Radcliffe says she's not releasing blood values

I think this thread alone provides enough proof that the values should NOT be made public. The OP posted two articles and concludes it represents a "change of stance". In the first, she says to turn the information over to the IAAF, and later says to NOT make the data public. These are not contradictory stances. Yet many posters, despite this being pointed out several times in the first two pages, seem unable to grasp that basic distinction. How could they be trusted to intellectually process the blood scores in an unbiased, and unprejudiced way?

Of course, there are many level headed, smart people in the public, some engineers and scientists, that would be able to interpret the data, and even take the time to establish context, such as trips to the Alps, or illness, or dehydration, or pregnancy, or whatever many other factors that an independent committee would find, to establish whether the blood scores have a reasonable explanation other than doping. But, as this thread shows, there are many who will not, or can not.

Look at some of the contributors here. One guy went from 100% sure she was clean, to 90% sure she doped, on the strength of Paula's alleged change of stance. Surely both opinions were uninformed. Too many cynics (and tabloid journalists) would jump to conclusions that all spikes mean doping. This generates a lot of unnecessary gossip, and unnecessarily damages the reputations of clean athletes.

At this point, we don't even know that Paula is the one, and people are not even clear what "suspicious" means. They can't tell yellow flags from red flags. Making partial data public (and releasing the full blood data is only one part of the data) would only result in a lot of gossip among people too lazy to bring themselves to a point where they could properly assess the data in context.

---

The Scot wrote:
...
What we've been denied is a face to face debate between the 'publish' and 'don't publish' factions. And the reason for that is the the don't publish group would look stupid and worse, doping suspects.

---

Plainly and simply, she is NOT wanting to come under scrutiny. Which plainly and simply means that she has got something to hide.

As often turns out to be the case by so called 'do gooders', "Do as I say not as I (secretly) do".

In one of the LRC media 800m vids, wejo mentioned he had been on a run with Paula a few days ago ago and that they had a chat. I'm hoping we hear more about this after the world champs

Your plain and simple conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

She could have nothing to hide and still NOT want public scrutiny. As you have shown, the public is too quick to jump to unqualified conclusions that do not logically follow.

In any case, the IAAF already have the data, as does the WADA independent commission, charged with determining if the IAAF acted on the data.

---

kal wrote:
Plainly and simply, she is NOT wanting to come under scrutiny. Which plainly and simply means that she has got something to hide.

As often turns out to be the case by so called 'do gooders', "Do as I say not as I (secretly) do".

---

But she previously stated that she wanted public scrutiny

And now she doesn't

If someone had said her 2015 comments contradict 2002 comments, there's a better case to be made.

2002 test results is quite different than blood passport type evaluation. The difference between then and now is the complexity of the set of data, and the set of factors that can influence that data, and the higher potential for confusion, and misinterpretation of that data from a public not qualified to know how to exclude "suspicious' results. Telling the public "negative/postive for synthetic EPO" is quite different than talking about 48% hematocrit, and %RET, without knowing external factors about that athlete.

From the other thread, she also seems to incriminate herself without words coming out of her mouth. I think it's a game she can't win regardless.

Regarding her form, Prof Andrew Jones collected data over a twelve year period, and published two papers, that showed no significant change in VO2max (something you might expect to change with EPO), but continuous improvements in economy -- she got faster for less oxygen cost, despite the "bad form".

Regarding her 2:15 record being so far ahead of the next one, you already mention one of the "non-doping" factors that separate Paula's effort from the others -- she had male pacemakers. Even if there was no physical benefit, there is a psychological benefit running with someone who can help share/maintain the pace. Other factors:
1) London 2003 had a favourable tailwind, which helped way more than hurt, not only Paula, but measurably helped the other 20 elite women too, on a scale comparable to Boston 2011.
2) Women don't go for world records like the men. Besides Paula, who has really made any bona-fide attempts since, say Ingrid Krisstiansen? Women's races tend to be tactical, with many slow miles, rather than all-out efforts. Likely in part, because...
3) Women lack the depth of the men. Even if they tried, there aren't many women that can accompany a world record pace attempt, either as a pacemaker, or as a competitor. There is a "critical mass" that doesn't exist for the women, like for the men.

For these reasons, you can't really compare women's marathon to the men (let alone the sprints). To better compare, you would need to let a group of men pace the women in fast marathons like Berlin or London.

---

kal wrote:

Radcliffe incriminates herself more and more with each word that comes out of her mouth..

Absolutely horrible technique, and yet a time 3 mins faster than anyone has ever managed before or since, in the women's race that would equate to what? 1km or just over? (2.5% race distance). Which is equivalent to running 10m ahead of WR pace every lap for 100 straight laps. Hilarious, and yet people think of the 100, 200 and 400 as being untouchable.

And iirc wasn't her WR paced by men ?

Just because a WR wasn't set in the 80's does NOT mean it is any cleaner whatsoever than those that were

---

New Ashenden article suggests the IAAF can clearly see doping in pre 2009 blood tests. Coe and co. Are full of it.

Lord crow has a massive conflict of interest

No doubt he is also engineering a big payrise with nike since he got the top job

---

Ghost wrote:

Paula trained at altitude for several months each year, often slept in an altitude tent at home.
Her blood values may be anomolous despite not being guilty of any infraction.
Paula has said that at present, if blood values were released - those values might be mis interpreted, hence Paula's reluctance to release those values.
Sooner or later her values will be released, but when that happens 'better science' will be needed to dis culpate her.

Ghost in Khon Khaen, Thailand

---

Despite announcements, and a "prebuttal" from the IAAF, I didn't find any "new article" today. Does Ashenden mention Paula? (After all, this thread is about Paula, and releasing blood values). If he talked about Paula, the way he talked about Shubokova in his open letter, then all these Paula threads would make more sense.

That the blood values clearly show doping was never in question. We can see a lot from the IAAF's own published paper in 2011 about which countries are doping (although it was anonymized). The questions raised concerning the samples were: what could/should the IAAF have done? what did they do? and was it enough? Another question, to help put it in perspective, is how does the IAAF compare to other sport organizations? The ARD/Sunday Times said the IAAF did not follow up. Yet the IAAF did do many things, including targeted testing, and implementing the blood passport.

Unless Ashenden has a deeper insight into how the IAAF followed up the blood testing, or he gives more insight into Paula's values (what seems to concern many here), it's hard for me to see what more he can add to the story now. I have nothing but complete respect for Ashenden, so maybe he will surprise me.

Otherwise the next step will be the result of WADA's on-going investigation of the ARD/Sunday Times allegations.

---

Rubbish coe wrote:
New Ashenden article suggests the IAAF can clearly see doping in pre 2009 blood tests. Coe and co. Are full of it.

---

---

rekrunner wrote:

I think this thread alone provides enough proof that the values should NOT be made public. The OP posted two articles and concludes it represents a "change of stance". In the first, she says to turn the information over to the IAAF, and later says to NOT make the data public. These are not contradictory stances. Yet many posters, despite this being pointed out several times in the first two pages, seem unable to grasp that basic distinction. How could they be trusted to intellectually process the blood scores in an unbiased, and unprejudiced way?

Of course, there are many level headed, smart people in the public, some engineers and scientists, that would be able to interpret the data, and even take the time to establish context, such as trips to the Alps, or illness, or dehydration, or pregnancy, or whatever many other factors that an independent committee would find, to establish whether the blood scores have a reasonable explanation other than doping. But, as this thread shows, there are many who will not, or can not.

Look at some of the contributors here. One guy went from 100% sure she was clean, to 90% sure she doped, on the strength of Paula's alleged change of stance. Surely both opinions were uninformed. Too many cynics (and tabloid journalists) would jump to conclusions that all spikes mean doping. This generates a lot of unnecessary gossip, and unnecessarily damages the reputations of clean athletes.

At this point, we don't even know that Paula is the one, and people are not even clear what "suspicious" means. They can't tell yellow flags from red flags. Making partial data public (and releasing the full blood data is only one part of the data) would only result in a lot of gossip among people too lazy to bring themselves to a point where they could properly assess the data in context.

---

The Scot wrote:
...
What we've been denied is a face to face debate between the 'publish' and 'don't publish' factions. And the reason for that is the the don't publish group would look stupid and worse, doping suspects.

---

---

---

rekrunner wrote:
London 2003 had a favourable tailwind, which helped way more than hurt, not only Paula, but measurably helped the other 20 elite women too, on a scale comparable to Boston 2011.

---

---

rekrunner wrote:

I think this thread alone provides enough proof that the values should NOT be made public. The OP posted two articles and concludes it represents a "change of stance". In the first, she says to turn the information over to the IAAF, and later says to NOT make the data public. These are not contradictory stances.

---

---

To the gills wrote:

---

rekrunner wrote:

I think this thread alone provides enough proof that the values should NOT be made public. many posters, despite this being pointed out several times in the first two pages, seem unable to grasp that basic distinction. How could they be trusted to intellectually process the blood scores in an unbiased, and unprejudiced way?

---

The Scot wrote:
...
What we've been denied is a face to face debate between the 'publish' and 'don't publish' factions. And the reason for that is the the don't publish group would look stupid and worse, doping suspects.

---

---

On 3 separate occasions she registered blood values that, according to experts, had a 1/1000 chance of being explained by something other than doping. That's 99.9% chance of doping,
3 different times. The fact that she hasn't disputed, or explained this is pretty telling. I don't need to see the blood values because I wouldn't know how to read them. But if an expert says 99.9% on three different occasions and Paula goes silent on the matter, I'm okay rounding that up.

---

Article today from Paul Kimmage on the hypocrisy of the Brits:

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-bbcs-former-athletes-show-admirable-talent-for-backpedalling-31487856.html

---

This is it... wrote:
the anti-doper Coe is at the helm, it's one thing to say something to get elected it's another thing to actually do something once there. Anyway, in his eyes and many others Radcliffe is untouchable.

---

My basis:
- race reports at the time, including an interview from Paula, describe winds from the southeast.
- statistical calculations of marathon performances at www.arrs.net, specifically their "race time bias" calculations.

---

Avocado's Number wrote:

---

rekrunner wrote:
London 2003 had a favourable tailwind, which helped way more than hurt, not only Paula, but measurably helped the other 20 elite women too, on a scale comparable to Boston 2011.

---

What is the basis for your assertion that London 2003 had a tailwind that helped the runners "on a scale comparable to Boston 2011"?

---

The mistake you point out is in the article: it's The Telegraph's mistake and/or Paula's mistake, not mine. When you read it, that's what the article says.

The claim was that she changed her stance. When you read both links, you see that there is no contradiction between her stance in Dec. 2014 and Aug. 2015.

I'm not sure what else I said qualifies as conjecture, unless it's that some people would be able to evaluate the scores objectively without prejudice.

---

pop_pop! wrote:

---

rekrunner wrote:

I think this thread alone provides enough proof that the values should NOT be made public. The OP posted two articles and concludes it represents a "change of stance". In the first, she says to turn the information over to the IAAF, and later says to NOT make the data public. These are not contradictory stances.

---

Wow. You just type that stuff out as comes out the top of your head.

THE IAAF IS THE ONE WITH THE TEST SCORES.

The rest is just a mess of layers of conjecture, one as false as the next.

I don't think I've seen such a detailed and thoroughly misleading post since USATF online media coordinators were trying to pollute the NOP story. Good job.

---