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

These aren't crimes. London Olympics was a good thing for the UK. Coe running the IAAF would seem to favor the UK. Was Coe on trial for things done by Diack? This whole congressional hearing seemed awkward to me, in "the little mouse that roared" kind of way. Can they sanction Coe? Fine the IAAF?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe#London_2012_Olympic_Games

Fuentes...Operation Puerto...soon....

Apparently the shared opinion of many of the expert scientists. Ashenden showed me inter-method bias of up to 2g/dl in hemoglobin from the same blood. Schumacher observed up 10-20% plasma loss from exercise in the heat.Blood drawing, transport, storage and analysis can all introduce their own errors. Lack of calibration can put the data off the charts. While Ashenden was measuring intermethod bias, he had to ignore 6 weeks of data from his reference machine, because it was uncalibrated, giving obviously bogus data. These things weren't strictly controlled before 2009.Altitude can increase an off score by ~8 points, turning 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100.It is a fact that these experts did not have the doping control forms, or interview the athletes, as they would in a "real" analysis.These are all verifiable facts.My only opinion is that these uncertainties push the suspicious probabilities so far up that the ABP would be useless without the 2007 and 2009 rule changes.Not only can these values be plausibly explained, they already have been. An explanation that survived all the relevant bodies of experts, with the blood data, and all the extra data Ashenden/Parisotto lacked, and remains unchallenged by Ashenden and Parisotto.

just sayin wrote:

This is merely your opinion

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

Not just Paula.

[quote]What a joke wrote:

There are a few things I don't understand about Paula...

/quote]

Rekrunner... Better to see than be dead dumb and blind to what is obvious.

Am I the only one to skip tall rekrunner post?

Non transparency will continue to fuel public suspicion in this case and in the context of the revelations of the goings on in the sport. You seem to be advocating in your posts that the public should not be suspicious and yet what you propose will continue will lead (and has lead to) the contrary. Maybe you think that the public opinion does not matter (you are writing quite a lot on this thread, nevertheless) but if more sponsors pull out of the sport then maybe it is something that should be given more attention.

Level of transparency does not have to refer to only blood values. But anyway, you are looking at this in a binary manner in that someone is transparent or completely transparent with nothing in between. And this does not really matter in this case. What is of concern here is that there really is no transparency at all and there is considerable resistance to being transparent. Other athletes in track and field or other sports have been considerably more transparent, I have mentioned the other British athletes but you have other examples such as the Sky cycling team and Chris Froome being somewhat open with their blood values and physiological data. And this is a good thing given what has happened in cycling.

This has been debated. They were high even for an athlete training at altitude - why were other British female distance runners not reported to have the same sorts of values? Who had higher values? I don't think that you mean "data" but "samples" collected after a race and again this has been debated according to eyewitnesses as to whether they were really collected so soon after the race. If these explanations were supposed to be satisfactory then why the need for all the other explanations: illness, antibiotics, lab error etc ?

It is too easy to say what happened once something has been uncovered. It is much harder to say what is going on when things remain uncovered. It is very naive to think that if corruption is proven among certain members in an organization that it does not exist or has not existed among other members in the same organization. I would be more cautious and wait to see what investigative journalists come up with over the next few years. Maybe you don't like them but we would have known nothing about this without their work.

rekrunner wrote:

Apparently the shared opinion of many of the expert scientists. Ashenden showed me inter-method bias of up to 2g/dl in hemoglobin from the same blood.

Blood drawing, transport, storage and analysis can all introduce their own errors. Lack of calibration can put the data off the charts. While Ashenden was measuring intermethod bias, he had to ignore 6 weeks of data from his reference machine, because it was uncalibrated, giving obviously bogus data.

Every type of potential source of error listed above can work both ways turning a false positive into a false negative or vice versa. If you feel the pre 2007/2009 protocols were so suboptimal for ABP then do you feel that they were also largely a waste of time for targeting athletes for the expensive EPO testing?

rekrunner wrote:

Altitude can increase an off score by ~8 points, turning 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100.

1 in 100 is still only a 1% chance. It is a cause for concern when someone is repeatedly throwing up unusual values even when above "only" the 1/10 or 1/100 thresholds.

rekrunner wrote:

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

No. In front of a parliamentary committee:

"Lord Coe could yet face further questions from MPs after being accused of giving ‘untrue’ and ‘contradictory’ evidence to a parliamentary select committee investigating blood doping in athletics."

A British national committing perjury in Britain isn't a crime?We probably both agree it's sabre rattling on the MPs part.

rekrunner wrote:

These aren't crimes. London Olympics was a good thing for the UK. Coe running the IAAF would seem to favor the UK. Was Coe on trial for things done by Diack? This whole congressional hearing seemed awkward to me, in "the little mouse that roared" kind of way. Can they sanction Coe? Fine the IAAF?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe#London_2012_Olympic_Games

Jon Orange wrote:

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.

? You just cited my citation directly from the IAAF document:

"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%')."

So this isn't about plasma shift, but about the concentration increase (stemming in part from the plasma shift).

Note that the cited 10-20% came under longer/harsher conditions, directly after the running, whereas Paula's blood had 60 - 90 minutes to return back to almost normal.

30% increase because her hem went from 12.0 g/dl (her book) to 15.6 g/dl (IAAF; 60 - 90 minutes after the 67 minute race).

15.6/12.0 = 1.3; in other words, 15.6 is 30% more than 12.0.

From the IAAF doc:

haemoglobin concentration (HGB)

...

The HGB reading was 15.6 g/dl.

Catcher Of The Wry wrote:

Fuentes...Operation Puerto...soon....

Are you thinking Ms. Radcliffe would be implicated in Puerto?

I'm not optimistic about Puerto. It's been a slow walk with nothing to show. Funny how that has worked out so well.

rekrunner wrote:

This whole congressional hearing seemed awkward to me, in "the little mouse that roared" kind of way. Can they sanction Coe? Fine the IAAF?

No and no.

So I guess that the parliament interviewed Coe to

a) show the world how tough they are

b) pretend they care about doping

c) prove what a great honest person their Lord Coe is.

However, c) didn't work out because Coe, with all his history, had to give "‘untrue’ and ‘contradictory’ evidence" (cited from the article linked above).

Wow. Now rekrunner says that the 12.0 g/dl value from 2003 which goes with the 82 OFF score is not reliable, even though the value comes from Paula herself in her biography where she discusses the low value and even mentions discussing the 12.0 value with an official at the race!

So now Paula herself is unreliable as a source for her own hemoglobin values!

Paula did slow down towards the end of the halfmarathon WC race, because she went out close to world record pace, and slowed down in the final 5k. Go check the splits. This information is also completely irrelevant.

Would you like the 2003 prerace hemoglobin value to now be 12.8 g/dl instead of 12.0g/dl? Fine. It doesn't make any difference in conclusions. An increase of 2.8g/dl in hemoglobin value in 2 days, from 12.8 to 15.6, with an OFF score that still goes from 82 to 114.87 in 2 days, is also not plausible, just like an increase of hemoglobin of 3.6 g/dl from 12.0 to 15.6, with the same OFF score increase of 33 points, is not plausibly explained by altitude or dehydration. Either increase is most plausibly explained by autologous blood transfusion.

Now, you just said that along with the increase in hemoglobin of 2.8g/dl mentioned in the IAAF report, that the IAAF REPORT AND DR. MARTIAL SAUGY SAID THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN HER RETICULOCYTE SCORE AT THE 2003 HALF MARATHON WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS FROM PRERACE TO POSTRACE.

Well, even though Paula or the IAAF did not release any prerace reticulocyte scores in 2003, I can calculate what the reticulocyte score was prerace in 2003, given the OFF score of 82 and a hemoglobin score of 12.8g/dl.

Just a simple algebra problem. You remember how to calculate an OFF score, right?

OFF score= hemoglobin value x 10 - 60 x(square root of reticulocyte% score).

So an OFF score of 82=128- 60 x (square root of reticulocyte % score X).

Solving for X, we come up with a prerace reticulocyte score of 0.5878%.

Feel free to check my math.........

Now, Paula had a post race OFF score of 114.87, with a hemoglobin level of 15.6 g/dl and a reticulocyte score of 0.47%.

This means that Paula's reticulocyte score DECREASED to a below normal value of 0.47% postrace from a normal prerace value of 0.5878% (or round up to 0.59%). That is a 20% decrease in reticulocyte score from prerace to post race!!!!!!! That is a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE!!!!

This also means that the IAAF in their report and Dr. Martial Saugy are NOT TELLING THE TRUTH when they say that there was no significant change in her reticulocyte score!!! There is a 20% decrease in reticulocyte score at the same time that her hemoglobin score has a huge increase of 2.8 g/dl from 12.8 to 15.6 g/dl, and her OFF score goes from 82 to 114.87 at the same time, all in 2 days!!!!!!!

Once again, in my opinion, the IAAF and Dr. Martial Saugy are NOT TELLING THE TRUTH in their whitewash reports. Paula's rapid and massive hemoglobin increase of 2.8 g/dl along with a 20% decrease in reticulocytes to a score below the normal range of 0.5 to 1.5% (remember that reticulocyte scores will decrease with a blood transfusion due to the dilution from the older, transfused blood) at the same time, along with a simultaneous 33 point increase in OFF scores, all in 2 days!!!, is absolutely consistent with the type of changes seen with an autologous blood transfusion.

Please try again IAAF and Dr. Martial Saugy, as a 20% decrease in reticulocytes to below normal range IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE!, that indicates a blood transfusion.

I have just caught the IAAF reports about Paula and Dr. Martial Saugy telling a BIG LIE!!!!!!..........Gosh, is that a big surprise???

The joke is on you IAAF and Dr. Martial Saugy!!!.......or should I say the IAAF and Dr. Saugy are just a big joke..........HA......HA........HA............!!!!!!!!!

I think you and the IAAF should just go back to your MASSIVE LAB ERROR and NO SCORES BEFORE 2009 COUNT argument, because then any blood results and any suspicious results are just declared NULL and VOID. No discussion is needed. It doesn't matter how crazy Paula's or Liliya Shobukhova's blood test results are, they simply DO NOT COUNT. Well, if they don't count, why do you continue to argue about them endlessly, to the point where you now say that hemoglobin scores reported by Paula herself in her biography could be incorrect! OK. Of course, for me and many other people, the old pre-2009 scores do count, and they are most plausibly explained by autologous blood transfusions.

And nobody has any comments about the news article about the IAAF deciding to do Paula A FAVOR by deciding to STOP ALL DOPE TESTING ON PAULA RADCLIFFE LEADING UP TO HER 2:17 MARATHON WORLD RECORD IN THE 2002 CHICAGO MARATHON, as they DEEMED TESTING PAULA AS POINTLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paula DEMANDED to be tested to prove she was clean, and was DELIGHTED that testing was arranged before the race.................

But nobody can see the results......trust me.......I AM CLEAN!......CLEAN!....CLEAN!.............THE IAAF AND DR. MARTIAL SAUGY SAYS I AM CLEAN!...CLEAN!.......CLEAN!!!!!!!!!!!

The IAAF and Dr. Martial "Plan B" Saugy are LIARS and FRAUDS.........

Go Paula!.........Go IAAF!.......Go Dr. "Plan B" Saugy!..............

This is the cold truth!Radcliffe had been a doper since day one!

That would be, but being British, and selling the London games is not.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

A British national committing perjury in Britain isn't a crime?

We probably both agree it's sabre rattling on the MPs part.

rekrunner wrote:

These aren't crimes. London Olympics was a good thing for the UK. Coe running the IAAF would seem to favor the UK. Was Coe on trial for things done by Diack? This whole congressional hearing seemed awkward to me, in "the little mouse that roared" kind of way. Can they sanction Coe? Fine the IAAF?

But what was the purpose? What can any possible outcome be? What if Bubka were president? Who would they grill?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This whole congressional hearing seemed awkward to me, in "the little mouse that roared" kind of way. Can they sanction Coe? Fine the IAAF?

No and no.

So I guess that the parliament interviewed Coe to

a) show the world how tough they are

b) pretend they care about doping

c) prove what a great honest person their Lord Coe is.

However, c) didn't work out because Coe, with all his history, had to give "‘untrue’ and ‘contradictory’ evidence" (cited from the article linked above).

It's easy for me to believe that in the process of writing a book, someone got the number wrong, and it made it to print. Better to look at the direct source, rather than an indirect one.I'm not convinced that a drop from 0.59 to 0.47 is significant, despite expressing it as 20%.Maybe in your practice, you have some real world examples of expected changes? See here, http://sportsscientists.com/2011/03/the-biological-passport-legal-scientific-and-performance-views/ for an example of known blood doping. If you look at runner B, between samples 3 and 4, for a 1.6 g/dl Hg increase, his RET dropped from 0.70 to 0.39. That's a 44% drop, for 1.6 g/dl compared to 20% for 2.8 g/dl. That's a bit more than twice the drop for a bit more than half the gain.In any case, I don't have to go back to any argument. All of the arguments are still there. I don't have to chose one over the others. An expert would have to analyze and dismiss all of them, before being certain of doping.

La la la la - I'm not listening - I can't hear you!

Autologus madness wrote:

Am I the only one to skip tall rekrunner post?