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

larkimm wrote:

Rekrunner has made a succinct defence already, but the opposing side has, I feel, been a little complacent.

Where? Link please.

And what is your problem with my demonstration of her first case? (http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=6881090&id=7164486#7164486)

Pavey is actually another good example, which shows how small the errors in these actual measurements are (confirming Paula's bio). Because if rekrunner was right, and the Hb values could really be wrong by 1 g/dL once in a while, Pavey would have had a few off scores above 90.

She also shows why off scores above 100 are already very suspicious. These values around 110 are just crazy, and only so high to avoid false positives at all costs. I'd also like to point out that the alleged false positives discussed by Tucker and others could very well have been real positives...

Finally, we already discussed at great length why her 16.2 Hb value from 2012 can only come from doping, not from altitude alone. See also Canova's comment regarding the lack of Hb increases from altitude from earlier this week.

larkimm wrote:

Happy with some circumstantial evidence, which is why I included a sub section for "additional comments" in my structure above. That could indeed include "22degrees reported but expert panel said 29" etc etc and anything else which (without hyperbole) was credible.

The expert panel? You mean the IAAF in its own investigation. It didn't outright lie like that, as the document was written by lawyers. At that point for example it didn't refer to any measurements, but simply stated "Ms Radcliffe has confirmed that the sample was collected just after she had just completed the IAAF World Half Marathon Championship in Vilamoura, Portugal in 29° heat" - of course without correcting her for that would be counterproductive.

You will find that IAAF document full of such misleading statements attempted to clear IAAF of any wrongdoing, which is only possible by clearing Paula.

Example from the same page:

"it is well-documented in the scientific literature that strenuous exercise leads to a concentration of plasma volume, thereby increasing HGB concentration"

Again, correct, but misleading without providing the actual numbers, because the well-documented increase was at most 15% directly after running for 2.5 - 3 hours, whereas Paula's Hb went up by 30%, measured some 60 - 90 minutes after her 67 minute run.

Oh my!...I think my personal LTP is starting to show indications of "suspicious" results for Nicole Sapstead.... the chief executive of UKAD.

....sorry Brits.....but it is starting to look like there might be a few problems at UKAD...

Luckily USADA has had CEO Travis Tygart... who got Lance Armstrong even after death threats!....and is looking at Alberto Salazar right now... if I remember correctly.

My personal LTP also has Travis Tygart with a "not suspicious at all" score of 98.4646465738 which is also a GOLD level rating.

Readers will of course remember that Alberto Salazar is also the coach of Mo Farah....

......just another conspiracy story coincidence.....right?....

.........Move along now ....nothing to see here.........

...............Go Jo Pavey!!!............

..

...if the identities on the Fuentes 200 blood bags finally get revealed soon...

...and the other identities of the 28 positives on doping sample retesting get revealed soon....

...I think it will be like a nuclear bomb going off at IAAF headquarters in Monaco for Lord Sebastian Coe.

...I wonder if Seb has had any trouble sleeping recently...

......I know I have.....I tend to stay up reading all night.....

Starting to think rjm33 is a double bluff plant designed to drive this thread into the ground with increased inanity amongst the good work.

Skimming your posts dude! Never used to and would prefer not to.

rjm33 wrote:

Amazing!.. Even a wacko conspiracy theorist could not come up with that many coincidences....I really need to get more creative.

.....like I said .....you can't make this stuff up....and then one day... you find out... that the idiot "no clue" conspiracy wacko was actually right.... and maybe you were just not reading enough!..

Also, I am still waiting for an answer to my question about:

Can somebody here please list all top tier US male and female distance runners from 800m to marathon that have had a positive doping test in the last 10 years (not sprinters!) ???

... I can't think of any off the top of my head except for Mo Trafeh (coming

back from Morocco with EPO in his bags at the airport)...

just sayin wrote:

What do all 4 of these husband/wife coach/athlete duos have in common ?

You guessed it!

Sorry RJM I don't know all the American dopers. I guess the guys that visited Eddie in Albuquerque.

Come on jk!... try to keep up ...too much volume for you?...too complicated for you?...you must weak mind disease...it's contagious...

I posted under another name in this before but I can't find it now. I agree with your conclusion that Paula has lost credibility to address doping. She used to be the point person for that but her reaction to this has been inconsistent with her attitude in the past. I mute the audio now when she is commenting on races. In general, the takeaway is that the 90 and 00s are like the steroid era of baseball - you can't definitively say who was dirty and who was not but the lack of testing or ability to go back leaves a cloud of suspicion over all records. We can never know. I think the experts disagree about how old data could be used but it seems clear that IAAF and WADA have moved on. So it's a dead issue unless Puerto or another legal issue blows it open.The silver lining is that it may be getting harder for the dopers today so the sport could become cleaner. IAAF is like MLB or NFL. They market the sport so They have a disincentive to lead on busting dirty athletes. It's bad for business. Hopefully, issues like this lead to more independence for drug testing.

rjm33 wrote:

Here is

[quote]rjm33 wrote:[/

Paula Radcliffe has lost her reputation for transparency, honesty, and integrity.

........................Go Jo Pavey!!!.........Go Steve Jones!!!.......

.................................THE REAL DEAL!!!...................

rjm33 wrote:

Can somebody here please list all top tier US male and female distance runners from 800m to marathon that have had a positive doping test in the last 10 years (not sprinters!) ???

... I can't think of any off the top of my head except for Mo Trafeh (coming

back from Morocco with EPO in his bags at the airport)...

Maggie Vessy tested positive for Canrenone, where she received a public warning and no sanction.

Hazel Clark tested positive for pseudoephedrine, where she recieved a warning and no sanction.

Technically not a positive, but Chris Lukezic was sanctioned for refusing to give a test (1 year after he retired).

Mary Akor, who tested positive for Clenbuterol is a US citizen, (but will be representing Nigeria in Rio).

I really wish LRC would put a headline on the front page for the medal upgrades to silver and bronze medals for Shalane Flanagan, Kara Goucher, and Jo Pavey.

They all DESERVE IT after waiting for 8 or 9 years!...even if some people do not like them. This is just completely unacceptable that they have had to wait this long.

I think that the whole mess is about to completely explode the IAAF. It may be the best solution at this point. Then track can try to start over fresh somehow.

The tests are getting better and top US runners are tested a lot. That is why I asked my question that nobody has answered yet... about positive doping tests in the last 10 years for all top male and female US distance runners....I can't think of even one! Please tell me someone..(not sprinters!) that was well known.

I also do not think Travis Tygart would cover up any tests for anyone ...he was the main lawyer in the BALCO scandal...he got Lance Armstrong after death threats!....and he is investigating Alberto Salazar right now.

Travis Tygart is also the real deal...we are lucky to have him as CEO of USADA.

Thank you Clerk. I personally would not consider Akor as a top US runner. I would say that is a great record for an individual country. So zero EPO or anabolic steroid positives in 10 years for top US distance runners?

If true, the US is doing a lot better than Kenya and many other countries. Kenya has had 40 positive doping tests in just the last few years.

Even though I think just about every world record for men and women is "suspicious"...I still think that the majority of runners competing in general are clean...which puts me in the "very naive" category at the LRC forum.

just sayin wrote:

cleans wrote:

Sorry, that was in response to the poster who found the following Guardian article on the knee injury.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/09/athletics.sport?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

What do all 4 of these husband/wife coach/athlete duos have in common ?

You guessed it!

Good spot! But remember Szabo never actually tested positive, they just found a boot full of Actovegin in her car.......all above board to get this injected into you, just ask Paula!

DHT123 wrote:

just sayin wrote:

What do all 4 of these husband/wife coach/athlete duos have in common ?

You guessed it!

Good spot! But remember Szabo never actually tested positive, they just found a boot full of Actovegin in her car.......all above board to get this injected into you, just ask Paula!

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/other-sports/a-one-track-mind-no-more-228279.html

Good articles on Actovegin here:

And here:

Any athlete getting this injected into them has for me already crossed a line. There was a big debate about this following the meldonium/Sharapova debate but as someone said if you're taking a drug you don't need for a medical problem you don't have then something has gone very wrong.

Also..of the national class runners that I have seen blood test results for (at altitude)...all have always looked absolutely normal...never suspicious at all.

Some women have had iron deficiency anemia, which is common among females, but that is low Hb...not high.

The typical increase in hemoglobin levels from altitude training for 4 to 6 weeks or even long-term living and training at altitude long term is only about 5% average with a rare large-responder perhaps 10%. That would only take someone with a Hb of 13.0 up to 13.65 average or 14.3 at maximum. It definitely usually helps to improve endurance performance... but it is not a huge increase in hemoglobin levels.

I have lived and trained at 7000ft for 24 years, I am a male (males have hemoglobin levels about 1.0g/dl more than females) and my hemoglobin level is 14.3g/dl. Paula was at 16.2g/dl in her OOC test in 2012 in Monte Carlo.

Readers will notice that it is easy to be completely transparent with release of my hemoglobin score because when your hemoglobin score is normal it does not look "suspicious"... so there is no big deal about releasing it.

Paula had no problem talking about her normal ~14.3 hemoglobin levels or her low 12.0 in her biography... but she never mentioned the massive increase in 2 days to 15.6 in her biography.

..............Go Jo Pavey!........

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

larkimm wrote:

Lol, here I am posting to get the case against Paula made clearly and succinctly

So you can then post a long and circuitous denial that, if you hold your head at the right angle, squint, and look at the sun at 6:55 pm in Fiji, makes perfect sense.

larkimm wrote:

All I want is a public resolution of this issue. It seems to me that the only place this is being actively worked on is on this thread - that's not right.

For some reason you seemed to keep defending her anyway despite the IAAF wrapping it up in a way that should have pleased you long ago. The IAAF declared her clean and has moved on. You could have stopped a long time ago. That's a serious answer.

You're massively misunderstanding me. I've no capability to rebut the scientific stuff, and I'm trying to be objective here, despite my self-professed belief in Paula based on what is in the public domain and the analysis that "experts" have publicly reported on so far.

There are perhaps 5-10 people in the world on this thread that are interested in discussing this. Of these, at least one (me) is a middle-aged bloke from the UK with no links at all to elite athletics and no expertise in the "science" at all. I'm just an interested fan, and (to be honest) a fan that is relatively late to the party (I only started getting properly interested in athletics about 8 years ago). Knowing that about myself, I therefore suggest that I am utterly unqualified to comment on the scientific stuff about Paula's blood values (despite having tried, badly, earlier in this thread!).

And I suggest it is also possible that others on this thread are, when it comes down to it, equally unqualified to comment.

All I was suggesting was that the case be put clearly in a way which doesn't allow Tucker to say "Hmmm, interesting, but not telling me anything new", but instead gets him (or other appropriate individuals) to say "Hmmm, really interesting - let me follow through on some of that, and perhaps get this aspect discussed more widely by qualified individuals" so that we can get a wider (and more qualified) discussion about it. I want the issue putting to bed - is she likely a doper or not? (With that question being asked and answered not by anonymous thread posters on here). Wouldn't that be helpful?

larkimm wrote:

And I suggest it is also possible that others on this thread are, when it comes down to it, equally unqualified to comment.

I understand what you were requesting but to be honest I figured it would take me a week's worth of work to put together a proper review and I just don't have the time. Rjm33 appears to have plenty of time, but like many others I agree he has lost the plot.

There is an awful lot of bad science, quoting old papers from the 70's and 80's on cyclists or strength athletes and ignoring more recent studies. Even Ross Tucker extrapolated results from a study on men to women which any decent scientist knows not to do.

I have all but given up on this thread after seeing the comments on Steve Jones and Jo Pavey. For me they are both in the same boat as Paula, not enough data to make a strong conclusion. Jones competed in an era where athletes were openly manipulating blood and steroids were rife. Pavey released a few select results, all this proves is that she is one of many athletes who managed the system well enough to avoid detection. Mo also passed this test despite many being suspicious - is he the real deal too?

My attention has now turned to the Panama Papers and whether we will see some IAAF cronies and athletes popping up in those?

Plasma, that's a shame to hear, but I suppose your exasperation is consistent with mine.

I hate to see an athlete's reputation sullied unnecessarily, and I equally hate the thought that doped results are undetected. I do hope that this thread can help resolve this in the wider world one way or another; sadly, I expect that it will not.

larkimm wrote:

Plasma, that's a shame to hear, but I suppose your exasperation is consistent with mine.

I hate to see an athlete's reputation sullied unnecessarily, and I equally hate the thought that doped results are undetected. I do hope that this thread can help resolve this in the wider world one way or another; sadly, I expect that it will not.

Oh golly gee whiz, I do hope it is resolved too.

"I've no capability to rebut the scientific stuff"

Then what is your point, other than more spin?

My point is that ad hominem attacks, poor and disjointed writing, and a lack of authority (because this is an anonymous forum) means that there may well be very valid evidence here which damns Paula. But it will get lost if no-one does anything about it. So someone should do something about it.

I'm not spinning for anyone. If Paula is guilty of doping, she deserves the same treatment as Armstrong, stripping from all of her roles and being publicly shamed. If she isn't, she deserves her reputation not being damaged.

For that to happen, this thread needs a wider, more articulate and more qualified audience to review it. It won't get that, and that would just mean that all of the hours that some contributors have put into this will be utterly wasted.