Radcliffe blood values released

B-Sample wrote:

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe

Two of the OFF scores were 109, which is below the 111 recommended by Ashenden in conjunction with altitude training, the third is 114, taken at the World Half Marathon Championships:

"She says the third, which gave the highest reading of 114.86, can be explained by circumstances that would now render it invalid.

It came from a sample taken immediately after a half-marathon in 29C heat in Portugal. The World Anti-Doping Association now considers any samples taken within two hours of competition as invalid, because exertion can affect blood values."

For comparison, Shobukhova's values mentioned in the ST went from 127 in 2005 up to 156 in 2011.

Again, this is false. She's not released anything to anyone.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/34204775

Radcliffe said she would not release her data because she wanted to "protect a lot of other innocent athletes"

She wants the IAAF to declare her non-positive. Because, you know, Seppelt just got done with a story where 1/3 of all podiums had dopers.

EPO cheats out Paula.

Yet another Scot wrote:

For comparison, Shobukhova's values mentioned in the ST went from 127 in 2005 up to 156 in 2011.

IF these alleged Paula values are true then this would make me believe her, especially comparing those values to Shobukhova.

dwightarm wrote:

Yet another Scot wrote:

For comparison, Shobukhova's values mentioned in the ST went from 127 in 2005 up to 156 in 2011.

IF these alleged Paula values are true then this would make me believe her, especially comparing those values to Shobukhova.

Except there's a reason she doesn't want Ashenden or Parisotto discussing her values. She's fine with the IAAF declaring her non-positive like so many other dopers the IAAF did not sanction.

EPO cheats out.

SHE hasn't released them.

Sky have decided to publish them having seen them.

Two very different things.

After all, whilst they might be strictly confidential, it isn't libellous to publish something which is factual.

Or are you now going to try to claim that those numbers are just fake numbers made up by a largely reputable news organisation?

B-Sample wrote:

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe

Two of the OFF scores were 109, which is below the 111 recommended by Ashenden in conjunction with altitude training, the third is 114, taken at the World Half Marathon Championships:"

From the link:

"Anything above 103 recorded by a female athlete can be a trigger for investigation and target-testing,"

There are 3 abnormal test scores (and we have no information on the full battery of blood data which would be more useful). Even with the altitude training adjustment, 2 of the test scores are very close to the adjusted threshold. And 1 test score is over the threshold even with the altitude training correction.

At this point there are 2 relevant questions to ask:

Are there other documented cases of athletes who have done altitude training and who are also close to the threshold score?

Are there other documented cases of athletes who have run a race under hot conditions and who surpass even the altitude-training correction threshold?

Other athletes will have been tested over the same time period using the same protocols so it should not be hard to make these sorts of comparisons.

Oh, now we want to point the finger at athletes that are just "close to" the threshold score?

There's a dead horse over here - why don't you come over and flog it?

Face it, LR nutters - she's clean.

larkim wrote:

Oh, now we want to point the finger at athletes that are just "close to" the threshold score?

There's a dead horse over here - why don't you come over and flog it?

Face it, LR nutters - she's clean.

No accusations in my post. The whole debate has been about seeing the test results in a some sort of context. Comparing them with other athletes who have trained/competed under similar circumstances is the context that is needed.

larkim wrote:

Oh, now we want to point the finger at athletes that are just "close to" the threshold score?

There's a dead horse over here - why don't you come over and flog it?

Face it, LR nutters - she's clean.

The Nike shills are out in strength today.

I'm pretty sure Ashenden & Parisotto would have taken the possibility of altitude training into account when they did their report. Lets see if there is any further follow up from them.

The 111.7 value is for a "worst-case" athlete if the sample was taken at altitude. Look at the paragraph bridging the two columns on page 337 of the study, as well as Table 2.

http://www.haematologica.org/content/haematol/88/3/333.full.pdf

I need to read the study in more detail, but I'm not sure we should pretend that the Sky news article clears Paula.

Not how it works wrote:

larkim wrote:

Oh, now we want to point the finger at athletes that are just "close to" the threshold score?

There's a dead horse over here - why don't you come over and flog it?

Face it, LR nutters - she's clean.

The Nike shills are out in strength today.

I'm in the UK.

I wear Asics shoes when I run. My son wears Adidas, and my wife wears Saucony.

I've never owned a Nike product in my life that I can recall.

No shills here.

dwightarm wrote:

Yet another Scot wrote:

For comparison, Shobukhova's values mentioned in the ST went from 127 in 2005 up to 156 in 2011.

IF these alleged Paula values are true then this would make me believe her, especially comparing those values to Shobukhova.

Yes they seem so tame its unbelievable she didn't just agree to publish them via the ST at the outset.

SDFSDFds wrote:

The 111.7 value is for a "worst-case" athlete if the sample was taken at altitude. Look at the paragraph bridging the two columns on page 337 of the study, as well as Table 2.

http://www.haematologica.org/content/haematol/88/3/333.full.pdf

I need to read the study in more detail, but I'm not sure we should pretend that the Sky news article clears Paula.

Correct.

There's more to the data than just those single values too.

If Paula was clean, the stories over the last few months would have made a point of declaring non-suspicious values considering her stature. Instead, she's got dodgy values and the only thing she can do is have the IAAF to declare her non-positive from an era where 1/3 of all podiums were positives and the IAAF did nothing.

Paula is the new "never tested positive" poster child. Maybe she needs to talk to Marion Jones.

larkim wrote:

Not how it works wrote:

The Nike shills are out in strength today.

I'm in the UK.

No shills here.

LOLOLOLOL

larkim wrote:

Not how it works wrote:

The Nike shills are out in strength today.

I'm in the UK.

I wear Asics shoes when I run. My son wears Adidas, and my wife wears Saucony.

I've never owned a Nike product in my life that I can recall.

No shills here.

So, you work for Freud Communications are part of your job is being paid to invent happy-happy, joy-joy posts.

larkim wrote:

Oh, now we want to point the finger at athletes that are just "close to" the threshold score?

There's a dead horse over here - why don't you come over and flog it?

Face it, LR nutters - she's clean.

Paula and the rest of the Brits have no problem pointing fingers at those "close"

Suck it up.

Kimmage tweated this after the SkyNews article came out. Looks like we're in for some fascinating reading this coming weekend.

Paul Kimmage ‏@PaulKimmage 1h1 hour ago

I'm looking forward to the Sunday Times this weekend as, I'm sure, is @paulajradcliffe

Does she say she didn't take any banned substance? Or does she just give possible explanations for the high scores?

B-Sample wrote:

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe

Two of the OFF scores were 109, which is below the 111 recommended by Ashenden in conjunction with altitude training, the third is 114, taken at the World Half Marathon Championships:

"She says the third, which gave the highest reading of 114.86, can be explained by circumstances that would now render it invalid.

It came from a sample taken immediately after a half-marathon in 29C heat in Portugal. The World Anti-Doping Association now considers any samples taken within two hours of competition as invalid, because exertion can affect blood values."