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

No this is not Jon.1) Elite athletes fully trained will not gain (much) from EPO or blood doping, because there is not much room for improvement.2) The elite marathon is a special case where the benefit of any drug has yet to be reliably isolated, and observed, or measured.

fred wrote:

"My belief in the ineffectiveness of certain PEDs in certain circumstances is independent of my belief that a set of data falls short of supporting any definitive conclusion of cheating."

Is this Jon? Because it's a different position than last month.

" ineffectiveness of certain PEDs in certain circumstances" . What would the certain circumstances be?

Paula is the Lance Armstrong of female distance running. Everyone knows it. That this is even a debate shows just how corrupt and sick the whole sytem is.

My posts have a common theme: the data falls short of the conclusions being made. We need a lot of "ifs" to fill in the gaps. The reality is nuanced and more complex then some anonymous armchair analysts want to invest.Regarding the Times, I'm inclined to think they tried to paint the worst picture they could, with full access to the leaked IAAF database. It's in their interest to promote their stories.

rekrunner wrote:

No this is not Jon.

1) Elite athletes fully trained will not gain (much) from EPO or blood doping, because there is not much room for improvement.

2) The elite marathon is a special case where the benefit of any drug has yet to be reliably isolated, and observed, or measured.

I suggest that everyone stops feeding the troll.

If rekrunner wants to be oblivious and be unable to support his claims in the face of opposing evidence (well known literature of EPO increasing HGB in elite athletes, anecdotal evidence of elite athletes claiming a performance effect, inability to show that elite athletes "max out" parameters in a way which cannot be overcome by drugs) then let him wallow in his own ignorance.

He is contributing nothing to the conversation in the form of new knowledge, but only shouts that the accepted evidence isn't applicable (but cannot explain why). He is not interested in changing viewpoints with rational discussion, but only ignoring accepted conclusions and rattling off his ideas and responses anyway.

Don't feed the troll.

1) Elite athletes fully trained will not gain (much) from EPO or blood doping, because there is not much room for improvement.

Obviously all the athletes taking EPO proves that is just an opinion that you have.

aduck2022 wrote:

time for ramzi to speak out on cera coverup by iaaf involving mr saggy even bigger posible scandals like igf-1 lr3 use..

Any more on the Ramzi story somewhere else? My interest in the sport is relatively new.

This Saugy fellow repeatedly ends up being a fundamental player sports federation damage control.

The Martial Saugy link is devastating. Of all the "experts" she could she could pick, she picks this guy. WOW! I think he is lying about the 2.8 g/dl increase in hemoglobin obviously being from dehydration. When I posted before,I remember a journal article posted by Ross Tucker that had a study of runners who ran over two hours, with the average increase being around 1.6g/dl and the maximum in any one subject of 2.2g/dl, yet Paula somehow increased by 2.8 g/dl in 1hour seven minutes, and won the race with a prerace hemoglobin level of 12, which is anemic!. Paula is so good she can beat the other doping women who have high hemoglobin levels, while hers is 12g/dl. Go Paula!

Paula either did a blood transfusion or there really was a lab error, so we need to see other runners results tested at the same lab on the same day. For example, to take Paula's side, what if her actual hemoglobin level was really 13 that day, then her increase during the race is only 1.8g/dl, which is plausible, and I would say OK, that is a reasonable increase, and maybe she could win with a hemoglobin level of 13, and that 82 OFF score, if falsely low, would also increase some.

By the way, none of her scores indicate EPO use, which takes weeks to work, not 2 to 7 days, as in these blood tests. EPO use would give high hemoglobin and OFF scores pre and post race,not pre race scores of 82 or 92. Her isolated score of hemoglobin level of 16.2 with an OFF score of 109 in 2012, taken at altitude, could be EPO, because it is above normal range for women(12-15g/dl), and the 109 is above the cutoff of , I think, of 106 for an OFF score at altitude, but just barely over, and this is an isolated test without other tests both before and after to compare it to, as large magnitutude changes between tests are very suspicious. Without a positive EPO test, I would give Paula the benefit of the doubt on this 2012 test, because these numbers could be achieved clean, I think. On the other side, Paula's hemoglobin values sure have a big range of values, from 12(anemic) to 16.2(above normal,too high), for someone who in her autobiography says that her blood values don't vary much at all!

I would also like to see her hematocrit scores( normal range for females is 37-47%) and reticulocyte scores(normal range 0.5-1.5% of RBCs) to really see what is going on. Reticulocytes are immature RBCs which will increase with EPO use, and decrease after a blood transfusion. Her 2005 races, at the world championships,(her 30:42 and 2:20 times are fairly equivalent, as she was always a better marathoner than at 10k), might show a low reticulocyte count on the second test after the marathon, and could increase the OFF score, but those reticulocyte scores have not been released.

A blood transfusion before the 10k would still be of benefit a week later in the marathon. RBCs have a life span of 120days=4months, so a half life of 60days.This is also why EPO takes weeks to be effective, and why it takes months to correct an iron deficiency anemia by taking iron supplements. It is a slow process. Blood transfusions are a rapid process which have immediate effects as in wow, you have 500ml more RBCs to transport and deliver oxygen in your bloodstream right after the transfusion,and those RBCs are long lasting.

What would really help Paula's case is to release complete blood results before and after her best races, her 2:15 and 2:17 marathons. If those tests are not suspicious, I think her case is really helped, but if those tests are suspicious, then I think she is guilty. Why doesn't Paula release those tests if she has nothing to hide? Wejo, why don't you show her this post, and ask her.......

We are all waiting for her answer......Paula?

This story is over, everywhere except at LetsRun, were nothing is ever over.

I agree with the call for patience. No one can dope in total secrecy. If she cheated the truth will come out. Someone will talk. That's how Lance was ultimately brought down. Some people in the know talked.

Ahhh the good old altitude camp charade. In Kenya no less.

The urine test for EPO, even today, is not good. To fail it would be failing an IQ test. Do you know if there is a blood test for it specifically? I don't.

One of many, many problems with her claims.

I wasn't aware EPO was so slow. I knew it wasn't instant. I agree a transfusion is a possibility.

Again, for the casual reader, doing EPO tests even days before an endurance event is a joke. Artifacts of EPO are gone, and the EPO is working its magic.

Even More Now wrote:

This story is over, everywhere except at LetsRun, were nothing is ever over.

It ain't over until the skinny lady sings.

Be Patient wrote:

I agree with the call for patience. No one can dope in total secrecy. If she cheated the truth will come out. Someone will talk. That's how Lance was ultimately brought down. Some people in the know talked.

They talked because Armstrong is an utter shit. Paula seems more pleasant.

rekrunner wrote:

No this is not Jon.

1) Elite athletes fully trained will not gain (much) from EPO or blood doping, because there is not much room for improvement.

2) The elite marathon is a special case where the benefit of any drug has yet to be reliably isolated, and observed, or measured.

The 90's called back to remind you about the many unreal performances delivered by Epo. I guess you don't check voicemail either.

wejo wrote:

I mispoke I said the 2009 test didn't conern me. The last high score was in 2012 not 2009, which doesn't concern me. Paula wasn't in shape then so much less of a concern.

Can all other runners use the same excuse?

"I wasn't running my best, so the positive drug test doesn't count."

had to say it wrote:

S/Z wrote:

You sound like her pr/cover up man. You dont even know her : "paula told me..." hahaha

ummm.... Yes he does.

Wejo has been a pacer for Paula and he does in fact know her personally. Try to keep up.

So he was actively involved in doping?! Explains a lot on here.

RJM33- Some good points.

I can hardly believe Saugy still has a job at a lab with the Lance stuff unless it's been reported wrong.

But Paula says that WADA recommended Saugy evaluate her stuff not that she went and picked him out. WADA so far (at least with the Dick Pound stuff) looks pretty good in all of this with the exception of Saugy's lab. Also it claims he did not know whose profile he was evaluating, but he might be able to guess I would suspect.

Paula wrote, "Another senior independent expert who WADA recommended and who is head of the WADA accredited laboratory in Lausanne was asked at my request to review the data following the Sunday Times articles (without being told my identity). He concluded that:

“Evaluation of Profile [redacted] – Review of Blood Data from 2001 -2008

I looked carefully the data which are part of the profile [redacted]. To my knowledge, they were obtained through several technologies. Moreover, data obtained for example in Vilamoura in 2003, with bloods collected before and right after the half marathon, ran in hot conditions, are typically showing effects of confounding factors. The increase of 2.8 in Hb (and no significant effect on ret%) is due to a drastic hemo-concentration caused by the specific race conditions. This post-race value, as most of the others, today would not be validated, and then not be implemented in a real biological passport."

I'd delete your post, but you compared me to Coe.

Please don't compare me to Coe. He attacked the Sunday Times and the leakers. He said he knew Paula was clean. As Paula told me, "You only know about yourself".

First of all, the way Paula's statement is orded is ambiguous. Did Paula go to WADA and ask who they thought would be a good person to evaluate her data? Or was he 'recommended' in the sense that WADA employs him? Was he the only one that WADA 'recommended'? If so, that's kind of weird. If not, why was he the guy that Paula chose? Regardless, she chose Saugy. For that not to stain Paula's case, it has to be that she had no idea about his reputation. In many many other ways, Paula seems to be sophisticated and knowledgeable about PED use and detection. Could she really have not heard anything about this guy's history?

Maybe I'm reading too much into her statement, but, while she says where the testing was done she doesn't name Saugy. It seems like she was trying to hide the fact that it was him without looking like she was trying to hide the fact that it was him. It's like the government guy at the end of Indiana Jones saying 'Top Men'.

Wejo, when Paula was explaining why her numbers weren't damning and defending her decision not to release all of her data, did she mention when she became such an expert on these tests? Maybe all elites are, I don't know, I've been out of the scene for a while now, but the fact that she is or is acting like she is is actually a strike against her in my mind.

Just on the Saugy point it is worth remembering that he remains head of a WADA approved laboratory, despite the content of the articles linked to and the quote about the "beating the EPO test" bit ref Armstrong.

For all their imperfections, WADA are still held out as being the "good guys", so is it a little unfair to be badging this guy as part of the problem. Surely we've got to assume that WADA know about the concerns raised, have looked into them and concluded there is no case to answer?

It's a similar point with the World half marathon in Vilamoura and the illness she had in between that and the Great North Run. 2 days after the GNR she's giving an interview at home about her preparation for Vilamoura:

http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/radcliffe-exclusive-interview-why-vilamoura

Then somehow she finds the time to be so severely ill from food poisoning that she requires antibiotics, then recovers sufficiently (after several days in bed and no training presumably) to take the decision to get on the plane and fly to Portugal where she smashes a world class field.

If you'd been severely ill the week before such a race, you'd think that you'd mention when asked about whether you could have run quicker:

http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/radcliffe-wipes-out-the-opposition-in-vilamou

But although she mentions everything else about that day, there's no contemporary reference of being ill. It only comes later, in her biography. Again, the lack of this explanation at the time is just weird. If you've been throwing your guts up, why not mention it, just in passing? Surely it's been the main thing in your mind in the last 10 days?

Interesting to know when Paula was given the information about the blood tests - both of them - on this occasion. Why was WADA (or was it IAAF?) giving her notification of her low off-score after the first test? (as suggested in her biography) is that policy? Do athletes get all this blood data given to them? I thought Paula didn't want blood data released as it gave athletes information about how to cheat the system (which, hypothetically, this was doing)

Believe it or not, I'd love Paula to prove she's clean. But given the obfuscation, misdirection and peculiar things around all this, given her stand out time, given the history of doping in cycling and other endurance sports, and given people's ability to lie, lie and lie again, we, the public, deserve to be shown the evidence to be convinced that everything is above board.