran 2.5 - 3 hours (vs. 67 minutes).
2) The participants didn't hydrate (while Paula used a scientific approach to always hydrate perfectly in races).
3) The data were taken directly after the run, without rehydration (while Paula rehydrated for 60 - 90 minutes).
In conclusion, I would divide the found maximum of the 20% hemoconcentration by a factor of 3 or 4 in this case. But ok, let's use a factor of two to give ensure the avoidance of a false positive -> maximal possibility then is a 10% heme increase for Paula -> here 1.20 g/dl.
That brings her from 12.0 to 13.2, far below the experimentally determined 15.6 g/dL.
As for the "expert" - not experts - saying otherwise: this person a) really has no credibility, and b) presented no reason for his conclusion. Same goes for the infamous "bloated" IAAF defense document, wherein they basically say that hemoconcentration is possible and therefore the increase is possible, without demonstrating that the numbers do work out.
Apparently you struggle with the last part too, rekrunner, which is why you started to invoke extreme measurement errors. Those in turn are not mentioned by either IAAF or Saugy in arguing for the plausibility of the 3.6 g/dL increase. It is also obvious that they ignore the 12.0 value, exclusively talking about the 12.8.
rekrunner wrote:
I'm not sure you understood my post. Your calculation of 1.2 seems to agree with "not more than 1.4-1.5". I'm actually open to the possibility of any value from 7% hemodilution, to less than 1.4-1.5 g/dl for Paula's specific case, pending more specific facts regarding the context of the two measurements. To explain 2.8 or 3.6 g/dl requires other causes, and both doping and significant non-doping possibilities still exist.
You seem to be confusing hemoconcentration in exercise with dehydration -- there is a connection, but they are not the same.
I simply didn't like your calculation. As for the confusion, I prefer to focus on the measured Hb values, as that is a) the point of interest and b) includes the effects from dehydration and plasma shift etc.
For example Tucker pointed out that the largest Hb increase in the 2.5 - 3 hour test group was 2.2 g/dL, up from 14.9 g/dL. That is actually even less than 15%.
Regarding "To explain 2.8 or 3.6 g/dl requires other causes, and both doping and significant non-doping possibilities still exist.":
12.0 + 1.2 = 13.2, but measured were 15.6. Non-doping explanation?
Even with an extreme measurement error of 0.5 g/dL (which stands against Paula's own bio!), and extreme bad luck that the measurements were both at the for Paula worst side of the real value, i.e. 12.5 instead of 12.0 and 15.1 instead of 15.6:
12.5 + 1.25 = 13.75 -> you still need to find an explanation for the new
15.1 - 13.75 = 1.35 g/dL.
When the IAAF discussed that highly suspicious OFF-score (as well as the others), they simply said it could have been caused by dehydration - again without discussing any values/providing a calculation.
As everyone is largely anonymous here, I don't see the value of personal attacks.I tried to clarify my position some weeks ago, but maybe it's worth repeating, because I still get an endless sense that my posts or intentions are misunderstood.I don't present non-doping scenarios to argue that they are the most probable, but as intellectual obstacles that must be overcome before drawing an "only doping is possible" conclusion.rjm33 accused me of being arrogant with no knowledge. I think I argue from the opposite side: no one accusing Paula of doping does so based completely on knowledge, or with complete knowledge. Even Ashenden/Parisotto, experts in the domain (who accused the IAAF, not Paula) lacked doping control forms and quality control documents. Like pop-pop said months ago, I would love to hear their honest unbiased opinions, looking at all the data (blood values plus the external documents about the athlete, the process, and the equipment), as currently done today with the ABP, in the context of the IAAF standards at that time. Only the IAAF/UKAD/WADA -- 3 independent organizations, and the only organizations responsible for controlling Paula -- have the most complete knowledge, and all of them have addressed the leaked data, and Paula is not a concern.From my point of view, as there are so few facts, there is a massive amount of faith required to support conclusions of "only-doping remains a possibility":- a "pre-Coe" IAAF knew about but helped cover up doping- UKAD is equally corrupt- the WADA-IC, including Dick Pound, would participate in or allow a doping coverup- contrary to the WADA-IC's findings that the IAAF was "extremely active" in anti-doping, the IAAF actively did Paula favors by not testing her- that Paula's strong anti-doping stance conceals a massive hypocrisy- Healing Hans secretly dopes his clients, in addition to homeopathy, Actovegin, and massage- that EPO or blood transfusions, can or have played a significant role in the world best marathon performances"Arguments" that show me there are not enough facts to make a standalone case:- personal attacks- creating and debunking a strawman- ignoring/dismissing contradictory data- appeals to cycling history- any "just like Lance" arguments- shooting the messenger- multiple paragraphs of disparate events ending with the concluding "coincidence? You decide."- don't be naive- conspiracy theories- trust me, I'm a doctor- extrapolating amateur findings to elites
sayer of you mad bro wrote:
...
Fair play to rekrunner who does not stoop to personal attacks. Improbable explanations aplenty from rekrunner though.
I'm so pleased at the results of this thread.
I hope rjm33 chimes in again to explain the difference for you between % plasma loss and % Hb increase with the same vigor.I think you are continuing a meaningless exercise. I'm not that interested in arguing against you fabricating your ideas of extreme errors or assumptions of the rates of rehydration and whatif scenarios. 2.0 is also an extreme error.If you want to see a possible non-doping error scenario playing out:0.8 -- biography editing error0.4 -- pre race hemodilution1.0 -- machine brand bias0.2 -- other measurement errors1.2 -- post race hemoconcentrationSee how the numbers can close without requiring a blood transfusion,with standards that did not control or detect many classes of errors?All of these errors are possible in 2003, but none of these errors would be possible post-2009 (except the biography).I can fabricate as many scenarios as rjm can conspiracies:What if Paula received a saline IV for her "illness" and this was approved and on the doping control form?What if the numbers were entered incorrectly, and it's really 13.8?What if the samples were exchanged by mistake and 12.8 isn't even Paula's?We can extend this for years, talking about probabilities or improbabilities, and meaningful studies, and nothing will mean anything without a better context of both the low prerace value and the high post race value.Those who already have the context officially don't care.
casual obsever wrote:
I simply didn't like your calculation. As for the confusion, I prefer to focus on the measured Hb values, as that is a) the point of interest and b) includes the effects from dehydration and plasma shift etc.
For example Tucker pointed out that the largest Hb increase in the 2.5 - 3 hour test group was 2.2 g/dL, up from 14.9 g/dL. That is actually even less than 15%.
Regarding "To explain 2.8 or 3.6 g/dl requires other causes, and both doping and significant non-doping possibilities still exist.":
12.0 + 1.2 = 13.2, but measured were 15.6. Non-doping explanation?
Even with an extreme measurement error of 0.5 g/dL (which stands against Paula's own bio!), and extreme bad luck that the measurements were both at the for Paula worst side of the real value, i.e. 12.5 instead of 12.0 and 15.1 instead of 15.6:
12.5 + 1.25 = 13.75 -> you still need to find an explanation for the new
15.1 - 13.75 = 1.35 g/dL.
When the IAAF discussed that highly suspicious OFF-score (as well as the others), they simply said it could have been caused by dehydration - again without discussing any values/providing a calculation.
sayer of you mad bro wrote:
...
Fair play to rekrunner who does not stoop to personal attacks. Improbable explanations aplenty from rekrunner though.
I'm so pleased at the results of this thread.
Yep, fair play to him. He gets my respect for that too.
This would be a far less interesting - and very one-sided - thread without rekrunner's contributions.
cleans wrote:
Another link, just in case those of you outside the UK can't access the bbc.co.uk link:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-03/doctor-mark-bonar-claims-he-gave-athletes-banned-drugs/7295178
This story is moving fast. Three Premier League clubs issuing statements already, talking about the claims being 'false and entirely without foundation':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35953447I guess the doctor is just making it up. Maybe he doesn't even exist.
rekrunner wrote:
1.0 -- machine brand bias
0.2 -- other measurement errors
Could not these also both work in the other direction making a "suspicious" reading "less suspicious"? If there was something like a machine brand bias I would have thought that someone would have pointed out that a batch of samples were looking "off" and they would have been remeasured (I assume samples were aliquoted because it seems crazy not to have at least a back up aliquot of the same sample).
rekrunner wrote:
"Arguments" that show me there are not enough facts to make a standalone case:
- personal attacks
- creating and debunking a strawman
- ignoring/dismissing contradictory data
- appeals to cycling history
- any "just like Lance" arguments
- shooting the messenger
- multiple paragraphs of disparate events ending with the concluding "coincidence? You decide."
- don't be naive
- conspiracy theories
- trust me, I'm a doctor
- extrapolating amateur findings to elites
I don't feel it is appropriate to slip that last one in like that. There is a world of difference between it and the rest. It depends entirely on the specific context of what is being discussed, not to mention how hard one digs around in the literature. Even if there is literally no study of elites on a particular topic the extrapolation may or may not be appropriate.
There was a time when we could "presume innocence before guilt," but that time is over in sports. If the governing bodies were doing their job, fine. But they are as crooked and corrupt as the athletes.
Soon we will hear stories of UKad, USada, and WADA corruption.
Those making excuses for Paula are just like those making excuses for Lance. I know, because I was one who believed Lance. He was a hero, and he was so vehement in claiming his innocence. And his federation vouched for him!
Paula and Seb are trying the same strategy. Sorry, it won't work this time. We're a bit wiser.
Paula, if you want to convince us you're clean, give us the transparency we ask for and that you've always clamored for. If not, shut your hole and go away.
We need a major cleaning of house, starting with those two. And then the ADAs need to be exposed.
sayer of you mad bro wrote:
rjm33 wrote:A hematocrit score that goes from ~37% to ~47% in 2 days........
Fair play to rekrunner who does not stoop to personal attacks. Improbable explanations aplenty from rekrunner though.
.
Yeah well, that's not in his job description.
It says to misdirect the flow of conversation off into nowhere land.
rjm33 wrote:
Hello Fred!...I could tell from your links on PGC1alpha and AMPK that you must read a lot.
In the Kenyan ABP thread where Renato Canova has actually stated that he thinks Wang Junxia was probably clean and just a great natural talent (even though he did state that the other Chinese women may have taken EPO) back in 1993, when she ran the 29:31.78 10k WR with the last 5k in 14:26 and the last 3k in 8:17, then a 3:51.92 1500m, then an 8:12.19 3k WR in the heats, and finally an 8:06.11 3k WR in the final, which still stands to this day....all in 1 week!
According to my Purdy tables, Wang Junxia's best race was the 3k, which is equivalent to a 5k in 14:03 and a marathon in 2:17:12.
Paula's 2:15 marathon is the equivalent of an 8:00 3k, 13:53 5k, and 29:05 10k, which is even better than Wang Junxia from China in 1993.
So this would mean that if both Paula and Wang Junxia are both clean, naturally talented runners... that their equivalent performances on the Purdy tables are better than ALL Kenyan and ALL Ethiopian female runner performances in the last 23 years.
It would also mean that both Paula Radcliffe and Wang Junxia had better equivalent performances than ALL EPO doping runners in the last 23 years as well.
It would also mean that Renato Canova's theory that the Kenyan and Ethiopian runners born at altitude, living at altitude, and performing high level-elite-training at altitude are very "special"... and the greatest natural running talents in the world......would also not be correct.
The greatest clean, naturally talented women in female distance running for 3k, 5k, 10k, and marathon for the last 23 years would be the British female runner Paula Radcliffe and the Chinese female runner Wang Junxia....not ANY Kenyan or Ethiopian female runners training at altitude and not ANY runners that were doping with EPO or any other drugs.
Fred or Renato.......can you help clear up my confusion... about this picture? ...and about Renato's theory?
It reminds me of stories I once heard about Lance Armstrong.
Fred.......Does this picture seem familiar at all to you?
Yes, that's clearly it. They don't have ultra-wellness clinics in Kenya, only in England and China.
Hey Fred! I spent 2 hours at the NLM site after I clicked on your links...I just love mitochondrial research, which I have done for many years, with hundreds and hundreds of studies which I have read...just on mitochondrial function.
On this long thread I have been called: insane, a lunatic, a bully, a liar, a conspiracy theorist, an idiot who doesn't know anything he is talking about, a so called 'blood' doctor, an anonymous amateur armchair analyst, an internet weirdo, Walter Mitty, an OCD nutcase, etc., and even I think I have a bad case of weak mind disease. Renato Canova told me I have no clue about how physiology works with top Kenyans.
But I think most readers will admit...that at least my posts are more entertaining and informative than endless disputes about temperature and hemoconcentration.....I would rather discuss mitochondrial function and its relationship to endurance running and its importance in anti-aging therapies..
...but they are going to continue with this nonsense instead...
rekrunner wrote:
- a "pre-Coe" IAAF knew about but helped cover up doping
- UKAD is equally corrupt
- the WADA-IC, including Dick Pound, would participate in or allow a doping coverup
- contrary to the WADA-IC's findings that the IAAF was "extremely active" in anti-doping, the IAAF actively did Paula favors by not testing her
- that Paula's strong anti-doping stance conceals a massive hypocrisy
- Healing Hans secretly dopes his clients, in addition to homeopathy, Actovegin, and massage
- that EPO or blood transfusions, can or have played a significant role in the world best marathon performances
To me, all of the above is quite obvious.
Conspiracy theory? Have you read what Pound said about Ben Johnson?
Facts:
- there was a large conspiracy at IAAF, with Coe being its VP and Pound being WADA's President at that time
- there was a large conspiracy at FIFA, with Coe being Director of its Ethics Committee
- Coe declared that none of Paula's samples disappeared, right after he declared that he couldn't have known about the Russian cover-up
- Coe has already started to put his buddies into various important places at IAAF
- the British Parliament wants to investigate Coe because of his inconsistent stories
- UKAD significantly cut back its doping tests before the London Olympics
- at the London Olympics, the relatively UK did - unprecedented - significantly better than the doped Russians
- Healing Hans uses secret methods - and got Bolt in great shape within a few days after his crappy season
- among other inconsistencies, 30C-Paula is now suddenly against transparency - yes, supported by IAAF and UKAD.