Sunday Mail Has More Details on Paula's Blood Values and Off Scores + News She'll Put up £1m for an MRI lie detector

New
  • wejo
    cofounder
    4 years ago 11/28/2015 11:38pm CST
    Forum Index
    The Sunday Mail (Sunday version of Daily Mail) has a story out that goes into more detail about Paula's blood values and off-scores.

    Article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3337824/Paula-Radcliffe-explains-innocence-blood-doping-allegations-says-testing-fault-unusual-results.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    It has information I haven't seen published elsewhere but is some of the same basic info that Paula told me in Beijing. First it shows that 2 of her 3 higher off scores were taken right after races (the World Half Champs) and the Worlds 10,000m in 2005. Also, Paula does not say altitude was responsible for those high off scores, most likely the fact they were done soon after races. She said fault equipment may explain one really low score.

    She said altitude was most likely responsible for the 3rd high off score in 2012.

    The thing I had never seen before was it goes into more detail of some of Paula's other off scores. She had an off score of 82 two days before the World half and 115 immediately after the race. At the Worlds in 2015, she had an off score of 92 the day before the 10,000m and then was tested immediately after the 10,000 and had one of 109 (poor race where she was 9th). When she won the marathon 8 days later she had an off score of 102. Her contention is I believe that the higher scores are from the tests being conducted after races.

    The more detail the better as far as I'm concerned. I haven't been able to read the full-IAAF report, but I don't think it has this detail and the IAAF doesn't have a lot of credibility so hopefully more details come out and WADA can say independent people have looked at this.

    Update: The Sundya Mail has 2 more stories on Paula. The 2nd one says what I kind of said above and said Paula won't be fully cleared until WADA clears her. Just as importantly it has Paula saying she'd put up £1m for an MRI lie detector test to prove she didn't cheat.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3337799/Paula-Radcliffe-cleared-drugs-boss-experts-hit-IAAF-test-claims.html

    The other article talks about how tough this whole thing has been on her and her family and why they didn't reveal more earlier. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3337768/Paula-Radcliffe-exclusively-tells-Sportsmail-don-t-want-taint-drugs-thing-people-remember-die.html

    Quote of the day material for sure in the last one.
  • Gray zone is not lying
    4 years ago 11/28/2015 11:48pm CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    Gray zone is not lying. Salazar has been able to get the drug authorities to agree many times. It only take$ $ome grea$ing of the wheel$.
  • DHT123
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 1:29am CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    Wow. More info at last. Interesting that she's chosen to give the interview to the Mail and not David Walsh. Also that it's been released in synch with the IAAF (weird that they're going so far out of their way to defend her as an individual)

    Some thoughts:
    - A lot of the detail on the surface seems to exonerate her - why on earth did she decide not to release this earlier? In particular the Off-scores from the tests that were taken just before the races in 2003 & 2005. Is going to be interesting to hear what the WADA IC have to say here, plus Ashenden/Parisotto. I would love to see what someone like Ross Tucker would have to say too
    - totally disingenuous to say that she hadn't used altitude training as a reason for her high scores before, it was all over her official statement and Sky news interview and the IAAF statement
    - what has happened to the illness and antibiotics before the 2003 race? In her autobiography she was 'drained of the strength I needed'. No mention now. Before, this was the reason why the Hb was so low pre-race, but she seems to realize that it doesn't add up - ie ill, low red blood count, dehydrated and still smash a world class field. So now the pre-race off-score is wrong? Is that because the journey from an off-score of 82 to 115 is implausible?
    - the number of blood tests she was being subjected to suggests to me that the authorities had their suspicions
    - 2012 score is interesting. The only one 'out of competition' when she thought she wouldn't get tested. This is now due to altitude. She must have blood tests following altitude training before? How do these compare? To quote from her biography.... 'My hematocrit and volume of red blood cells doesn't really change that much at altitude. My usual haematocrit is 39-42 no matter how long I spend at altitude and red blood count cell count never goes above 4,250,000'. Hb this time of 16.2......
  • Bad Wigins
    registered
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 1:35am CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    There is no such thing as a lie detector. Offering to take one is a common PR tactic. Too bad she can't let her explanations be judged on their own merit.
  • long sox
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 1:49am CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    The test was ‘faulty’?

    an off-score of 82 recorded on October 2, 2003 meant an off-score of 115 two days later wasn’t down to altitude (or else the 82 would have been far higher); and an off-score of 92 on August 5, 2005 meant an off-score of 109 the next day wasn’t down to altitude for the same reasons.

    Radcliffe believes, and the IAAF report agrees, that testing too close to the end of a race can give an elevated off-score

    Have there been any trials where someone has been able to repeat this?

    1. Test athletes, measure a low off-score.
    2. Have them run a hard training session or race (perhaps in high temperatures) and measure a high off-score.
  • asdfadsfasdf
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 2:06am CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    lie detector tests are BS and paula knows this. She believes she didn't "really" cheat so who cares? If it's real in her mind, she'll pass the BS lie detector crap.
  • Flat earthers
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 4:24am CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    So reveal detailed information to the Daily Fail but not to actual experts? Obviously a case of someone trying to win in the court of public opinion, not win based on science and facts.

    And after devising her whacky theories on why her scores are suspicious, she now want to take an MRI lie detector test? And what does it even mean that "she'll put 1 million pounds toward it?" These things cost maybe $5k. So the million would be a bet of sorts? Against whom?

    Even MRI lie detector tests have no credibility in the scientific world. They're the devices of charlatans and hucksters, of people who know they're on the wrong side of the truth but are desperately trying to find "evidence" to clear them.

    How about just providing the actual blood data that's been requested?

    Wejo, you think it's notable and important that she wants to take lie detector test? Just how blinded are you by your fandom?
  • coach..
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 5:04am CST
    re: Flat earthers
    Forum Index
    £1million says she never takes that lie detector test
  • Truth In Advertising
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 5:33am CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    Whew, faulty equipment. And I was thinking she'd been eating red meat and sweet potatoes prior to downing her daily dose of Extenze. Maybe it was the same equipment that popped Bernie???

    Wejo,

    did Paula pay you in any form whatsoever to write this glowing review of her side of the story presented in a Tabloid? Enquiring minds want to know.

    Sincerely,
    Banned in the U.S.A.
  • Geb is fast
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 6:21am CST
    re: Truth In Advertising
    Forum Index
    She looks more and more suspicious to me, with every attempt to clear her name of any wrongdoing...

    The facts don't add up or stand the test of scrutiny...
  • doping expert
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 6:24am CST
    re: Truth In Advertising
    Forum Index
    Big problem right here!
    How is a world championship win not one of her best best performances,not to mention the world-half which we already knew about?



    "Radcliffe also said in her statement that none of the unusual scores ‘occurred around any of my best performances or races".


    "This newspaper established that the three unusual scores had been recorded on October 4, 2003 at the half-marathon world championships in Vilamoura, Portugal (the 115 reading, or 114.87 to be precise), on August 6, 2005 at the athletics world championships in Helsinki (109.87), and in an out-of-competition test in Monte Carlo on February 7, 2012 (109.35)".
  • The judge...
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 6:27am CST
    re: long sox
    Forum Index
    long sox wrote:

    The test was ‘faulty’?

    an off-score of 82 recorded on October 2, 2003 meant an off-score of 115 two days later wasn’t down to altitude (or else the 82 would have been far higher); and an off-score of 92 on August 5, 2005 meant an off-score of 109 the next day wasn’t down to altitude for the same reasons.

    Radcliffe believes, and the IAAF report agrees, that testing too close to the end of a race can give an elevated off-score

    Have there been any trials where someone has been able to repeat this?

    1. Test athletes, measure a low off-score.
    2. Have them run a hard training session or race (perhaps in high temperatures) and measure a high off-score.



    Yes, this what I would like to see. Let's recreate all of the conditions that she says are attributed to her off-scores and see if the same thing happens to other runners.
  • S/Z
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 8:30am CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    wejo wrote:

    The Sunday Mail (Sunday version of Daily Mail) has a story out that goes into more detail about Paula's blood values and off-scores.

    Article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3337824/Paula-Radcliffe-explains-innocence-blood-doping-allegations-says-testing-fault-unusual-results.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    It has information I haven't seen published elsewhere but is some of the same basic info that Paula told me in Beijing. First it shows that 2 of her 3 higher off scores were taken right after races (the World Half Champs) and the Worlds 10,000m in 2005. Also, Paula does not say altitude was responsible for those high off scores, most likely the fact they were done soon after races. She said fault equipment may explain one really low score.

    She said altitude was most likely responsible for the 3rd high off score in 2012.

    The thing I had never seen before was it goes into more detail of some of Paula's other off scores. She had an off score of 82 two days before the World half and 115 immediately after the race. At the Worlds in 2015, she had an off score of 92 the day before the 10,000m and then was tested immediately after the 10,000 and had one of 109 (poor race where she was 9th). When she won the marathon 8 days later she had an off score of 102. Her contention is I believe that the higher scores are from the tests being conducted after races.

    The more detail the better as far as I'm concerned. I haven't been able to read the full-IAAF report, but I don't think it has this detail and the IAAF doesn't have a lot of credibility so hopefully more details come out and WADA can say independent people have looked at this.

    Update: The Sundya Mail has 2 more stories on Paula. The 2nd one says what I kind of said above and said Paula won't be fully cleared until WADA clears her. Just as importantly it has Paula saying she'd put up £1m for an MRI lie detector test to prove she didn't cheat.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3337799/Paula-Radcliffe-cleared-drugs-boss-experts-hit-IAAF-test-claims.html

    The other article talks about how tough this whole thing has been on her and her family and why they didn't reveal more earlier. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3337768/Paula-Radcliffe-exclusively-tells-Sportsmail-don-t-want-taint-drugs-thing-people-remember-die.html

    Quote of the day material for sure in the last one.


    You sound like her pr/cover up man. You dont even know her : "paula told me..." hahaha
  • somebloke
    registered
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 9:05am CST
    re: long sox
    Forum Index
    long sox wrote:

    The test was ‘faulty’?

    an off-score of 82 recorded on October 2, 2003 meant an off-score of 115 two days later wasn’t down to altitude (or else the 82 would have been far higher); and an off-score of 92 on August 5, 2005 meant an off-score of 109 the next day wasn’t down to altitude for the same reasons.

    Radcliffe believes, and the IAAF report agrees, that testing too close to the end of a race can give an elevated off-score

    Have there been any trials where someone has been able to repeat this?

    1. Test athletes, measure a low off-score.
    2. Have them run a hard training session or race (perhaps in high temperatures) and measure a high off-score.


    try to keep up. the protocol has changed since, this is a known issue.
  • fawlty test methods
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 9:27am CST
    re: somebloke
    Forum Index
    try to keep, you all. the testing methods are still faulty. they are faulty because they are not designed to catch micro-dosers and gray-zoners.

    for fans who claim farah is in the clear, guess again. as testing methods improve, and new equipment is invented, ten, or more, years after farah has retired he can still be caught as a doper. sadly, the money he made will never be recovered. so, there is no disincentive to cheat because the money you made is almost entirely remains yours.
  • Low high
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 9:36am CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    I have no horse in this race and have not been following it. But here are a couple of observations:

    1. If someone has not one, not two, but three off scores and multiple varying explanations for why these occurred, it seems clear to anyone who does have their head in the sand that something shady was going down.

    2. If someone gets a low score right before a competition and then gets a high score right after, my first thought is not that there must have been a dramatic physiological change on race day (this would presumably affect everyone). My first thought is that they doped for the race. If the same person sets untouchable world records then this suspicion would be a million times stronger.

    3. Let's see the experiment where people's pre post blood values change in magnitude similar to those needed to explain what happened to this runner multiple times.
  • had to say it
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 9:48am CST
    re: S/Z
    Forum Index
    S/Z wrote:

    wejo wrote:

    The Sunday Mail (Sunday version of Daily Mail) has a story out that goes into more detail about Paula's blood values and off-scores.

    Article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3337824/Paula-Radcliffe-explains-innocence-blood-doping-allegations-says-testing-fault-unusual-results.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    It has information I haven't seen published elsewhere but is some of the same basic info that Paula told me in Beijing. First it shows that 2 of her 3 higher off scores were taken right after races (the World Half Champs) and the Worlds 10,000m in 2005. Also, Paula does not say altitude was responsible for those high off scores, most likely the fact they were done soon after races. She said fault equipment may explain one really low score.

    She said altitude was most likely responsible for the 3rd high off score in 2012.

    The thing I had never seen before was it goes into more detail of some of Paula's other off scores. She had an off score of 82 two days before the World half and 115 immediately after the race. At the Worlds in 2015, she had an off score of 92 the day before the 10,000m and then was tested immediately after the 10,000 and had one of 109 (poor race where she was 9th). When she won the marathon 8 days later she had an off score of 102. Her contention is I believe that the higher scores are from the tests being conducted after races.

    The more detail the better as far as I'm concerned. I haven't been able to read the full-IAAF report, but I don't think it has this detail and the IAAF doesn't have a lot of credibility so hopefully more details come out and WADA can say independent people have looked at this.

    Update: The Sundya Mail has 2 more stories on Paula. The 2nd one says what I kind of said above and said Paula won't be fully cleared until WADA clears her. Just as importantly it has Paula saying she'd put up £1m for an MRI lie detector test to prove she didn't cheat.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3337799/Paula-Radcliffe-cleared-drugs-boss-experts-hit-IAAF-test-claims.html

    The other article talks about how tough this whole thing has been on her and her family and why they didn't reveal more earlier. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3337768/Paula-Radcliffe-exclusively-tells-Sportsmail-don-t-want-taint-drugs-thing-people-remember-die.html

    Quote of the day material for sure in the last one.


    You sound like her pr/cover up man. You dont even know her : "paula told me..." hahaha




    ummm.... Yes he does.

    Wejo has been a pacer for Paula and he does in fact know her personally. Try to keep up.
  • preciously jaded
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 10:19am CST
    re: Low high
    Forum Index
    Low high wrote:
    1. If someone has not one, not two, but three off scores and multiple varying explanations for why these occurred, it seems clear to anyone who does have their head in the sand that something shady was going down.

    If I wanted to prove that I was innocent in this case I would just simply release all of my blood data values to WADA/Ashenden/public and include the dates when I was "altitude training". This has not been done and it suggests that there is something more to hide with several more suspicious scores that would have to be explained.
  • So disappointing
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 10:38am CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    I am finding this to be fishy. There is a lot of explanation but not much clarity. I read this stuff and I feel misdirected. As a Paula fan, I have to say I am disappointed.At this point she needs to release everything. The million pound lie detector bit is distracting. She has been out in front of the doping issue for so long. Now she needs to work with experts and not in parallel.

    The last few weeks of IAAF stories and this have been very discouraging. I have lost confidence in Coe, Radcliffe and the iaaf.

    This now seems that there is more here than there was in the NOP story. I guess people just like Paula better than Alberto.
  • Pop_pop!_v2.1.1
    4 years ago 11/29/2015 11:17am CST
    re: wejo
    Forum Index
    Paula's record of horrible for research has, once again, made her obfuscations appear as they are, Lies and misdirection.

    Anyone recall the last IAAF athlete who proudly and publicly took a lie detector test?

    1 million pounds is hilarious. The woman is taking champagne baths while she tries to hide her lies behind 'her family.'

    Epo cheats out Paula.