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

It still seems very one sided...

cleans wrote:

sayer of you mad bro wrote:

...

Fair play to rekrunner who does not stoop to personal attacks. Improbable explanations aplenty from rekrunner though.

I'm so pleased at the results of this thread.

Yep, fair play to him. He gets my respect for that too.

This would be a far less interesting - and very one-sided - thread without rekrunner's contributions.

And here is one more conspiracy fact for you readers...

Even though the Kenyan anti-doping administration in Kenya can't seem to get it together at all...and don't have the money for labs and blood testing equipment, etc., etc.....

....it turns out that manager Frederico Rosa has plenty of money...because he purchased his own blood testing machine and brought it to Kenya in Jan, 2015.

He said the purpose of getting the expensive blood testing machine was to show everyone that his athletes were clean, by using blood test results for his top Kenyan athletes at his 5 training camps in Kenya.

So far...over one year and 3 months later.....no Kenyan blood test results from the blood test machine of Frederico Rosa have been made public.

............Do you still think that I have "no clue".......... Renato?...........

Maybe for other values. But when your starting point is a low value, and a high value, and we examine the big difference, it's more likely explained by additive errors, rather cancelling ones.

equalizer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

1.0 -- machine brand bias

0.2 -- other measurement errors

Could not these also both work in the other direction making a "suspicious" reading "less suspicious"? If there was something like a machine brand bias I would have thought that someone would have pointed out that a batch of samples were looking "off" and they would have been remeasured (I assume samples were aliquoted because it seems crazy not to have at least a back up aliquot of the same sample).

Fair enough. This can help make a case depending on the circumstances.I'll retract it and keep it for another thread.Thanks.

The Scot wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

"Arguments" that show me there are not enough facts to make a standalone case:

- personal attacks

- creating and debunking a strawman

- ignoring/dismissing contradictory data

- appeals to cycling history

- any "just like Lance" arguments

- shooting the messenger

- multiple paragraphs of disparate events ending with the concluding "coincidence? You decide."

- don't be naive

- conspiracy theories

- trust me, I'm a doctor

- extrapolating amateur findings to elites

I don't feel it is appropriate to slip that last one in like that. There is a world of difference between it and the rest. It depends entirely on the specific context of what is being discussed, not to mention how hard one digs around in the literature. Even if there is literally no study of elites on a particular topic the extrapolation may or may not be appropriate.

rjm33 wrote:

So far...over one year and 3 months later.....no Kenyan blood test results from the blood test machine of Frederico Rosa have been made public.

.

That's just another one of those coincidences.

rjm33 wrote:

I can't tell when Renato is joking because he previously stated that Wang Junxia had 2 hearts......remember that one! ....and we thought he was serious.

l

Yes, it's true. One of the hearts has a turbo-charger that sucks pure oxygen out of the air by osmosis through her chest cavity.

RJM 33 - I am not sure if you answered this before. Could you please describe what it takes to do the transfusions that you think occurred? I want to understand the competence and logistics (preparation, location, etc.). The more people who are involved, the greater likelihood there is that someone would talk one day. Thanks.

..Good one!...I am still laughing!

Here is another funny coincidence...

....besides the coincidence of both Paula and Lance having a history with Dr. Saugy.... and the Lausanne lab run by Dr. Saugy is actually referred to in an email by Nick Davies to Papa Diack as their "plan B" for testing if there were problems at the Moscow lab. Nick Davies was also Coe's right hand man...before running into some ethics investigation problems. In the email he also states that the plan B to use Dr. Martial Saugy's lab was confirmed by the head of antidoping at the IAAF, Gabriel Dolle... who is now under investigation for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes...

Readers may also remember that 67 Russian doping samples were later destroyed at the lab of Dr. Saugy. He still runs the Lausanne lab and is, of course, Paula's blood test "expert".

So the crazy conspiracy idea of Dr. "Plan B" Saugy actually comes from documented emails from actual people at the IAAF.

.....I never made any of that up in my weak, conspiracy mind induced psychosis....

...so here is another funny coincidence...

.....speaking of Frederico Rosa purchasing an expensive blood testing machine to show that all his Kenyan runners are clean.....

.....remember when Lance Armstrong purchased an expensive blood testing machine for the UCI... to help the UCI catch cheaters that were doping...

......It is possible that the machine that Lance purchased for the UCI had lots of possible calibration error and other possible variation/error problems.....

...because the machine never seemed to work very well in catching cheaters that were doping...

.....but hey....at least Lance Armstrong tried to help out in the fight against doping...........

I wish western Europe and the UK would stop ganging upon Russia. Russia does not have a higher or lower percentage of dopers than any other country.

Here's the thing....

I've been coming to this site for over 10 years and this has been one of my favourite threads...

And rjm33 is the most informative and entertaining poster on it.

... GO RJM33!......................

Alan Klingsman Jr wrote:

I wish western Europe and the UK would stop ganging upon Russia. Russia does not have a higher or lower percentage of dopers than any other country.

Not too complicated...Lance and many cyclists did transfusions and IVs in their hotel rooms...or even on the cycling team bus.

On this thread of over 1,300 posts, I have already covered: calculating OFF scores, hemoglobin, hematocrit, reticulocytes, plasma volume changes!, effects of altitude training, dehydration, hemoconcentration, EPO, HIF stabilizers, cobalt choride, inhalation of Argon and Xenon noble gases, homologous and autologous blood transfusions, PGC1alpha and mitochondrial function as being important in endurance training adaptation, the history of blood doping including Dr. Conconi, Dr. Ferrari, Dr. Fuentes, etc. (and we can maybe someday add this new British doctor Dr. Mark Bonar, that we just found about today!), and all of Paula's various contradicting stories and changing explanations.

I am sorry....but I am not going to go into details on how a blood transfusion is done. Do your own reading... learn to think clearly for yourself...and come up with your own conclusions.

.......I do not think that any reader should ever.... just trust me.....

......I am just an anonymous conspiracy wacko with severe weak mind disease that has "no clue"... who is just having a psychotic episode here at the LRC forum.....right?

..........Go Paula!!!...........Go Readers!!!.........Go Steve Jones!!!....

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe for other values. But when your starting point is a low value, and a high value, and we examine the big difference, it's more likely explained by additive errors, rather cancelling ones.

equalizer wrote:

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

1.0 -- machine brand bias

0.2 -- other measurement errors

Could not these also both work in the other direction making a "suspicious" reading "less suspicious"? If there was something like a machine brand bias I would have thought that someone would have pointed out that a batch of samples were looking "off" and they would have been remeasured (I assume samples were aliquoted because it seems crazy not to have at least a back up aliquot of the same sample).

What you say does not change the fact that these errors can still work against what you are saying. This is regardless of the size of the difference because the size of the difference does not influence how these errors are working. You (or we) do not know whether machine brand bias was over or under measuring values, and similarly you do not know whether measurement errors were producing a value that was too high or too low. You are trying to justify the difference with various factors but you do not know which way some of these factors are influencing the observed difference.

In fact with these errors the difference could be an even bigger difference to that what has been identified and these errors could have made the difference "less suspicious" than it already is. Without any more specific information there is no way to determine how these errors are working.

Mikey Carroll wrote:

Here's the thing....

I've been coming to this site for over 10 years and this has been one of my favourite threads...

And rjm33 is the most informative and entertaining poster on it.

... GO RJM33!......................

I think this thread is popular because it touches on many issues that are dragging the popularity and credibility of athletics down, to a point where it may never regain the popularity it once had. And we find that sad.

Paula happens to be the focus of this, perhaps because she is the nearest athletics has to a Lance Armstrong figure:

- never tested positive

- record holder

- made lots of money from the sport

- close to the governing body's president

here is an early rjm33 post from this threadwhat is notable is how coherent and lucid it is in comparison to the grandstanding style that has taken over recently.Please just return to this style, your content is good but you are detracting from it with the ramblingthxvmch

Marco Pantani NEVER tested positive for doping for anything in his entire career...

...and you just saw the list of everything he was taking with Dr. Fuentes back in 2003...

......of course Lance won the Tour de France in 2003...

....his doctor was Dr. Conconi's student and former assistant......Dr. Michele Ferrari......

.......like I have said in previous posts....I have spent some time at Dr. Ferrari's website... and in my opinion...Dr. Ferrari is a very smart guy...a mad genius in a way.

He is presently in trouble with Italian tax authorities for hiding large amounts of money in secret bank accounts....

....unfortunately for Dr. Ferrari.... the secret bank accounts are no longer secret....

I am sorry...but all posts from BEFORE the weak-mind disease induced psychosis with messianic "save the world" and "reveal the truth" themes have all been declared INVALID.

Description of transfusions wrote:

RJM 33 - I am not sure if you answered this before. Could you please describe what it takes to do the transfusions that you think occurred? I want to understand the competence and logistics (preparation, location, etc.). The more people who are involved, the greater likelihood there is that someone would talk one day. Thanks.

No. Not really. I wish it were more risky to inspire confessions, but it isn't.

It's not particularly illegal and the IAAF loves Paula. So Paula's cohorts are probably doing fine as well.

Another way to look at it is through the trial of Eufemiano Fuentes in Spain. He was defiant to the day of his conviction with the courts reminding him he didn't have to cooperate with law enforcement. The institutional support for doping, internationally is enormous.

...and J. K. ....................Are you kidding me???...........

...You are asking a psychotic conspiracy theorist to be more lucid, coherent, and less rambling when posting and telling his wacko conspiracy stories on the LRC forum....

...like I said ...weak mind disease is very, very, very common here at the LRC forum....My theory is that it is contagious...trust me...I am a doctor....