Radcliffe blood values released

fred wrote:

There's no gotcha Mr. Freud like truth spinner. The words were meant to create an impression that the test was immediate after the exertion, and that the reason for the 114 was because of the immediate effects of the stress.

But the reality, Mr. truth stretcher enabler, is that the body had 90 minutes for the values to drop from the exertion, and 90 minutes to take in liquids.

Any reasonable observer would see that this fabricated scenario is B.S. Mr.

Cabral who has a ton of background with elite runners and racing called her out

Actually, he pretty much corroborates what she said...and then calls her a liar.

By the way, you might want to have a peek over at Science of Sport to see what happens to blood values in the immediate aftermath of prolonged excercise. They don't reverse themselves right away.

By the way, you might want to have a peek over at Science of Sport to see what happens to blood values in the immediate aftermath of prolonged excercise. They don't reverse themselves right away.

They don't have to reverse themselves fully to be consistent with previously established scores.

These scores weren't consistent.

I agree that on case by case basis time since the last EPO use matters, i.e. it will affect test score. But I'm afraid you're confusing research study's design vs use of its results.

Research has been done in strictly controlled environment where the OFF-hr tests were performed 4 days since the last EPO use. Based on that they established arbitrary* but reasonable minimum scores that indicate cheating.

In practice, non cheater is protected by target odds (e.g. 1 in 100 or 1000) regardless of test timing. Cheater however, will be less likely to be caught if he used EPO 6 days before the test because his/her scores are likely to be lower. He/she would be more likely caught if he used EPO the day before the test. (Ditto regarding dosing.) In that sense, Paula's scores indicate 1 in 70 likelihood or even lower than that she's innocent. How much lower I don't know, but not higher.

Note 1: study's design even covers the case where in practice everyone is low dosing. In such world there will be fewer test fails, but those that do fail the test won't be more likely to be innocent - their odds of being innocent after failing the test will be less than the target odds.

Note 1: most important discussion to be had is whether samples were collected under proper conditions and if not how much would those conditions matter. (This is the only thing you should point to when saying "garbage in, garbage out")

*Whoever overemphasizes that this choice is arbitrary is either intentionally or unintentionally missing the point.

Jack sparrow wrote:

2 if her haemeglobin was 12.0 and her off score was 114 it would be very consistent with cycling like micro dosing of epo in days before, stopping, transfusion and racing.

3 I think she is clean but it is not looking good. So far I have not heard any explanation as to why it is other than a transfusion. Dehydration is not an explanation to me, especially over 1 hour racing.

It's not clear why you think she's 'clean' given everything else you have to say suggests she isn't, but the summary analysis you give is highly speculative because the data is incomplete. PR can end the speculation - she has the data, details of the analysis undertaken in 2003 and the recent re-analysis she requested, which was quoted from selectively in her statement on Tuesday. There's a clear way out of this if it all shows her to be 'clean', as many of us want to be the case : release the full data and the analyses. This is what I understood her intention to be from the conversation with Wejo and from Gerard Hartmann's statement. I can't understand why she wouldn't do this if it shows what she states it shows.

pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:

I'm actually having a change of mind on this after weighing up the accumulated evidence

It does appear that she may actually be clean

Yeah, that's not me. Good times.

Summary:

Coe, like Verbruggen is certain she "never, never, never doped." Good thing the head of a sports federation, paid by Nike, is minding the integrity of the sport. Paula is never testing positive. Ever.

It wasn't particularly hot on the day of one of the off-scores, and the chronology of events in her statement are false.

And yes, an off-score without some other blood stats is not overwhelming evidence of doping by itself. Funny how Paula won't release more complete data.... She's clean, right? There is nothing to hide.

EPO cheats out Paula.

OK got you now, I was using an incorrect context (my paltry defence is it was 3am my time when i posted.

Looking at the graph posted the values you calculated "fit" the line.

So for clarity I was wrong! Apologies for that.

With the score from Portugal I still think we're talking about partial facts. What were the scores before and after the race?

In Paula's defense of the Portugal score what about the being sick part? As people have pointed out her autobiography says she had been on antibiotics at this race. What does dehydration(warm conditions) + being sick do?

Pilgrim_S wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.0 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/10/iaaf-select-committe-paula-radcliffe-data

Paula is never testing positive. Coe won't authorize it.

The head of the IAAF should never be coming out in support of any athlete in that way. Especially ones that are effectively under investigation (or should be).

Also her husband asking WADA to treat her as a special case and declare her innocent is totally wrong. She should have her scores investigated by WADA like anyone else. Even then WADA should know better than to come out and declare anyone clean (look at Lance). If they don't find anything then they just say nothing.

I've got no problem for her husband asking WADA to say she's innocent or really say "We've looked at these in detail and there is nothing to account for" if that is the case. What is wrong with that?

I agree the head of the IAAF should not state he knows people are innocent.

Michael Ashenden said that Lance's values posted in 2008 did not look normal.

Coach Cookie wrote:

Interesting that Lance Armstrong's ABP was "normal" and he was doping and Paula Radcliffe's ABP is suspicious and... she's clean???

PR is going the way of LA. Sooner or later she'll be doing an interview with the UK equivalent of Oprah, crying on camera and saying she's sorry she cheated, that everyone was doing it, that she was racing in a level playing field, all the usual BS.

I would say to everyone comparing Paula to Lance, that you really don't know the Lance saga.

We are all boiling wrote:

Her protests are cut-and-past straight from the Lance saga.

It is not clear to me why I think she is clean either. Perhaps my heart is overcoming my mind at this point.

Jack Sparrow wrote:

It is not clear to me why I think she is clean either. Perhaps my heart is overcoming my mind at this point.

Which I think is fine - I'm based in the UK and I've been struck by how many of the folk I've spoken to who take a keen interest in running are convinced that 'there's no way Paula would do that'. Emotion, and for those who know her/have spoken to her, intuitive senses of trust will be important. Equally though, intuitive senses of mistrust/suspicion are there for others, plenty evident on these pages. And, at the risk of becoming a broken record, no way of resolving them unless and until PR releases all the data.

wejo wrote:

With the score from Portugal I still think we're talking about partial facts. What were the scores before and after the race?

In Paula's defense of the Portugal score what about the being sick part? As people have pointed out her autobiography says she had been on antibiotics at this race. What does dehydration(warm conditions) + being sick do?

odd, someone has now registered Jack Sparrow and Jack sparrow as names, so I be me daddy now

Good points. Regrettably, or not, she will not release those scores.

And you would really need/want those scores in order to evaluate the antibiotics/sick/dehydration context.

Let me say what concerns me: withdrawal (reticulocyte % rises and Hb falls) and re-infusion (reticulocyte % falls and Hb rises) of blood. So her low Hb level (from her autobiography statement) is consistent with withdrawal and the off-score consistent with re-insertion. Again this is all without context, not knowing time/date of the low Hb level test noted in her book.

I want to believe her, and she certainly does not owe it to me or anyone to release her data, but at this point I see that as the only way to clarity.

Cyclingfan wrote:

fred wrote:

"Since 2011 Robin Parisotto has been retained by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to review blood profiles of their elite track and field athletes. Consequently, he is currently providing expert opinion to multiple disciplinary proceedings involving IAAF athletes."

Yeah, I'll bet its expert opinion. Every one of them was doped and the federation was taking bribes for not turning them in.

Yep, he's an expert, the kind that Coe likes.

Coe doesn't like him called him a "so-called expert" so that's demonstrably false.

Every one of who? The doctors? Or are you speaking generically about all Russian athletes. I fail to see how making unsubstantiated claims about Russian athletes and federations taking bribes could have any causal relationship to the relative expertise of this persons to interpret the relevant data.

You're just doing the same to him Lord Coe did, bad company to keep my friend.

Did you bother to follow what's been going on in Russia. The entire system is dirty. Unsubstantiated? No, substantiated from the inside.

If this guy worked for the Russkies, then he's dirty too. He knew what was going on, including the coverups, the bribes and the compromising of the data by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency

So, he's Coe's kind of guy.

wejo wrote:

With the score from Portugal I still think we're talking about partial facts. What were the scores before and after the race?

In Paula's defense of the Portugal score what about the being sick part? As people have pointed out her autobiography says she had been on antibiotics at this race. What does dehydration(warm conditions) + being sick do?

It's worth noting that her autobiography will likely have been written at a point in time that she knew that she had posted a high blood score, so may well have been a pre-emptive attempt to justify it.

She says she got tired and thus her time was inferior to the South Shields run, but given the high temperatures of Portugal compared to the North of England, and the distance back to Adere being comparable, it's pretty straightforward to presume it was a similar quality run. It certainly isn't the performance of an ill athlete...

wejo wrote:

With the score from Portugal I still think we're talking about partial facts. What were the scores before and after the race?

In Paula's defense of the Portugal score what about the being sick part? As people have pointed out her autobiography says she had been on antibiotics at this race. What does dehydration(warm conditions) + being sick do?

This is the issue, which many are missing.

Those off scores aren't an adverse finding because she was sick, dehydrated, and on antibiotics. That is build into the current system, for good reason, to protect clean athletes. It is perfectly acceptable that illness, or dehyrdation does extreme things to your blood profile.

The issue is that those conditions, dehydration, illness, and antibiotics, are not congruent with her domination in that race.

Hypothetically, if she recorded those off scores before and after her Athens marathon or 10,000m dnf, it would make sense.

But, your question "What does dehydration(warm conditions) + being sick do?" we know the answer to: you don't perform well. Certainly not dominating like she has.

Her book says that she was tested before the race. So she would not have been dehydrated if she had not run it yet.

There's a problem with having different stories at different times.

Bit odd. Why would she change her story around the second time? That seems like a pretty easy thing to remember.

Isn’t it entirely possible that Paula Radcliffe had micro-dosed and pre-tested to see how much would keep her below the legal limit? I say pre-testing as in conducting her own testing with a doctor of choice before being officially tested. Remember Alberto Salazar and the testosterone with his son. He tested how much could be applied to trigger a positive test. I’ve heard of this constantly with cycling as well, but with testing testosterone to stay in the legal T/E ratio. What if Paula did the same thing, but while micro-dosing EPO, and pre-tested to ensure her values stayed just below the legal limit? She does seem suspiciously close to the top of the legal allowance on all of the suspicious tests… almost conveniently close to the top.