just sayin wrote:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.eceThe head of UKAD was also caught burying bad news
Then UKAD is charged with fixing the Russian doping problem
See how that works?
One wonders why USADA wasn't charged with the task?
This will be cleaned up JUST IN TIME for Rio.
I'm surprised to see the word "succinct", but I did post a kind of "recap" on page 62, of the gaps I consider still remaining in making the case of the "doping scenario".Considering "once in a while" errors, we haven't seen any values, or explanations, for the dozen Brits who also recorded suspicious values. For women that would be between 104 and 115. Globally 1 in 7 athletes recorded suspicious values. Does Jo Pavey, with or without the "non-suspicious" 6 out of 7 athletes, show us how small the errors must be for ALL of the 1 out of 7 "suspicious" athletes?Regarding "only so high to avoid false positives at all costs", it's public knowledge that in 2003 there was actually no Off-score threshold in use, and in 2005, the Off-score threshold in use was 123 for women. Do you suggest she was constantly targeting, with Lance-like sophistication, the "crazy" altitude threshold of 111 established 4-6 years later, when only 2 out of 14 samples before 2009 were reported to exceed the sea-level threshold of 103 criteria used by the Sunday Times to determine suspicious values, and the suspicious 2003 and 2005 values are far below the 2005 threshold of 123?Part of the "16.2 Hb can only come from doping" great length discussion was an unchallenged observation that some doctors consider 16.5 g/dl still normal at SEA LEVEL for women, and altitude correction for 1800m-2500m for women should add 0.8-1.4 g/dl. Recall, in 2012, Paula noted she was at 2400m in Kenya for 4 weeks (and then used a hypoxic device), 1 week before the 2012 test.
casual obsever wrote:
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.
You keep saying that there was 12 athletes with suspicious scores, you have been told time and again that if you read the whole published article there were 3 without valid explanation, one of them being Paula and one who was accidentally 'outed' because of a journalist unknowingly linking one of the 3 to a previous story at a previous Olympics. So stop trying to make these scores look more common than they are. The other 2 also had only one score that was suspicious, not three separate occasions. You keep avoiding these FACTS because they are inconvenient for your argument.
You continually seem to overlook the difference in the scores over a matter of days and keep presenting the same material over and over again that tells us nothing more. Please stop posting until you have more to add.
OK let's fully embrace ALL of your facts, and see what changes. 9 Brits have valid explanations. 1 is Paula, 1 was accidentally outed. All have one suspicious score except Paula. Then what? Which argument is inconvenienced? Am I supposed to guess? Do you think I'm making a statement about altitude scores being common?
Are you saying that 12 Brits then did NOT have suspicious scores? It's a rather misleading headline then. Is that the only instance we were misled by the Sunday Times, where the facts were hyped to make a better story? How many others, from the 1 in 7 suspicious athletes, also have valid explanations, or worse, do NOT have suspicious scores? Up to 75%? (By the way, Paula has valid explanations too.)
Are you saying we have seen the scores? I haven't. Can you post them here?
Are you saying that we have seen the valid explanations? I haven't. Can you post them here?
Unless you are saying these things, and you didn't, you are actually not contradicting me. If you post all the scores and explanations, then I will update my claims and say we have seen them now. Otherwise, you are also posting, but adding nothing.
Regardless of valid explanations, we should add these points to the graph, and more. For a complete picture, we should compare Paula to all athletes: 1) the non-suspicous ones (6 out of 7 athletes), 2) the suspicious ones, and 3) the busted ones. Comparing her only to the ones who "have nothing to hide" will present a one-sided bias. If I compare her to only the banned Russian women, we get an opposite bias, Let's try to get a complete perspective.
Whatever the status of the dozen Brits, I'm not saying that suspicious scores are any more common than 1 out of 7 athletes. If 75 percent of all suspicious values actually have "valid explanations", that significantly changes the story -- the IAAF would have a very tiny doping problem. And Seppelt and The Sunday Times would be bad journalists for misleading the public, and damaging the reputation of the IAAF and hurting the image of the sport.
The context is NOT "difference in the scores in a matter of days". I did not overlook this point but "casual obsever" did by actually making a different point: that Jo Pavey proves that all process errors are small, else we would see scores of 90. (We do see small scores down to 49 -- are these big errors in the opposite direction as predicted by "preciously jaded"?).
In any case, I do not overlook the difference in scores in a matter of days. I fully embrace the difference. What I claim, and many disagree, is that non-doping factors can explain the big difference, even in a few days. We disagree, not with the big difference, but in the plausibility of non-doping factors causing the big difference.
You have written about 1000 words in response. Have you even read the article? The article said 12 had suspicious scores, 9 had genuine explanations (as we have seen from your posts and the excuses you have offered up for Paula that could be any number of things), 3 had scores that weren't explained, one had several scores that were seen as suspicious, which we now know was Paula. The other two were not household names but one had run in the Olympics as I stated earlier and was inadvertently outed by a paper. The other person is not known.
So yes the headline may have been misleading but I would recommend you read BEYOND the headline, how can you possibly argue otherwise if you don't even know the facts of the article.
Whatever the case how can you possibly say Seppelt is a 'bad journalist' without him we would still be sitting in a sea of lies, and still watching Coe kiss Diacks backside.
rjm33 wrote:
Was the "plausible explanation" for Mo Farah missing his doping test before the 2012 Olympics that was given to UKAD... was that Mo Farah could not hear his doorbell?... or was it doorbell ERROR?....
....
The IAAF looked into it, but found that it was a pre-2009 doorbell and concluded that Mo did not have a case to answer.
Regina Jacobs and Mary Decker - anabolics?
Can someone summarize the last 30 pages? Is it more of a circlejerk or more like shooting a dead horse?
But now I no longer ignore these FACTS regarding the complex status of these dozen Brits, as clarified in the article with a misleading headline.The 1000 words were to explain that my initial post is not really connected to the contents of the article in any way, and doesn't depend on the status of the explanations of the values of the three or seven or dozen (depending on the UK journalist) Brits. Is there something I said factually wrong? After two responses, I don't know yet if you actually think I said something that was incorrect. I initially thought about a parenthetical sentence that said that nine of them were somehow explained, but then didn't see how that was even remotely relevant. Now I regret it, because saving ten words has cost 2000 more.Whatever the status of these dozen British athletes, the same observations can be, and were, also applied to the other 788 athletes that recorded suspicious values. We do not have the scores of these 788 athletes, and we do not have the explanations.Do you know how conditional statements work? IF, generally speaking, 75% of suspicious values actually have "genuine explanations", THEN a journalist who reports a big scandal, without mentioning that only 25% of the numbers are relevant, would be a "bad journalist". Similarly, when a newspaper headline says "a dozen", but the number is really three, I think it's wise to find a different source of information, rather than reading through a potentially skewed subset of data from someone who writes misleading sensational headlines.
Please please please wrote:
You have written about 1000 words in response. Have you even read the article?
...
Whatever the case how can you possibly say Seppelt is a 'bad journalist'...
Yes...of course... but not last 10 years.
My point is that I think the US is doing well compared to a lot of other countries.
this out from wiki on Jo Pavey:
Born in Honiton, Devon, since 1987 Jo Pavey (née Davis) has been a member of Exeter Harriers Athletics Club in Devon, England. In March 1988 she started to be coached by the middle distance coach Tony White.
In July 1988 she won the English Schools 1500 m title in a British record (under 15). Running for Devon, she finished eight places and 13 seconds ahead of Paula Radcliffe, running for Bedfordshire.[3] Pavey then won the AAAs national U15 800 m and 1500 m titles in 1988 and the AAAs national U17 800 & 1500 m titles in 1990.
Pavey made her senior international debut in 1997. After finishing her degree in physiotherapy, she spent the off-season backpacking, which meant an irregular training schedule. Over the course of the season she went from a national ranking of 22nd for the 1500 m to the British national title.[4][5] At the 1997 World Championships in Athens, she reached the semi-finals.
A six time national champion in the women's 5000 m, as of 2014 she is second on the British all-time list for 5000 m with a time of 14 minutes 39.96 seconds and the fastest at 3000 m indoors. She first moved up to the 5000 m in 2000, after coming back from a two-year absence caused by hip and knee injuries.[6] In her first race at the distance she comfortably achieved the Olympic qualifying standard.[7] This meant she was selected for the British team for the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney. Pavey reached the Olympic final, where she improved her personal best by 10 seconds to finish 12th.[8]
Pavey's Olympic performance made her the fourth fastest British woman of all time over 5000 m, and she entered the 2001 season with the aim of rivalling the national record.[9] She spent the winter doing warm weather training in South Africa. Having trained for only half an hour a day during much of the 2000 season due to injury worries, Pavey built up to three hours training a day.[9] However, a shin injury meant she missed the first month of her season.[10] Her first race of the year was the 3,000 m in a meeting at Lausanne, in which she finished seventh.[11] Two weeks later she won the British 5,000 m title, and in doing so gained selection for the World Championships in Edmonton.[12] A meeting at Crystal Palace served as preparation for the World Championships, but Pavey finished well down the field, 31 seconds behind victor Paula Radcliffe.[13]
The women's 5,000 m at the Edmonton championships featured a controversy over the participation of Olga Yegorova, who had tested positive for erythropoietin (EPO), but had her suspension overturned. Several athletes, including the British team, discussed whether to boycott the event, but decided against it.[14] Pavey wore a red ribbon while competing, as part of Paula Radcliffe's campaign for the introduction of mandatory blood testing. Speaking about the issue after her heat, in which she finished second, Pavey said "We all wore the red ribbons because we are in favour of blood tests for EPO. I don't want to line up against a cheat. It's not a level playing field out there and we just want it to be clean."[15] Pavey finished 11th in the final, which was won by Yegorova.[16]
rjm33
RE: Steve Cram wins the gold medal for self-serving, nauseating sycophancy 4/6/2016 7:12PM - in reply to rjm33
Reply Return to Index Report Post
Jo Pavey was better than Paula when they were young and still the 2nd fastest British woman ever, behind Paula...and Jo Pavey is still transparent with her blood test results...which look absolutely normal.
Look at this photo of Jo Pavey:
http://www.insidethegames.biz/...orld-medal
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7164464&page=3#ixzz4566SHALz
Hey Fred...my personal inner LTP has given a personal inner result for Jo Pavey:
..........Jo Pavey is the REAL DEAL!!!...........
Hey readers...did you like the part about Paula wearing a red ribbon?
.....It reminds me of yellow bracelets people used to wear in the old days....
.......the yellow bracelets said: ........ LIVE STRONG.........
...........Go Jo Pavey!!!..............
rekrunner wrote:
Considering "once in a while" errors, we haven't seen any values, or explanations, for the dozen Brits who also recorded suspicious values. For women that would be between 104 and 115. Globally 1 in 7 athletes recorded suspicious values. Does Jo Pavey, with or without the "non-suspicious" 6 out of 7 athletes, show us how small the errors must be for ALL of the 1 out of 7 "suspicious" athletes?
Well, if large errors were common, why did they never occur with any of these 7 athletes over several years? Now you are pedaling back, and referring to " "once in a while" errors". So are you suggesting that these so very rare errors happened to Paula four times (in the wrong direction), twice thereof within two days?
Regarding "only so high to avoid false positives at all costs", it's public knowledge that in 2003 there was actually no Off-score threshold in use, and in 2005, the Off-score threshold in use was 123 for women. Do you suggest she was constantly targeting, with Lance-like sophistication, the "crazy" altitude threshold of 111 established 4-6 years later, when only 2 out of 14 samples before 2009 were reported to exceed the sea-level threshold of 103 criteria used by the Sunday Times to determine suspicious values, and the suspicious 2003 and 2005 values are far below the 2005 threshold of 123?
No no. I am saying that the thresholds are too high, and 80 - 90 are normal off-scores. So when you go ahead and argue her 109 value down to 102 after adjusting for hemoconcentration and altitude and machine error, it is still 10 - 20% higher than normal.
Part of the "16.2 Hb can only come from doping" great length discussion was an unchallenged observation that some doctors consider 16.5 g/dl still normal at SEA LEVEL for women, and altitude correction for 1800m-2500m for women should add 0.8-1.4 g/dl. Recall, in 2012, Paula noted she was at 2400m in Kenya for 4 weeks (and then used a hypoxic device), 1 week before the 2012 test.
We are talking about Paula here, who - after solving her anemia problem with ostrich soup - consistently had Hb values in the low 14s. So again, even giving her the benefit of doubt and taking the values most favorable for her:
14.5 g/dL + 1.4 g/dL = 15.9 g/dL. See, even with all these assumptions, the math does not work out without doping or lab error.
Then, look at what Canova wrote about good altitude responders like Paula: zero increase in Hb in his experience. Do you think Canova is correct? Then
14.5 g/dL + 0 g/dL = 14.5 g/dL, not 16.2 g/dL.
Forgot to add that these altitude stays then would also bring the ret-% below normal. But evidently not with in this case.
What can we conclude from that? I see two options:
a) Paula either wasn't long enough at altitude or doesn't react to altitude as these studied cases. Then she must have used a transfusion to get her Hb above 15.
b) She was long enough at altitude, and got her Hb above 15 and ret-% below 0.5. Then she must have used some - not a lot - EPO to raise her Hb in addition to the altitude raise above 16, thereby also raising the ret-% back into the normal range.
Let's recall she had 15.1 g/dL and 0.47% after her last altitude stint that we know the numbers of. That supports the numbers I am presenting here.
Incidentally, the IAAF states regarding these 15.1: "the high HGB reading could be explained by the reduction in plasma volume and consequent haemoconcentration following extreme exertion, rather than by any increase in red blood cells". So if you believe that, then this brings Paula's normal altitude-Hb below 15, right? Even more damning...
This is Paula's biggest problem: the more we learn about her various values, the more suspicious they look. No surprise then that the IAAF and Paula try to explain as little as possible.
Paula also states in her biography that her hemoglobin values were always around ~14.3 and did not have much variation in hemoglobin values...even at ALTITUDE...This seems to be another contradictory statement from Paula.
Paula has also stated that NONE of her 'suspicious' blood test results were anywhere near her important or best races... which is a true statement... in that she will not release any blood test results from near her best races like the 2:15 or 2:17 marathon world records.
For Paula Radcliffe to state that none of her "suspicious" results were near any important or best races...also seems a little "suspicious"... since one of her "suspicious" blood test results was at the 2003 World Championship Half-marathon... and the other was at the 2005 World Championship 10k and Marathon.
More on Dr. Bodnar who has a clinic in London...
Joint investigation of ARD and sunday times have revealed doping methods of London based Doctor Dr. Mark Bonar. Some of his clients are premier league football players.
A fake client approaches gynecologist Mark Bonar with a hidden camera and Bonar reveals that he is "helping" more than 150 clients, among them football (soccer), tennis players, cyclist (TDF), boxing and cricket.
"...Of course some of my treatments I offer are prohibited in professional sports. But I have done this with many athletes for years already regardless. they come and approach me directly in discretion. Theirs and my reputation are at risk."
He has given top football players (soccer players for the US audience) around the world EPO growth hormones and testosterone. He claims soccer players are barely tested anyhow and older players could not keep up with youngers ones any longer.
The twist: a once caught and now banned athlete already openly spoke out against Dr. Bonar years ago and provided clear evidence to UKAD (the UK anti doping commission) for Bonars illegal activities. " Bonar for me is the UK version of Lance Armstrong's doctor, Dr. Ferrari. It was Bonar who provided me with Testosterone and asked me if I wanted to try EPO"
However, UKAD decided in 2015 that there would be no basis or reason to sue Dr. Bonar or bring him to court. The athlete: "For me it looked like UKAD was actively trying to hide a large scale doping scandal in the UK and sweep evidence under the rug"
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7164514#ixzz456bPhKeo
... This punk Dr. Mark Bodnar does not even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as true 'masters' like Dr. Michele Ferrari or Dr. "Blood" Fuentes...
...and if you like complicated conspiracy stories which also have the name Ferrari come up in the story...
Check this one out:
rjm33 wrote:
Of course, for Paula, there are many, many explanations to pick from to EXPLAIN ANY ABNORMAL OFF SCORES, HEMOGLOBIN VALUES OR RETICULOCYTE VALUES!!!
Here is a partial list:
1) I was at sea level.
2) I was at sea level with an altitude tent.
3) I had just recently arrived at altitude from sea level.
4) I had just recently returned to sea level from altitude.
5) I was at altitude and training hard 2x per day on rough roads in 2012 (in
an interview at the time).
6) I was at altitude but injured, which can lead to the loss of footstrike
caused hemolysis, which can then lead to an even higher hemoglobin
value than my normal at altitude and training hard at altitude value. This
can help to explain my very high hemoglobin value of 16.2g/dl in 2012.
(Paula has recently added this new category of blood value explanation,
which also contradicts her interview at the time....Maybe Paula got
injured after the interview, so they could both be true....right???).
7) I had massive dehydration after a half-marathon and 10k (yet she had
absolutely no signs of dehydration/hemoconcentration in her blood
results after winning the marathon 8 days after 10k--still in the IAAF
report as an explanation for the 2.8g/dl increase postrace after the
half-marathon, even though Paula is not using it now.)
8) I had been sick and on antibiotics. (in her biography)
9) I had just competed. (but it had no effect on blood results after her
marathon win)
10) I was tested too soon after the race.(but had no effect on the marathon
blood results)
11) Possible testing procedure variations causing big changes( shown very
unlikely by plasma rubbish just recently).
12) Lab procedure/analysis variations (which seem to affect only Paula's
results, with no evidence of other athletes also being affected).
13) LAB ERROR!!!...........MASSIVE LAB ERROR!!!!!!!!! (not mentioned in
biography).
14) The IAAF and my blood test expert Dr. Martial Plan B Saugy says I AM
CLEAN and you can's see any more of my blood test results! (even
though Paula had no problem talking about her 12.0 hemoglobin level
in her biography and also mentioned in her biography that her
hemoglobin values were usually around 14 something and NEVER
VARIED MUCH EVEN WHEN SHE WAS AT ALTITUDE. PAULA ALSO
LEFT OUT THE MASSIVE HEMOGLOBIN INCREASE TO 15.6 IN 2
DAYS IN HER BIOGRAPHY!....I guess it was not important information.)
15) No score from pre-2009 ABP counts! ....(ha! ha! ha!).
16) Any blood test result that may look suspicious is simply not real.
(rekrunner's favorite explanation!)
17) Call my lawyers, IAAF, and my blood test expert Dr. Plan B Saugy to
get more and/or better explanations!!!
18) Repeat almost infinite number of combinations of explanations 1 to 17
from now on................until hell freezes over!!!........................................
.....................GO PAULA!!!!!!!!!!!!...............................
Metric Miler helped me with my question about US distance runners. Metric Miler seems like he reads a lot.Interesting that you mentioned Mary Decker Slaney. Her coach at the time of her positive doping test for elevated testosterone levels in 1996 was Alberto Salazar.Fred... Do you have a personal LTP rating on Paula Radcliffe vs. Jo Pavey?
fred wrote:
Regina Jacobs and Mary Decker - anabolics?
Please tell me ....pop pop 2.2.1...
...............Paula Radcliffe vs. Jo Pavey..............
................Who is the REAL DEAL?.............