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

1000 wrote:

“P.S. You have stated in other threads that you remain to be convinced that EPO/blood doping is particularly effective for improving distance running performance.”

https://youtu.be/m38WqCxEaLk?t=42m4s

I'm not sure who you are talking about or what that link is?

I think most people believe EPO helps. And for the sake of this thread it doesn't matter. If she doped, she doped regardless if it helped her and she should be banned.

wejo wrote:

Let's not sugarcoat this. If Paula is shown to have blood doped, she's in the psychopath Lance category.

No doubt about it, if she is guilty, then she is a master manipulator and terrible human being.

Lloyd Christmas wrote:

wejo wrote:

Let's not sugarcoat this. If Paula is shown to have blood doped, she's in the psychopath Lance category.

No doubt about it, if she is guilty, then she is a master manipulator and terrible human being.

If Paula were clean, then it would only be a matter of releasing the data.

And, BTW, transfusions are a real possibility and there's still no test for transfusions. Only artifacts of the transfusion affecting her scores. In a technical sense, she can be quite within the broad boundaries, doping, and still never test positive.

Finally, the definition of guilt varies wildly depending on your perspective/opinions. If the data could be discussed publicly, a confidence level of the normalcy of her values is about as good as it gets.

Why are we still getting the runaround from Paula and the IAAF if the data were consistent with a clean athlete? Paula claims she's clean.

EPO cheats out Paula.

preciously jaded wrote:

These are only for the very limited number of samples that we know about. PR has straight up refused to release all of her blood data to the public (unlike Farah and some other British athletes). This in itself is suspicious and for all we know many of PR's other samples may be more incriminating.

A few points.

1) We've only seen off scores from British athletes with normal off scores. I have heard a story (but not confirmed it) of a British athlete that had a higher off-score (and not knowing it) going to Sunday Times and saying to release the off-score but then being told it was higher and it was not released. So we have not seen all the off scores of British athletes and the Times indicated there were others that had high values.

2) I don't think Paula has other tests with higher off-scores. The Sunday Times talked about 3 tests that were higher. It's fair to assume these are the 3.

Actually I just went back and found the language in the Sunday Times, "On three occasions during their career the athlete’s test results were so “abnormal” that there was only a one in a thousand chance that they were natural.

The data shows that the athlete’s blood scores increased as their performances improved on the international stage. One of those scores was recorded just days before winning a major race."

That is incorrect. The score was recorded AFTER she won a major race not before.

Also I see no indication that, the "athlete’s blood scores increased as their performances improved on the international stage." That implies as she did better and better her scores got higher and higher. One of the high tests was in 2012 when she was injured and cross training and not running well, one was after she got beat at the Worlds 10,000 (30:42 is a decent run however I just looked it up and she ran 2:20 to win the Worlds Marathon) but not won the World marathon. Yes her highest score was when she won the World Half. But the Times make it sound like if Paula ran well there was direct link with her blood scores. Her score was lower for the Worlds Marathon than the Worlds 10,000. We need to see all her scores, but just looking at the 3 high scores their narrative doesn't matchup.

3) No British athlete including Farah has released their entire blood values. Some have released their off-scores. As Paula herself told me for the full picture to be discussed, all the data (not just the score) needs to be analyzed. With that being the case, I think Paula should release all of her data.

wejo wrote:

That is incorrect. The score was recorded AFTER she won a major race not before.

While correcting the facts is important, it doesn't change the fact she was recording high off scores near a performance.

Otherwise I agree with everything else posted.

These are very interesting discussions regarding her values.

But I'm surprised no one has talked about the things she said in the 3rd article. About the attacks in Paris.

She compared the terrorist attacks in Paris to the attacks on her by sceptics and compared the people who doubt her (people like you 1000) to the terrorists

"There were bad people trying to write things that were not true about Mummy. Now there were bad people attacking the city."

She also said the attacks made her more motivated to prove she is clean. Because the tragedy about people being killed in Paris is that someone might die thinking Paula may have doped, god forbid.

What on earth would have given them thay idea to begin with?

Is there a more self absorbed person on the planet?

Despicable human being. Can't imagine for a second such a person saying no to drugs.

No way can I believe this person posted the most ridiculous record in history, during the epo golden age, clean.

The brief synopsis of the difference in Paula and Gerard's stories was in my original post. The first bit is from an interview with Gerard:

Then from Paula's biography (shortened version her):

Basically a totally different version of events.

Read more:

Interesting that martial saugy of WADA was asked to review the data.The same guy that disposed of the russian samples

Something very strange about that!

Is that a service that any athlete can avail of ?

"Another senior independent expert who WADA recommended and who is head of the WADA accredited laboratory in Lausanne was asked at my request to review the data following the Sunday Times articles"

“Evaluation of Profile [redacted] – Review of Blood Data from 2001 -2008

I looked carefully the data which are part of the profile [redacted]. To my knowledge, they were obtained through several technologies. Moreover, data obtained for example in Vilamoura in 2003, with bloods collected before and right after the half marathon, ran in hot conditions, are typically showing effects of confounding factors. The increase of 2.8 in Hb (and no significant effect on ret%) is due to a drastic hemo-concentration caused by the specific race conditions. This post-race value, as most of the others, today would not be validated, and then not be implemented in a real biological passport.

Therefore, I consider that any interpretation of this profile, which would be done by ignoring the confounding factors cited above, is abusive.

Furthermore, any interpretation of these data implemented in an individual and longitudinal blood profile between 2001 and 2008 can be considered to my eyes as intellectually dishonest and scientifically biased.”

Martial Saugy also was the IAAF representative who oversaw the B-Sample for Bernard Lagat when he was cleared

He seems to be a very popular guy in certain situations!

I have a crystal clear recollection of the interview that PR gave to the BBC immediately after the Athens marathon. She was, understandably, very dejected, but she very clearly stated that she could not understand why she had performed badly, that everything had been going well, and that she had no excuses for what had happened. I was therefore somewhat bemused when, over the following days, the great British heroine started unveiling some pretty significant excuses.

Being generous, I suppose it's just, just possible that she really did not want to hide behind excuses after dashing her adoring public's hopes of Gold, but it certainly seemed at the time that she genuinely had no idea why she had underperformed. One would have thought that the serious injuries that were claimed for her afterwards would have been at the forefront of any athletes's mind when they were looking for explanations in the aftermath of a disaster.

doping expert wrote:

http://www.paularadcliffe.com/statement-september-2015/

Interesting that martial saugy of WADA was asked to review the data.The same guy that disposed of the russian samples

Something very strange about that!

Is that a service that any athlete can avail of ?

If the sports federation values you as an athlete, Martial will get right on that for them. He met with Armstrong at the UCI's request, made a FIFA positive disappear and more.

Martial Saugy is a fixer.

Within a month of the marathon Paula was talking about a haematoma she got in Spain. That isn't that different from the Hartmann story of getting a problem on a run in Portugal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-317980/Athens-left-Radcliffe-embarrassed-ashamed.html

Immediately after the race she was saying she didn't know what the problem was. I don't see how different stories means anything. She may not have wanted to use injury as an excuse.

Are you trying to suggest she showed up in Athens, couldn't dope and that is why she lost? Why couldn't she dope if people are suggesting she used transfusions? The blood passport couldn't sanction an athlete in 2004.

Why show up at all? Would you really be crying on the side of the road in that scenario? The Regina 2000 of pulling out seems like an easier route to go.

I'd like more independent people to look at the 3 high tests, but I don't see how Athens has anything to do with anything.

Martial Saugy seems to be the jigsaw piece in any number of doping stories!

Unbloodybelievable!

http://m.aipsmedia.com/index.php?page=news&cod=469&tp=n

I didn't say "necessarily" but "likely".In any case, Paula's explanations are actually not inconsistent, and actually in themselves, any one, or all, of them are plausible explanations. Being ill, being at altitude, and being dehydrated are not mutually exclusive conditions, and are not inconsistent states.Reportedly Paula has a sheet with low blood values that she showed to the Daily Mail, from the pre-Portugal tests. Presumably the sheet and values speak for themselves, and would speak to the independent experts, regardless of what Paula tells reporters, and what the reporters tell us.I think we can safely assume that Paula only had 3 "suspect" values in the spreadsheet from 2001 to 2012. It was not Paula that chose to release "only" these three values, but the Sunday Times. If in reality, she had many more suspect values, perhaps someone can explain why the Times only talked about these three, while leaving out even more incriminating samples.Why am I posting in this thread? Don't confuse the issue of effectiveness of PEDs actually improving performance, with the issue of athletes accused of breaking the rules, based on an incomplete set of data. My belief in the ineffectiveness of certain PEDs in certain circumstances is independent of my belief that a set of data falls short of supporting any definitive conclusion of cheating.Initially my only question was, and still is, if Seppelt, Ashenden, and Parisotto have all the data, what did any of them actually say "specifically" about Paula? (recall pop-pop said this was good news -- as if they would respond with the detailed truth, as a counter-response to Paula) If it wasn't for the Sunday Times, would anyone even be talking about Paula? I haven't seen everything, but from all I've seen, it's not clear to me that Seppelt, Ashenden, and Parisotto think Paula is anything more than an incidental part of this story.

The truth is out there wrote:

Unbloodybelievable!

http://m.aipsmedia.com/index.php?page=news&cod=469&tp=n

Why is that unbelievable unless you've already made your mind up? Paula has been the most outspoken anti-doping athlete of the last 15 years I would say. That's why I said if she was doping it would be psychopath territory arguably worse than Lance. Speaking of Lance I mentioned his name in an email to her husband and he replied back "you didn't use the L word did you?"

When I first met her in 2002 before she had won any marathons she was staunchly anti-doping in her talk and when I saw her in Beijing this summer she was still staunchly anti-doping. We met to go for a run and my cab swung by her hotel to pick her up. The first thing she started talking about was the Russian doping news from the day before. That was when I was the most suspicious of her in the last 15 years and I remember thinking "Really?" Her talk has never changed. The only thing I have disagreed with is her decision not to call for her values to be released. She indicated to me she was confident WADA and the IAAF would look into them. That process has started.

Staying silent is the position WADA advised her to do but you all are crucifying her for not releasing values. I disagree with the decision, but it's not proof of anything. I'm fine with being patient. Same thing with the USADA Alberto investigation.

It's easy to see improvements in mediocre, untrained subjects, over a short term study.Now repeat the tests with sub-2:10 athletes (or sub 2:20 women) who have been trained to the point where there is no more natural room for improvement, over the marathon distance. Let me know the results when someone has done that, for any drug or method, for the marathon distance.

1000 wrote:

“P.S. You have stated in other threads that you remain to be convinced that EPO/blood doping is particularly effective for improving distance running performance.”

https://youtu.be/m38WqCxEaLk?t=42m4s

A "Sport Mail" learning that "appears to contradict" is not a very powerful statement. Looks like altitude only explains the 2012 reading, while many things besides altitude can explain the 2003 and 2005 sample.We know from the IAAF, that before 2009, different measurement equipment, different blood drawing techniques, and the timing of blood drawn can affect the readings significantly.We know from the IAAF that the 2003 blood parameters were within the blood parameter limits of that time.We know from the IAAF that the 2003 sample would be rejected for falling under the 2 hour limit.We know from the IAAF that the 2005 "off-score" was well below the "suspicious" threshold at that time (123).We know from the IAAF that the 2003 sample would be rejected for falling under the 2 hour limit.We know from the IAAF that the 2009 guidelines were put in place to eliminate a lot of the variability that might appear in pre-2009 blood samples.While these samples can be used for "general prevalence trends" (i.e. the IAAF 2011 study), the variability makes it dangerous to draw individual conclusions about one athlete.

The 90's called to tell you EPO was/is a revolutionary ped. Apparently you didn't see that either?

rekrunner wrote:

It's easy to see improvements in mediocre, untrained subjects, over a short term study.

Now repeat the tests with sub-2:10 athletes (or sub 2:20 women) who have been trained to the point where there is no more natural room for improvement, over the marathon distance. Let me know the results when someone has done that, for any drug or method, for the marathon distance.

1000 wrote:

“P.S. You have stated in other threads that you remain to be convinced that EPO/blood doping is particularly effective for improving distance running performance.”

https://youtu.be/m38WqCxEaLk?t=42m4s