...Having fun?...
...Having fun?...
...almost to 1,500 posts.....go readers!!!...........
Don't forget Paula was ALWAYS at altitude because when she wasn't in Albequerque or Gont Romeu she was in a tent.
I have repeated that many, many times here. Look at the margin the high altitude cutoff of 111 gives Paula... It is unbelievable!
Her very high 16.2 g/dl hemoglobin in 2012 taken in Monte Carlo...only gives an OFF score of 109.35, which is below the 111 altitude cutoff.
So this isolated score by itself in 2012 with a hemoglobin level of 16.2, actually is BELOW the altitude cutoff...and is given an official result of "not suspicious"!
... an absolutely huge margin... to avoid any false positives...
...Of course Paula is "always at altitude"...no matter where she is located on the planet...
Paula also has a history of anemia!...
... and a hematocrit that goes from~37% to ~47% in 2 days at the 2003 WC Halfmarathon!
........Go Jo Pavey!..........the REAL DEAL!!!.......
............Go Travis Tygart!....CEO of USADA!!!.........
Sadly, the thread is going nowhere again. I'm out.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
...If you still can't see clearly...perhaps there is dust in your eyes...
............I see a lot of dust around here..........
Recall "larkimm" asked for a succinct case, if possible with external references for support. You seem to fabricate your own support when you need it, i.e. "80 - 90 are normal off-scores" and previously "Even with an extreme measurement error of 0.5 g/dL ..."
We have just seen (with external references) that accepted normal ranges for women range from "12-15.1" up to "11.5-16.5". This corresponds to 31-50 points in the off-score, as a normal variation for the population of women. Your 80-90% range seems too narrow, not to mention arbitrary selected for your purpose. Maybe 70-100 is a better "normal" range.
You ask "why did (large errors) never occur with any other athletes". First is it true that they "never occured"? That's an amazing claim, especially when our window into this data comes from newspapers. I said look at, not "7 athletes", but the "1 in 7" athletes, i.e. the 800 athletes out of 5000 the Sunday Times reported to have suspicious results. In this large pool of hundreds, we can find "true positives" and "false positives" with explanations. This will include many women with scores above 104, like Paula. This is why we need expert evaluation, on a case by case basis, and not unqualified message board evaluation from partial data.
We can also look at the remaining "6 in 7" (4200 in 5000) athletes, like Jo Pavey, for large errors (in the right direction). You mentioned Jo Pavey fitting in your normal range of 80-90. She has a low score of 49 -- that's 31 points below your stated normal range, and some 20 points lower than her next lowest value. How unlucky is that? Are you so sure that her low values can't also include significant process errors? On what basis?
I'm not back-pedalling. The "once in a while" comes from you. We can't even exclude that all 10 of Jo Pavey's points are error-free, at least "once in a while". For Paula, I suggested the "rare" bad measurement need only occur once, at a time when these errors were not controlled, while the more common "atltude" and "hemoconcentration" errors happen with a higher frequency proportional to altitude training, and premature blood drawing, respectively.
Looks like pre 2009 testing was and is good enough after all, what a surprise... http://www.trackarena.com/28992/doping-18-russian-athletes-found-positive-from-helsinki-2005-sample-retests
1) Urine or blood?
2) Pre-2009 test results or 2015 test results?
I thought the 2005 Helsinki and the 2007 Osaka retesting was redone last year (Aug. 2015) on urine samples.
3) And the retest looked for banned substances, not blood levels for an ABP type profile comparison of many values.
What and how they retested has not been released yet. Hold your horses before you try and clear anyone... Obsessed!
Hi all
Wow, what a thread. I vaguely remember posting in this thread some time ago, but for the life of me don't recall what I said, other than the article that I wrote on the website, which I saw some have linked to.
Just to clarify - I didn't stop commenting here because of a legal threat. It was more just a case that the information dried up. We had that glut of blood data, some of which was published in the papers, and others that I was told by people in the know, and that was worthy of a discussion (the article), but then it all just stopped.
So there was really nothing else to add - there'd have been a 50% chance of being totally wrong, probably less, because you'd be making up the facts and the interpretation, never a good combination.
But it wasn't so much a legal threat, as just the threat of being completely wrong and having to guess at the next steps.
What Radcliffe needed to do was to provide the context to those tests, all the answers and then we could have taken the discussion forward. She didn't, and Ashenden for his part wouldn't comment any further on the specifics, so it reached a stalemate.
Plus work got in the way, had to leave it behind.
Anyway, just wanted to clear that up - no legal threats yet! Just many questions to be answered!
Ross Tucker
Ross - thanks for posting.
Now I'm waiting for Rekrunner to spin your post to suggest you defended Radcliffe as being clean....
rjm33 wrote:
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?
---------------
Yes, I do have a Long Term Potentiation rating. Jo Pavey is clean and 43 years old. She has no A sample positives unlike some other 40 plus.
I give Jo the highest score.
fred wrote:Regina Jacobs and Mary Decker - anabolics?
Glad you're here, if it really is you. My interest is whether you think that any of the discussions, analysis, scientific reasoning etc on this thread has added anything that wasn't already known or analysed. If there's new and compelling stuff here, share it with the world!
Thoughts?
Notepad wrote:
Ross - thanks for posting.
Now I'm waiting for Rekrunner to spin your post to suggest you defended Radcliffe as being clean....
I'm waiting for Jon Orange to meet a real physiologist.
Ross Tucker is the Real Deal
He says we need more context before jumping to conclusions. I agree.
Notepad wrote:
Ross - thanks for posting.
Now I'm waiting for Rekrunner to spin your post to suggest you defended Radcliffe as being clean....
But you disagree that Paula should be asked to provide it. You write that she should be treated like everyone else.That is ok but makes it hard to take her seriously and of course, ends the discussion. As people have pointed out many times, if any athlete should provide more disclosure and context it is her because of her past actions in the sport and standing within IAAF. We will not learn anymore so the experts in the area can't clear her or accuse her. The only clearance comes from IAAF, which has reason to be questioned.
rekrunner wrote:
He says we need more context before jumping to conclusions. I agree.
Notepad wrote:Ross - thanks for posting.
Now I'm waiting for Rekrunner to spin your post to suggest you defended Radcliffe as being clean....
Ross Tucker wrote:
What Radcliffe needed to do was to provide the context to those tests, all the answers and then we could have taken the discussion forward.
Strange choice from someone that's claims to be clean.