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 know I'm probably to blame for 30 of these pages, but after the WADA IC report parts I and II, is anyone outside of this thread talking about Paula or the leaked blood values anymore? Is anyone else clamouring for an explanation of wild 33 point swings in data collected and processed unsuitably for comparison purposes? Looks like most everyone has moved on, once the Sunday morning sensations fizzled back into the nothingness.The focus now seems to be trying to hang Coe for things done by a previous administration.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

An excellent post from rjm33.

...

Instead this thread rumbles along with the truth eating away at her ridiculous claims.

Martial Saugy was also present when Bernard Lagats b sample was thrown out

The focus now seems to be trying to hang Coe for things done by a previous administration.

[quote]pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

An excellent post from rjm33.

Previous he was the VP

rekrunner wrote:

1) More clearly, there is only a hemoconcentration argument. Anyone who understood dehydration simply misunderstood what was being argued. The IAAF did not argue dehydration. (Actually, I found I also used the word "dehydration" earlier, so I must retract "surely I never".)

IAAF used "dehydration" a lot. Starting with 4.14.1:

"because dehydration could cause haemoconcentration"

Ref. 62: "Hemoconcentration can be caused by dehydration associated with prolonged exercise or by posturally-induced shifts in plasma volume, and may be in the order of 10-20%')."

etc.

The point back then was that Paula's rise was much more than those mentioned 10-20%, in milder conditions. In the end, you conceded that there must have been a measurement error.

Note also that these numbers include the so-called plasma shift...

rekrunner wrote:

I know I'm probably to blame for 30 of these pages, but after the WADA IC report parts I and II, is anyone outside of this thread talking about Paula or the leaked blood values anymore? Is anyone else clamouring for an explanation of wild 33 point swings in data collected and processed unsuitably for comparison purposes? Looks like most everyone has moved on, once the Sunday morning sensations fizzled back into the nothingness.

True is that currently Coe's likely perjuries are more interesting.

Many fans have made up their minds, and just regret that Paula got away, like so many others.

As for "is anyone outside of this thread talking about Paula": Browsing through

gives you an idea, where Paula's reputation stands now.

RJM33 - love your posts.

So far, he was "a" VP who did not participate in any of scandals.Yet he is the one in front of British Parliament. I don't get why exactly, as the IAAF is not subject to the British Parliament.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

The focus now seems to be trying to hang Coe for things done by a previous administration.

[quote]pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

An excellent post from rjm33.

Previous he was the VP

Perjury seems like the wrong word. Was he on trial?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I know I'm probably to blame for 30 of these pages, but after the WADA IC report parts I and II, is anyone outside of this thread talking about Paula or the leaked blood values anymore? Is anyone else clamouring for an explanation of wild 33 point swings in data collected and processed unsuitably for comparison purposes? Looks like most everyone has moved on, once the Sunday morning sensations fizzled back into the nothingness.

True is that currently Coe's likely perjuries are more interesting.

Many fans have made up their minds, and just regret that Paula got away, like so many others.

As for "is anyone outside of this thread talking about Paula": Browsing through

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7100690

gives you an idea, where Paula's reputation stands now.

I guess my effort to be more clear failed. There is a connection between the two, but they are not synonyms.Prolonged strenuous exercise in heat can cause hemoconcentration, for several reasons, one of which is dehydration.This is what I meant when some fluid is lost as sweat, but not all.It's not a dehydration argument but a hemoconcentration argument, of which dehydration can be a partial contributor.It would be exaggerated to think that dehydration was the only cause of the lost plasma, and therefore, Paula should have been suffering from severe dehydration, preventing her from speeding up the last 5K. (Seems like the opposite is possible -- that speeding up the last 5K might lead to more fluid loss at the end of the race).According to the paper, it falls back to pre-race baselines within 2 hours.A lot of discussion hinges on this 12.0 value and the 82 off-score, pre-race 2003.I agreed, and agree now, the prerace values looks low -- too low if she just finished altitude training, and could maintain it with an altitude tent.Is it anemia topped up with a blood bag? Even with all the possible pre-2009 errors, this doesn't rule out doping. It just makes it less probable until other possibilities are rule out.It's also a pre-race hemoglobin value that hasn't been reported or confirmed as far as I know. It looks like 12.0 comes from her book, but this number doesn't match with more official responses, presumably using values from actual blood reports, which says the increase in hemoglobin to 15.6 was 2.8 g/dl, with no significant change in RET%.If these values were from blood taken after 2008, under stricter conditions, I would agree, probably still not as strongly as rjm33 and pop_pop now, that these large swings look extremely suspicious. But they weren't.Blood doping as described by rjm33 is still possible, but not necessary, to explain even the large 33 point difference.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

1) More clearly, there is only a hemoconcentration argument. Anyone who understood dehydration simply misunderstood what was being argued. The IAAF did not argue dehydration. (Actually, I found I also used the word "dehydration" earlier, so I must retract "surely I never".)

IAAF used "dehydration" a lot. Starting with 4.14.1:

"because dehydration could cause haemoconcentration"

Ref. 62: "Hemoconcentration can be caused by dehydration associated with prolonged exercise or by posturally-induced shifts in plasma volume, and may be in the order of 10-20%')."

etc.

The point back then was that Paula's rise was much more than those mentioned 10-20%, in milder conditions. In the end, you conceded that there must have been a measurement error.

Note also that these numbers include the so-called plasma shift...

OK "these threads". Looks like Seppelt never cared about Paula, and the UK winds have changed direction, now that the WADA IC issued there two reports that didn't take the Paula bait.There can be no doubt the UK press caused reputational damage to Paula.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I know I'm probably to blame for 30 of these pages, but after the WADA IC report parts I and II, is anyone outside of this thread talking about Paula or the leaked blood values anymore? Is anyone else clamouring for an explanation of wild 33 point swings in data collected and processed unsuitably for comparison purposes? Looks like most everyone has moved on, once the Sunday morning sensations fizzled back into the nothingness.

True is that currently Coe's likely perjuries are more interesting.

Many fans have made up their minds, and just regret that Paula got away, like so many others.

As for "is anyone outside of this thread talking about Paula": Browsing through

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7100690

gives you an idea, where Paula's reputation stands now.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Ashendon examine the data and conclude there was a 1-1000 chance of being clean on 3 occasions

He pretty much determined that it was blatantly obviously doped

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

1) More clearly, there is only a hemoconcentration argument. Anyone who understood dehydration simply misunderstood what was being argued. The IAAF did not argue dehydration. (Actually, I found I also used the word "dehydration" earlier, so I must retract "surely I never".)

IAAF used "dehydration" a lot. Starting with 4.14.1:

"because dehydration could cause haemoconcentration"

Ref. 62: "Hemoconcentration can be caused by dehydration associated with prolonged exercise or by posturally-induced shifts in plasma volume, and may be in the order of 10-20%')."

etc.

The point back then was that Paula's rise was much more than those mentioned 10-20%, in milder conditions. In the end, you conceded that there must have been a measurement error.

Note also that these numbers include the so-called plasma shift...

The plasma shift was 15.8% not the 30% which some self appointed experts on here are claiming.

61.6/53.2

15.8% of the plasma was shifted out of the blood. 1000 plus posts, and the letsrun 'experts' still don't get it.

Oh if it were only that simple. They made a few assumptions.

just sayin wrote:

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Ashendon examine the data and conclude there was a 1-1000 chance of being clean on 3 occasions

He pretty much determined that it was blatantly obviously doped

rekrunner wrote:

Oh if it were only that simple. They made a few assumptions.

just sayin wrote:

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Ashendon examine the data and conclude there was a 1-1000 chance of being clean on 3 occasions

He pretty much determined that it was blatantly obviously doped

Are they not world recognised experts in this area?

Out of curiosity, what are people's credentials/qualifications here to post about blood value interpretations?

Do all you 'smart guys' (rekrunner, rjm33, pop_pop, etc.) have medical backgrounds?

Not a loaded question at all, I'm just curious as this stuff is complex.

The problem is not the experts but the data. The data was incomplete (lacking context) and potentially biased. Ashenden wrote many papers about many things that can make the data biased, recommending process improvements to reduce or eliminate sources of error, like those adopted in 2009, making ABP viable.

just sayin wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Oh if it were only that simple. They made a few assumptions.

Are they not world recognised experts in this area?

rekrunner wrote:

So far, he was "a" VP who did not participate in any of scandals.

Yet he is the one in front of British Parliament. I don't get why exactly, as the IAAF is not subject to the British Parliament.

Coe is British. Coe was heavily involved in selling the London games.

rekrunner wrote:

The problem is not the experts but the data. The data was incomplete (lacking context) and potentially biased. Ashenden wrote many papers about many things that can make the data biased, recommending process improvements to reduce or eliminate sources of error, like those adopted in 2009, making ABP viable.

just sayin wrote:

Are they not world recognised experts in this area?

This is merely your opinion

The data cannot be innocently explained by any of these errors or context, most of which have been debunked

I'm an expert with numbers: math and statistics and probabilities and error analysis. I might faint at the sight of blood, or the smell of alcohol (in a hospital, not a bar), and I'm not a fan of needles. My mother was a nurse, and I have two brothers who work (IT) at healthcare companies.

cleans wrote:

Out of curiosity, what are people's credentials/qualifications here to post about blood value interpretations?

Do all you 'smart guys' (rekrunner, rjm33, pop_pop, etc.) have medical backgrounds?

Not a loaded question at all, I'm just curious as this stuff is complex.