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

cleans wrote:

Seeing as this thread is back on Page 1, might I ask (again) that someone explain to me what the '1 in 100' and '1 in a 1000' thresholds are, and why the latter is seen as suspicion of doping and the former is not.

The former was explained on page 2 of this thread by clerk; the latter is not correct.

EPO Cheats Out, Paula wrote:

When is the lie detector test?

The test has taken place and she passed

She is not releasing the results of the lie detector test as it may help the cheaters if the data is made public

just sayin wrote:

EPO Cheats Out, Paula wrote:

When is the lie detector test?

The test has taken place and she passed

She is not releasing the results of the lie detector test as it may help the cheaters if the data is made public

Like she passes all tests. "This person over here who is the very, very, very best at test reading says it's all good. Who is this person? The very best is all you need to know."

casual obsever wrote:

cleans wrote:

Seeing as this thread is back on Page 1, might I ask (again) that someone explain to me what the '1 in 100' and '1 in a 1000' thresholds are, and why the latter is seen as suspicion of doping and the former is not.

The former was explained on page 2 of this thread by clerk; the latter is not correct.

Clerk wrote that "Those odds represent the certainty that a certain off-score is due to doping."

Well if it really is that simple, that would make it 99% certain that Paula was doping. (But not 99.9% certain she was doping.)

I'm sure someone is going to chip in now and say that it isn't this simple ... :-/

One picture says a lot:

http://sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Capture-400x256.png

Count how often the other athletes "coincidentally" reached the 1:10 and the 1:100 (altitude) cutoff. Answers excluding Paula:

a) 1 athlete reached once the 1:10 (only a (estimated) 10% chance that that was not caused by doping, out of > 40 data points. 1 out of 40 -> 2.5%.

b) nobody reached ever the 1:100 cutoff.

Paula's argument that she only once went above the 1:100 cutoff is ridiculous, in particular while claiming that that was caused by altitude, because that tricky lady chose of course the altitude cutoff!

The other two times she might not have reached that 1:100, but came very close to it. So maybe there was a 1.5% - 2.0% chance of it not being caused by doping. Not exactly a sign of innocence.

But wait. She later admitted that once she wasn't at altitude, so we should use the much lower non-altitude/regular cutoff - which then corresponds to 1:1000.

Oh boy.

And now she "complains" that the IOC doesn't stand up for a clean sport, after she was rescued by the fact that UKAD, IAAF or WADA don't want a clean sport either. The nerves. Or is that the British humor?

No, it's not that simple. Without you selectively quoting, I wrote:

The rest of the post is about the fact that the ABP is an analytical tool. That means that individual scores have to be taken with context. I wrote "An Off score of 100 can be perfectly normal, or serious doping, depending on the scores before and after."

Look at this chart:

This chart shows when the computer flags a passport for panel review. You can have an off score of 103 and be flagged, or an off score of 132 and be okay.

That computer program is guided by the 1:100, 1:1000, 1:10,000 chances, but even then the programming and representative formula is still subjective. Everything after is also a subjective analysis. A panel is given the cases as spit out by the computer. They then must agree to open a case, during which they look at health/sickness context, training context, altitude and racing performances. Then they make a decision. Again, a subjective decision. It is not in the discussion that one panelist says "I think the odds are 1:1050" and another says "No, 1:950". It is an arbitrary number at this point. Even when designing the program, it was some scientists sitting at a table with charts and graphs making informed, albeit still arbitrary, decisions about the thresholds.

Now that we know arguing over 1:1000 or 1:100 is irrelevant (because it comes down to the analysis of the case), you can look at the entire thread (really just the first few pages) to see that analysis: there is no way Radcliffe did what she did cleanly.

Clerk wrote:

Now that we know arguing over 1:1000 or 1:100 is irrelevant (because it comes down to the analysis of the case), you can look at the entire thread (really just the first few pages) to see that analysis: there is no way Radcliffe did what she did cleanly.

OK, so I got my answer - the 1:100 value is not a simple value showing who is 99% likely to be doping.

I'm not sure why these ratios are even published if the analysis is always case by case and subjective.

Not that a British runner would ever get an ABP-related ban (or any other ban):

That's a list of about 300 currently banned athletes. How many Brits in the list?

If I had to speculate, the 1:100 etc. is just like saying "probable cause" or "beyond reasonable doubt". Something piece of language has to convey the message, even when the thing being conveyed is ambigious.

A British cyclist was banned with the ABP. Off score of 155.8 from 17.9hgb/0.15%ret. tried to say he was dehydrated after a night drinking...

(As a side note, this case was opened and closed shortly after that one off score. As an example of the subjectivity, Shobukhova had several off scores in the same range, 150's, over several years before a case was opened. A Moroccan runner El Qady produced their (first?) suspicious offscore in 2011, but banned in 2016. Similarly with the Turk, recently.)

Better than nothing, but even a good tool in bad hands is a bad tool.

But good questions to ask.

These thresholds are statistical thresholds used to express the normal range of values one can expect.Perhaps the best way to view and understand these thresholds, is to imagine, if we have a random sample of 1000 healthy, non-doped athletes, we can expect 10 to be at, or above the 1:100 threshold and 1 to be at or above the 1:1000 threshold, naturally.It's more a measure of the likelihood of a "false positive" from a clean athlete, rather than a "true positive" from a dirty one. There is no obvious mathematical relation between these two likelihoods, and the public seems most interested in the latter, while the scientists only have a model for the former.The strategy of the ABP is to rule out all "false positive" possibilities, leaving only a "true positive" possibility by process of elimination.The Off-Hr model, with increased sensitivity to blood doping, and the 1:1000 threshold, was chosen as a good compromise to keep 999 out of 1000 clean athletes out of any doping discussions, while still being able to flag the majority of the blood dopers. Note that "Off-hr score" is not the only tool to flag potential dopers.The 1:1000 threshold is reached much more frequently than 1:1000, because there are several non-doping factors that "break the assumptions", significantly increasing the likelihood of a false positive, while doping obviously increases the likelihood of a true positive.Once an athlete is flagged, it is the role of the expert to determine what non-doping factors, if any, inflated the score, by how much, or alternatively, rule out what non-doping factors did not increase the score, to assess if doping likely occurred.

cleans wrote:

Clerk wrote:

Now that we know arguing over 1:1000 or 1:100 is irrelevant (because it comes down to the analysis of the case), you can look at the entire thread (really just the first few pages) to see that analysis: there is no way Radcliffe did what she did cleanly.

OK, so I got my answer - the 1:100 value is not a simple value showing who is 99% likely to be doping.

I'm not sure why these ratios are even published if the analysis is always case by case and subjective.

Not that a British runner would ever get an ABP-related ban (or any other ban):

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316050157/List-of-Athletes-Currently-Serving-a-Period-of-Ineligibility-as-a-Result-of-an-Anti-doping-Rule-Violation-Under-IAAF-Rules

That's a list of about 300 currently banned athletes. How many Brits in the list?

Wow, Radcliffe was so doped.

Now is the time for a follow up . Lets go with the 1 Million lie detector test .....

Now is the Time wrote:

Now is the time for a follow up . Lets go with the 1 Million lie detector test .....

And a House Search while she's taking the test

Let's have the blood samples from her refridgerator and all the data in her safe

"Paula call me asap. You wont believe the results of our tests. You'll run 2.15 or at least 2.17. The only ones I'm tell are you, Galen, Lance and Mark Parker."

just sayin wrote:

Now is the Time wrote:

Now is the time for a follow up . Lets go with the 1 Million lie detector test .....

And a House Search while she's taking the test

Let's have the blood samples from her refridgerator and all the data in her safe

You guys are hilarious. Paula is protected by Lord Coe with his murky deals.

Coe didn't / couldn't protect AlSal, his friend . I noticed during the Berlin Marathon, commentators were only referring to the "women's only" record .

Clerk wrote:

First part is going to be a little off-topic, but I want to make this point right away: Who the **** is he to say Paula is "an athlete who wanted it badder and was willing to dig deeper and prepare harder and more meticulously than anyone else." I'll come back to this in a bit...

The thing is that her record doesn't support this assertion. If she was such a resilient, strong athlete with a winning mentality, she wouldn't have chocked so many times on the Olympic stage. Sadly, I feel she is the worst type of charlatan who demands honesty and transparency from everyone else whilst refusing to do the same.

Witness Protection . wrote:

Coe didn't / couldn't protect AlSal, his friend . I noticed during the Berlin Marathon, commentators were only referring to the "women's only" record .

yep, i know its a year old but....

Athletes and ex athletes protect themselves and the sport.

Omerta and the sport protect cheating athletes.

even lance didnt get properly nailed.

This is why the shelby case is so important. Nike - the biggest of the big - are actively protecting her, lying about her, and blocking the real truth from being published.

and the sport accepts this, and in so doing encourages more doping.

Thanks coe.

hollys41 wrote:

Clerk wrote:

First part is going to be a little off-topic, but I want to make this point right away: Who the **** is he to say Paula is "an athlete who wanted it badder and was willing to dig deeper and prepare harder and more meticulously than anyone else." I'll come back to this in a bit...

The thing is that her record doesn't support this assertion. If she was such a resilient, strong athlete with a winning mentality, she wouldn't have chocked so many times on the Olympic stage. Sadly, I feel she is the worst type of charlatan who demands honesty and transparency from everyone else whilst refusing to do the same.

Athens 2004 - womens marathon medallists - run in 35 °C (95 °F)

1. Mizuki Noguchi - height 4’11’’

2. Catherine ndereba - height 5’2’’

3. Deena Kastor - height 5’4’’

DNF Paula Radcliffe - height 5’8’’

This was inline with evidence in 2002’s “Lore of Running” by Tim Noakes that taller athletics can’t win Marathons run in extreme heat. She was attempting the impossible.

If recent data has overturned this I’d be happy to be corrected.

Paula won the worlds a year later so I think ‘choker’ is a little unfair. However I agree she has been less than transparent over the years.

LOL Paula was definitely on something while running a 215 marathon. Maybe she blood doped and maybe she's convinced herself she's innocent because a lot of the other top athletes were doing it. The mind is a powerful thing especially for a narcissist or a psycho/sociopath who could beat a lie detector because they tell so many lies that they start to believe their own and have no shame or moral compass.