Paula Radcliffe's WR could go down this weekend, what questions would you like us to ask her this weekend?

Is growing? There was no real case to start with, and what started in the Sunday Times effectively died two years ago. Exactly what has changed in the past two years, when after two reports the WADA IC, did not seem to be all that disturbed, to now merit a description of "is growing"? - The UK Parliamentary report did not mention Paula once. - Actovegin was WADA legal, and remains WADA legal, even after scientific analysis and consideration for banning. - I thought the "high pain tolerance" quote came from Gerard Hartmann. - Using needles is also WADA legal, so long as the substances and methods are not banned. - The lie detector test was no longer necessary after the WADA IC completed its investigation and submitted its reports, and the British press conceded "effectively cleared". - Running fast is the goal of every athlete. Succeeding at this goal is not a good basis for making a case.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Really the case against Paula is growing and disturbing:

➡ the outright suspicious blood values that we all know, basically Parliament believes that she is dodgy.

➡ while in New Mexico, she just happened to stumble upon a garbage dump full of used ped needles.

➡ use of Actovegin, goat's blood and whatever else.

➡ the fact Dr Wolffarter-or-whatever-his-name-is claimed Paula could tolerate more pain then anyone else he had met, he was referring of course to the number of needles she can have in her at anyone time. She obviously has a cavalier attitude to putting needles into her body.

➡threatens to sue people who raise allegations against her but never follows through or taking a lie detector test.

➡a 2:15 marathon, and numerous other sub 2:20s

rekrunner wrote:

Before 2009...

Lol. You with your trolling.

Facts:

The IAAF used pre-2009 values in other cases as corroborating evidence.

And point C was from 2012.

And point B was about ret-%, hence not affected by any dehydration effect.

And point A had such a jump, that it cannot be explained by any dehydration effect.

No wonder the IAAF did not mention any of that.

rekrunner wrote:

DHT123 provided the source on page 5. I noted that it was "apparent": "Apparently 11 out of 12 experts did not find this to be a problem."

Again, that source was Paula. Ridiculo.

DHT123 wrote:

What do you think the reference for '12 IAAF experts' looking at the data is about then?

The British athlete said that 12 experts from the IAAF had viewed the data on these tests and 11 had concluded that the results were consistent with an athlete training at altitude."

https://www.eurosport.co.uk/athletics/i-ll-sue-top-british-athlete-confronted-over-sunday-times-doping-crisis-claims_sto4842226/story.shtml

Why on earth would there be 12 experts looking at these tests? When did they do that? Who was the 1 expert that didn't agree? etc.

Also this is Paula's take on things, it could have been one was certain she was doping and 11 were inconclusive in their assessment.

More facts: - None of that negates that A) "jumped up" and B) "went down", are comparisons of two values from different samples which are not suitable for comparison, for all of the independent reasons IAAF mentioned. This addresses your points A) and B) in full. - Your red-herring focus on "dehydration effect" and "temperature" ignores the fact that these are not bases of the IAAF explanations, but rather "exercise intensity" is. The IAAF specifically mentioned "strenuous exercise leads to a concentration of plasma volume, thereby increasing HGB concentration" and "high HGB reading could be explained by the reduction in plasma volume and consequent haemoconcentration following extreme exertion" in the context of these two points, respectively. - IAAF addressed the 2012 point, noting that "altitude was a plausible explanation for the values reported", before concluding there was no basis to pursue the case, therefore addressing both of "the values" Hct and ret-% mentioned in C). But you already knew all of these established facts -- it is not the first time I've mentioned them, nor highlighted that you ignore, and continue to ignore, these facts mentioned by the IAAF.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Before 2009...

Lol. You with your trolling.

Facts:

The IAAF used pre-2009 values in other cases as corroborating evidence.

And point C was from 2012.

And point B was about ret-%, hence not affected by any dehydration effect.

And point A had such a jump, that it cannot be explained by any dehydration effect.

No wonder the IAAF did not mention any of that.

The big problem for the "popular" position of "doping is credible" is the dearth of experts. Every organization involved, the IAAF, UKAD, WADA, and the WADA IC, are all in line with each other, and consistent with the ABP science behind. Who are the experts taking the side of "doping"? Apparently there exists at least one. Ashenden/Parisotto, the scientists behind the accusations, had no way of assessing the credibility of altitude, for borderline values around the altitude threshold. The main accusers were reporters at the Sunday Times and the Daily Mail, and a handful of anonymous posters here. Are they more reliable sources?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

DHT123 provided the source on page 5. I noted that it was "apparent": "Apparently 11 out of 12 experts did not find this to be a problem."

Again, that source was Paula. Ridiculo.

From Paula's book " How to run with with a purged system." - "My feces becomes one with the road it lays upon. Wiping comes later."

From Paula's book " How to run with with a purged system." - "During college indoor meets, the long jump pit would double as my litterbox."

Oh come on.

You were just reminded, again, that the IAAF used such data as evidence. Yet here you are, claiming boldly that they can't even compared to each other? Well at least you are not pretending anymore that they weren't real.

And for the 28th time, the IAAF didn't even mention the pre-race data...

Lol, no, again, they didn't mention the normal ret-%, for that would've ruined their reasoning that the high Hb of 16.2 (!) came from altitude - because that would have lower ret-% as we all know. A lot lower than in case if her Hb of 12, yet... how much higher was it, 40%, 50%, 60%? Classical EPO effect, according to the literature. But yes, call it coincidence, why not. The IAAF didn't even mention it.

Seriously, I spilled my beer while laughing hard.

But yes, you have already stated the same lies before. That's why people respond to you less and less.

You happy now because you got attention again? How long do you want to play this stupid game?

From Paula's book " How to run with with a purged system." - "I remember one race in Canada, I had to wipe with a dead squirrel."

Let's see what Mr. half-the-facts ignores this time ... The IAAF gave TWO reasons for the low RET-% for the first two samples, and here you've only considered ONE (ONE/TWO = ONE HALF the facts): "endurance athletes display significantly lower RET% than normal during the competitive season, and also by altitude exposure". The 2012 RET-% was taken "out of competition", and not "in the competitive season" like the others. On a scale of 0.5 - 1.5, all of the values are RET-% low, but the in-competition values are lower. When we expect RET-% to be lower after altitude, it is compared to the weeks before, and during altitude, not compared to in-competition samples during the competitive season. Make no mistake, just because I don't say it every time, the pre-2009 values like 12, and jumps like 21.88% and 30% and 20% drop in RET cannot be considered truly accurate measures (i.e. they are not "real"), for all of the well documented reasons you should already know. The IAAF explanation was two-fold: 1) Pre-2008 values cannot be considered as reliable for ABP type purposes 2) Pretending for the sake of argument, (because that what we are doing now) that they are "real", the values have plausible well documented non-doping causes It is not a bold claim that conclusions from pre-2009 comparisons are unreliable, but a well documented and well accepted non-controversial fact. The IAAF addresses "comparisons" -- this includes all the pre-2009 data -- every point -- including the pre-race data you need to make such a comparison to find an Hct jump, and an RET-% drop. While you are able to do so, it is incompetent, non-expert like, and the conclusions are not reliable. For the 2012 point, the IAAF says "the values" are plausible -- values is plural -- including both Hgb and RET-%. Your "IAAF used such data as evidence" is equally completely missing the point. Unlike you are attempting here, they did not use the two points to show a "jump" in Hct, and a "drop" in RET-%, but argued that the pre-2009 was consistent because they were the same as valid post-2009 samples. One of your tools is the "exception fallacy", e.g. "one pre-2009 value is valid, so they all must be", or "one out of twelve experts disagreed, so that one is right". You keep bring up references that this is just a game for you. You laugh and then get bored, then go away, then come back. Oh boy. We are having fun now. Tee Hee. Lol. This is getting boring.

rekrunner wrote:

Let's see what Mr. half-the-facts ignores this time ...

The IAAF gave TWO reasons for the low RET-% for the first two samples, and here you've only considered ONE (ONE/TWO = ONE HALF the facts): "endurance athletes display significantly lower RET% than normal during the competitive season, and also by altitude exposure".

The 2012 RET-% was taken "out of competition", and not "in the competitive season" like the others.

[/quote]

"being at high altitudes may cause reticulocyte counts to rise, to help you adjust to the lower oxygen levels at high altitudes."

"Simulated high altitude induced by intermittent hypobaric hypoxia does not modify reticulocytes, despite an increase in erythropoietin serum concentration."

Sondre Moen's blood values:

24 Jan 2012 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.7 - Hct 45.2 - OFF Score 100.5

5 Jun 2012 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 13.7 - Hct 41.2 - OFF Score 69.9

22 Nov 2012 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 13.9 - Hct 42.6 - OFF Score 73

19 Mar 2013 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 13.5 - Hct 39.5 - OFF Score 83.7

12 Jun 2013 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.3 - Hct 42.3 - OFF Score 91.4

23 Oct 2013 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 13.9 - Hct 41.1 - OFF Score 84.3

23 Apr 2014 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.1 - Hct 42.5 - OFF Score 99

30 Jul 2014 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.1 - Hct 44.2 - OFF Score 89.7

8 Sep 2014 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.1 - Hct 42 - OFF Score 96.5

26 Oct 2014 (Blood only - Lab in Utah in USA) : Hb 15.1 - Hct 45.1 - OFF Score 92.2 (Altitude)

12 Jan 2015 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.2 - Hct 43.2 - OFF Score 93.3

24 Mar 2015 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.1 - Hct 42.1 - OFF Score 89

6 May 2015 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.6 - Hct 44.7 - OFF Score 94.4

2 Dec 2015 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.3 - Hct 43 - OFF Score 90.4

28 Jan 2016 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.8 - Hct 45 - OFF Score 93

24 Feb 2016 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14 - Hct 41.9 - OFF Score 93.1

13 Apr 2016 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.5 - Hct 42.8 - OFF Score 95.9

10 Jun 2016 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.1 - Hct 41.8 - OFF Score 91.9

8 Aug 2016 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14 - Hct 41.6 - OFF Score 92.8

19 Apr 2017 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.3 - Hct 43.1 - OFF Score 85.1

(10 days after Hannover Marathon in 2:10:07, NR)

8 Aug 2017 (Blood only - Lab in Dresden (GER)) : Hb 15.3 - Hct 45.5 - OFF Score 103

15 Dec 2017 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.8 - Hct 45 - OFF Score 84.2

There is no discernible decline in RET in the season, his highest RET count coming on 15 Dec 2017 ((Hb x 10)- (OFF Score 84.2 ) then ÷60, then squared) just after running a 2:05 marathon.

rekrunner wrote:

You keep bring up references that this is just a game for you. You laugh and then get bored, then go away, then come back.

Lol. No. It is not this case that is fun, it is you who makes me laugh. Oh boy. We are having fun now. Tee Hee. Lol.

Whenever I am bored, I can go do a current doping thread on letsrun, and find you there, bringing up Paula's suspicious values and screwing up all the facts.

But for now, this is getting boring again.

So yeah - I'll be back at the weekend. Lol.

P.S. In the meantime, read a bit more on ret-%, and what Canova said about altitude effects on experienced runners regularly training at altitude.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to debate the merits of: 1) "research has shown that endurance athletes display significantly lower RET% than normal during the competitive season." 2) "Research has shown that athletes who train at altitude and then come down to sea-level can experience a drop in RET% for up to 3-4 weeks" Good luck with that. Let me know when your paper is peer-reviewed. Meanwhile, my point was that conclusions should be made with all the facts, and not half.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Let's see what Mr. half-the-facts ignores this time ...

The IAAF gave TWO reasons for the low RET-% for the first two samples, and here you've only considered ONE (ONE/TWO = ONE HALF the facts): "endurance athletes display significantly lower RET% than normal during the competitive season, and also by altitude exposure".

The 2012 RET-% was taken "out of competition", and not "in the competitive season" like the others.

"being at high altitudes may cause reticulocyte counts to rise, to help you adjust to the lower oxygen levels at high altitudes."

(...)

"Simulated high altitude induced by intermittent hypobaric hypoxia does not modify reticulocytes, despite an increase in erythropoietin serum concentration."

(...)

Sondre Moen's blood values:

(...)

There is no discernible decline in RET in the season, his highest RET count coming on 15 Dec 2017 ((Hb x 10)- (OFF Score 84.2 ) then ÷60, then squared) just after running a 2:05 marathon.

Nice dodge. All the holes in your arguments are still there. So if you are bored, you come to doping threads. And now you are leaving because you are bored? Did Canova contradict the research referenced by the IAAF? Does he explain why you ignored half of it when making your own fabricated conclusions? He does say sea-level athletes and altitude born and raised athletes respond differently.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You keep bring up references that this is just a game for you. You laugh and then get bored, then go away, then come back.

Lol. No. It is not this case that is fun, it is you who makes me laugh. Oh boy. We are having fun now. Tee Hee. Lol.

Whenever I am bored, I can go do a current doping thread on letsrun, and find you there, bringing up Paula's suspicious values and screwing up all the facts.

But for now, this is getting boring again.

So yeah - I'll be back at the weekend. Lol.

P.S. In the meantime, read a bit more on ret-%, and what Canova said about altitude effects on experienced runners regularly training at altitude.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

DHT123 provided the source on page 5. I noted that it was "apparent": "Apparently 11 out of 12 experts did not find this to be a problem."

Again, that source was Paula. Ridiculo.

Did anyone find our why Paula was giving this info out when WADA still stands by the likely doping report?

Any New Data wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Again, that source was Paula. Ridiculo.

Did anyone find our why Paula was giving this info out when WADA still stands by the likely doping report?

cause she knows that no matter what happens rekrunner will defend her honor

What report did WADA stand by?

Any New Data wrote:

Did anyone find our why Paula was giving this info out when WADA still stands by the likely doping report?

rekrunner wrote:

What report did WADA stand by?

Any New Data wrote:

Did anyone find our why Paula was giving this info out when WADA still stands by the likely doping report?

The Lab tests leaked to ARD ?