rekrunner wrote:
"The history of 12 and 13" is not true, and it is not meaningful. Ross Tucker and the Daily Mail cannot save that.
Those are actual experimental data. The fact that they - literally by definition - come with uncertainties, does not make them "not true" or "not real". Why do you lie so much?
rekrunner wrote:
We've been at a stalemate for years, both saying nothing new, because you chose to ignore half the facts, and make wrong interpretations (like 0.7 is a high RET% when the normal range is 0.5% to 1.5%) that were rebutted and debunked years ago by the half of the facts you ignore.
And you are back to straight lying again. I didn't say 0.77 (rounded to 0.8, not 0.7) is high, I said it is highER, namely than the 0.44 Paula had after her other two altitude stints with Hb values of 12.0 - 13.4(ish).
Those are the experimental data - stop lying about them:
After altitude in 2003: Hb = 12.0 g/dL , RET-% 0.44 (after race 15.6)
After altitude in 2012: Hb = 16.2 g/dL, RET-% 0.77 (no race)
Yes, she was higher up in 2012, which may cause higher Hb. But we know that if Hb raises a lot due to the altitude effect, RET plummets down. Yet her RET-% were higher with higher Hb - that effect is reached with using EPO.
The rise of 3.6 g/dL within two days and 67 minutes of racing in the low 70s can't be explained with altitude either. Yes, hemoconcentration is real, but not known to cause a 30% increase, especially not in such a normal scenario, 60 - 90 minutes after the race.
Instead of trolling me again, spend some 5 - 10 minutes trying to understand this citation:
" but an off-score of 82 recorded on October 2, 2003 meant an off-score of 115 two days later wasn’t down to altitude (or else the 82 would have been far higher); and an off-score of 92 on August 5, 2005 meant an off-score of 109 the next day wasn’t down to altitude for the same reasons. "