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

I think in Paula's case, anemia means low haemoglobin, treated with blood transfusions.

Rekrunner uses long post to shift the burden of proof back to others and reframe the discussion.

Paula Radcliffe:

1. Is the greatest women's marathoner ever.

2. Was probably the most vocal ant-doping advocate in the sport for a long time

3. Is a leading commentator and IAAF leader.

She has not called for transparency and education since this story broke and (unless I missed it) is now silent on issues in Ethiopia and Kenya. She used to comment freely on NOP stories and other runners.

PR may very well be clean but we are not learning anything about that era and she cou,d help change that.

I had stopped posting on this thread, only responding to people who call me directly. I don't want to be rude.It's not my goal to entertain you. That's the goal of tabloids. My goal is more a proper interpretation of science and I guess science can also be boring for many.I think I'm more scientist than lawyer. I'm not arguing as a lawyer, clearing the charges based on procedural technicalities. I'm arguing as a scientist that this leaked blood data does not give justifiable cause for suspicion on the basis of probabilities. The 2003 samples were not suspicious according to 2003 criteria, and the 2005 samples were not suspicious according to the 2005 criteria. WADA/IAAF/UKAD reacted properly, with indifference.If you want to know more about why we wait two hours, read the paper by Schumacher. Then you can learn for yourself how gradual (or not) the return to normal is, and if 90 minutes is reasonably long enough.Of course they knew how to draw blood before 2009, but without regard to producing a stable, reliable, comparable off score, as that was never a goal or measure before. 2009 is an important year due to the changes in the probabilities that come with increased stability of the off scores. ABP works with off score thresholds based on probabilities and a history of reliably collected data. The problem before 2009 is that the 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 (and all the rest) threshold probabilities would be biased higher for several non doping reasons. If you want to say a 2003 score is suspicious, you must first calculate the corresponding 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 probabilities to match the off scores. It is not correct to use the post 2009 ABP thresholds.Good luck finding your answers. Maybe one day we will find a real cause for suspicion.

bobblehead radcliffe is a doper

"Iron stores depleted" treated with ostrich meat, chocolate and wheatgrass:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/diet/4713147/Red-meat-keeps-me-on-my-feet.html

rekrunnerâ„¢ wannabe wrote:

I think in Paula's case, anemia means low haemoglobin, treated with blood transfusions.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm arguing as a scientist that this leaked blood data does not give justifiable cause for suspicion on the basis of probabilities. The 2003 samples were not suspicious according to 2003 criteria, and the 2005 samples were not suspicious according to the 2005 criteria. WADA/IAAF/UKAD reacted properly, with indifference.

As far as I remember, you never commented on the fact that her 2012 values were outrageously high, her hct being above 16! Despite all her altitude stays in the 10+ years before that, she never - as far as published - came close to that. What's even worse is that the ret-% was high too, while altitude is known to cause lower ret (hence a higher off score is allowed, as repeatedly mentioned by the IAAF).

So these numbers can't have been caused by altitude alone, because both hct and ret were too high, as demonstrated by studies as well as Paula's own history demonstrate. Looks like a combo of altitude (or transfusion) + EPO to me.

Even the IAAF got suspicious then, and reported the case to an experts' committee. Unfortunately they did not agree on a ban for whatever reason (would be interesting to know whether Saugy was involved again, and read about their decision). Or did they, and it was kept a secret? After all, Paula basically ended her career right after that.

Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that the 2003 values were called plausible because of the race at 30 C (according to Paula) or 29 C (according to the IAAF), while the recorded weather data proved 21 - 24 C during that race. As sad as outrageous that even the IAAF boldly lied about that in their written document.

Yes, I recognize that Paula said, "Sometimes I can't believe how much I eat, but I need lots of rich food to help with my congenital anaemia, which has reared up as a problem over the years."

But you really can't expect her to understand the difference between iron deficiency anemia and congenital anemia. It's not like she knows her daily blood values or anything.

I'm sure that her doctors kept her apprised of when she needed to eat ostrich to correct her iron-deficiency anemia, and when she needed a blood transfusion to correct her congenital anemia.

You can't expect her to have kept it all straight in her own head. That's why she hired the best doctors to maintain her blood at optimal states.

Probably not. It looks like a classic application of the ABP process, of an altitude sample being anonymously reviewed by an expert panel and dismissed as caused by altitude. I don't see anything unusual.I would expect RBC to be high -- she was at altitude. Is 16 outrageously high? Shobukhova had 18. Paula's RET was not unusually high. Normal values can be the double. Her off score was below the altitude threshold. These values look plausible without doping.When I looked up the historical recorded temperature, it was recorded at the airport 25km away from the race. But even so, running a fast semi-marathon in 24C can also cause a prohibitive decrease in plasma volume.

DHT123 wrote:

Hilarious article. "After the morning gym session, I have a meal. It might be ostrich or venison with wheatgrass and steamed vegetables, all washed down with four litres of water." Straight out of pseuds corner (for the 'private eye' readers on here). FOUR litres?!?! Good luck with that.

Yes, for a anaemic asthmatic Paula has done pretty well.

She was an amazing woman, an "anaemic asthmatic" with one of the worst and most uneconomical distance running styles ever.

At least us lesser mortals can follow her diet, ostrich or venison with wheatgrass and four litres of water, combined with the reindeer milk and turtle soup I'm currently on what else do I have to do?

And people thought the reindeer milk and turtle soup was out there.

I guess it's safe to assume that other athletes also refused to publish their data. Maybe some of them are also British. Who's calling for their transparency? In order to make any sense of it, we need ALL athletes in the database to be transparent.

Surely you can see that there is special interest in Paula as her results put her in a position of high suspicion. Her WR is 3 minutes (over half a mile) ahead of anyone else, and that anyone else includes dopers, some of which are now getting caught. She has a duty to the sport to be transparent.

You keep banging on about this, but if the tests were so unreliable as to give 33 point swings through error, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN USE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I am sorry dear patient but you are either anemic or have very healthy levels. I cant tell you which one due to this dang manchine error.

Don't mix two things up. The point was Paula being completely transparent brings nothing unless all athletes are transparent, and we have the full context, and the ability to interpret all of that with perspective.At most, I see a need for an independent expert review, but I disagree completely that your special interest means the public has earned any special right or privilege or some expectation to see the values. This level of public transparency has never been expected of any athlete in any sport, and yet for Paula it's a negative thing to hide it from the public.

Accountability wrote:

I guess it's safe to assume that other athletes also refused to publish their data. Maybe some of them are also British. Who's calling for their transparency? In order to make any sense of it, we need ALL athletes in the database to be transparent.

Surely you can see that there is special interest in Paula as her results put her in a position of high suspicion. Her WR is 3 minutes (over half a mile) ahead of anyone else, and that anyone else includes dopers, some of which are now getting caught. She has a duty to the sport to be transparent.

rekrunner wrote:

Probably not. It looks like a classic application of the ABP process, of an altitude sample being anonymously reviewed by an expert panel and dismissed as caused by altitude. I don't see anything unusual.

Again, the altitude level threshold is so high because of the expected low ret level, as openly acknowledged by the IAAF. Yet Paula's ret in that case was the highest we have seen for her, a full 75% or so higher than in 2003 and 2005.

The 109.something isn't so unusual, but the combination of 16+ for a female along with a normal ret instead of the expected lower ret is just crazy.

That's why I would love to see the experts' judgement's justification, but the IAAF keeps that one secret too.

Also don't forget that Paula herself wrote in her bio that her hct is always around 14 - 14.5 or so.

Is that the best reason you can give me to doubt scientists like Ashenden, who actually observed and measured and reported these kinds of errors, in controlled settings, in order to come up with specific procedures to avoid them?I guess hospitals have used blood tests, and sometimes got wrong lab results, and have resorted to reordering tests. Or hospitals and labs have different procedures for different purposes.But none of that matters, because the errors have been observed and documented and corrected by scientists.

Accountability wrote:

You keep banging on about this, but if the tests were so unreliable as to give 33 point swings through error, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN USE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I am sorry dear patient but you are either anemic or have very healthy levels. I cant tell you which one due to this dang manchine error.

Again, none of these facts seem unusual. The IAAF also told us that the 2003 and 2005 RET values (both 0.47) were low in part, because they were in competition, taken in Aug. and Oct. The 2012 value (0.77) was out of competition in Feb. in any case 0.77 is still low. Normal values are 0.5 to 1.5.The IAAF made all of this public, not secret, including the opinion and conclusion of the panel not to pursue the case any further, due to the plausibility of the values being caused by altitude.Paula wrote her biography in 2005, before the 2009 standards, and well before the 2012 out of competition test.

casual obsever wrote:

Again, the altitude level threshold is so high because of the expected low ret level, as openly acknowledged by the IAAF. Yet Paula's ret in that case was the highest we have seen for her, a full 75% or so higher than in 2003 and 2005.

The 109.something isn't so unusual, but the combination of 16+ for a female along with a normal ret instead of the expected lower ret is just crazy.

That's why I would love to see the experts' judgement's justification, but the IAAF keeps that one secret too.

Also don't forget that Paula herself wrote in her bio that her hct is always around 14 - 14.5 or so.

Ruling on the Operation Puerto blood bags expected this month:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/03/09/operacion-puerto-blood-bags-ruling-expected-this-month/

A little OT, but Fuentes does claim to have doped winners of the London Marathon. Paula may have been cheated out of wins by doped rivals.

Fuentes has threatened to reveal his "medical relationship with winners of the London marathon."

Fuentes was arrested in 2006. From 2000 to 2005 there were 6 men who won London and 4 women (Paula won 3 times). We can assume when he used the plural of "winner" he meant multiple individuals, not an individual who had won multiple times.

So of the 10 winners, he has had "medical relationships" with at least 2 of them.

Which means there may be only a 20% chance that he gave blood transfusions to Paula, which isn't very high at all. If he worked with 3-4 winners, that's still only a 30-40% chance, which is still worse odds than a coin toss.

Here's a list of all London Marathon winners. You can see for yourself all of the people who are much, much, much more likely than Paula to have been his clients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_of_the_London_Marathon

I remember quite well that you were among the ones here claiming that Paula may have suffered from an extreme dehydration in that case. Well if that were true, the reticulocytes should have been high too, not just the hem (going with the simple concentration argument). She would also not have been able to speed up towards to the end if severely dehydrated...

Fact is however that these were low ret values, below (!) the normal range.

Now you say that 0.77 - well within the normal range - is also low, caused by altitude, which in turn should explain her first time with hemoglobin above 16 g/dL.

The secrets are the actual written document of the committee, the names of its members, and how the vote went (3 : 0 or 2 : 1 or 1 : 2?).

Plus, I did not hear about that in 2012 - maybe the whole thing was a secret back then, or maybe I overlooked that somehow. Did you hear about that in 2012?

Exactly my point: for a decade or so of having been a professional runner and used altitude stays, she never went above 14.5 g/dL. Then she got caught with 16.2. New body, or new drug regime? I know what I consider more likely.

It's exactly this kind of partial knowledge, and subsequent logic, that makes giving out full details to the unqualified public harmful to the athletes.

1) Don't confuse hemoconcentration with dehydration. I surely never claimed dehydration. Strenuous exercise in the heat can cause hemoconcentration without causing dehydration. To learn more, read Schumacher's paper.

2) In any case, RET is a "percentage" of total RBC. It does not change with hemoconcentration or dehydration.

3) Why wouldn't she be able to speed up at the end? Maybe speeding up at the end caused greater hemoconcentration (or dehydration).

4) You initially complained the "justiification" of the panel was kept secret by the IAAF. It was not. The baseline is that these things are kept secret for the sake of innocent athletes, and we see now that it should still be secret for Paula. You make that sound like a bad thing, but also demonstrate by example why it is so important.

5) Never above 14.5? We know twice, in 2003 and 2005, she was above 15. I don't know if 16 is a first, or all time high for Paula, but 0.77 is low, and 109 is normal for altitude. 16 must not be unusual for altitude. This can also be old body, and no drug regime.