rekrunner wrote:
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 ..."
I recall that. I also recall that larkimm claimed that you already presented that, but then chose to not say where, even after my humble request. I further recall that I specifically pointed him to a specific post of mine, humbly inquiring why that wasn't a succinct case in his opinion. No response. So. I am done with jumping through larkimm's loops.
As for my "fabrication". I object. Let's start with the error *estimation*. That was an estimate, not a fabrication. And I estimated outrageously high, just so you couldn't start haggling - but you did anyway. Why is 0.5 too high as an error? I already demonstrated that, among others with Paula's bio. Also, when an anemic patient has an increase of 0.3 g/dL, the doctor is happy. That would not be the case with an error of 0.5, obviously.
As for the 90. Again, no, this I actually calculated as the upper border for Paula based on her normal 14.3 g/dl and the 0.77 ret-%, which you yourself called very low (gives 90.35, which I rounded properly). Do you want to argue that she lied about the 14.3, or that you made a mistake about the 0.77%?
As for the 80 as the lower limit. That is indeed a crude estimate, likely too low if I think about it. But as you should have noticed: the lower border of the normal range is irrelevant for my points, so you can't claim that I fabricated that to support my arguments.
Finally in this context: look at the graph from Tucker's comments on this case again. Of all these values (do you want to count them?), only 4 are higher than 90. 3 of those are from Paula. Which ones? Well, only 3 are around 110 or even higher. All of those 3 are from Paula.
Last, about Jo P.'s low off score. Lower values can have numerous reasons, including illness/antibiotics/anemia/overtraining etc. Of course she could be a doper, also possibly a blood doper, but if so, then she clearly doped more carefully, i.e. to a smaller extent, than Paula.
Higher values can come from hemoconcentration, altitude, EPO, and blood transfusions. Paula's problem here is that the two former reasons cannot fully explain some of her huge jumps, namely a) the one from 12.0 g/dl to 15.6 g/dl (see our estimates two pages back, or again Tucker's blog*), and b) the one from her normal 14.3 g/dl to 16.2 g/dl in 2012. For the latter, there was admittedly no case for hemoconcentration, and according to the literature you cited, on could expect in increase of 0.8 - 1.4 g/dl, but measured were 1.9 g/dl. Add to that, again, Paula's bio and Canova's comment that both pointed towards a much lower increase in her case than the ones of your referenced.
Tucker already couldn't find reasons for the then assumed increase of 2.8 g/dl. Now that we know the actual increase was 3.6 g/dl, the situation is even more damning for Paula.