Mo Farah sues Ben Bloom

Coe feeling pressure wrote:

The real truth about Farah is coming.

Lol, but sadly, no.

Why do you hate Paula so much that you have to remind us in literally any of your "discussions" of her high Hct? As we all know, Paula only got away because the three experts couldn't agree on a verdict. Not exactly evidence for a false positive.

Again, strawman. I never said the IAAF should test "8000 Arabians". But, if the IAAF really wants to catch cheats, and if they really "do intelligent testing to go after the most likely dopers" (two big IFs), then they should have a much higher rate than 2% of positive tests, as over 50% are drug cheats.

To explain the above, there are three possibilities:

1) The IAAF goes after the wrong athletes.

2) It is too easy to beat the tests.

3) 1+2.

Why would this open and shut altitude case make you think I hate Paula? It looks like exactly the reason why we have different sea level and altitude thresholds. You insisted on an example, something I thought was unnecessary, so I gave you one I knew you were well aware of, having researched it on your own. The evidence is that it was flagged in the first place, as it was obviously elevated due to a lengthy stay at high altitude, as the committee of experts noted, before closing the case.

I note again that 2% is percentage of samples while 50% is percentage of athletes, not to mention, the over 50% was for Arabians only. What is your basis for expecting the detection rate should be higher?

Do you know how the IAAF detection rate compares relative to other sports? Can you give me an example of other sports which have better positive sample detection rates versus doped athletes?

Because it was not an "open and shut altitude case", after all: "Paula only got away because the three experts couldn't agree on a verdict. " Also, an "open and shut altitude case" would have been shut after the first expert looked at the facts, but alas, he did not believe that altitude was a likely explanation.

And because you picked this one - highly questionable - case out of your allegedly many examples.

And it was predictable, that you would lie about that case as per usual, trolling me into correcting you again.

And here you go, as expected:

False. As you know. It was not "obviously elevated due to a lengthy stay at high altitude"; rather 1 or 2 of the three experts were convinced that doping was the only possible way for Paula to reach such values (including a normal RET-%) , and 2 or 1 of the three experts were convinced that it might have been possibly caused by altitude.

Huge difference. Yuuuge. Stop trolling.

Why did the experts not agree with each other? What were their arguments? Was is a 1 : 2 or 2 : 1 split? We don't know, because unlike, say, CAS and USADA, IAAF stands against transparency, and does not want us to know the details of the verdict.

Why is unanimity required for a guilty verdict, and not just a 2 : 1 vote? We don't know, but that's apparently what IAAF and WADA want.

Lol. My words were: "2% of positive tests". You are not even trying anymore.

To be precise, it was < 2% in several years, but ok.

Thanks again for another demonstration of an exaggerated interpretation unique to you: that the 2012 sample is highly questionable, and unanimity of experts is a loophole. What you call "correcting me" is even too far out for tabloids to claim. I recall what our resident expert non-expert doctor on blood values had to say:

Hmmm. rjm33. Prolific poster of anti-Paula and anti-Coe UK articles. Experience with 6000 blood tests, including with 2:30 female and 2:12 male marathoners. Practiced at altitude, 2160m for 26 years. Says normal RET% doesn't indicate transfusion or EPO use. Gives Paula the benefit of the doubt. Passed the test, enough for him. Clean athlete at altitude is plausible.

Regarding this point, I stand with rjm33, before the transition. If it's good enough for him, that's good enough for me.

Two years ago, I gave you a link that 2400m can increase Hgb up to 1.4 g/dl in women (14 points in off-score). I even gave you a link that some doctors consider values of 16.5 g/dl NORMAL for WOMEN at SEA LEVEL. And we recently I gave a peer-reviewed quote from Ashenden (your study on EPO micro-dosing), that RET% is at its nadir 10-14 days after (stimulation of RBC production) ceases. I stand with Ashenden. Paula's test occurred 8 days after nearly 4 weeks at 2400m. What's that worth, maybe another 3-5 points? 8 days after nearly 4 weeks at 2400m, Paula's off-score was 6 points above the population sea-level threshold, and 2 points BELOW the population ALTITUDE THRESHOLD. Seems highly plausible that corrected for sea-level, her Hgb would be below 15 (within rjm33's "normal" range) and her off-score would be mid to low-90's.

These are real reasons why others think altitude is plausible, why your highly questionable questions have been asked and answered, and why "there was no basis to pursue the case as a potential adverse passport finding".

But go ahead -- desperately cling to a notion that even the tabloids find too far out to claim, cling to the hope that what you don't know would vindicate you, cling to a hope that a case that was too uncompelling to achieve expert unanimity is a strong case, and keep calling "no basis for potential adverse passport finding" an "ABP-violation".

I also note you failed to elaborate why you expect the success rate of sample testing should be higher that 1-2%, and why that is a failure unique to the IAAF. Is that a reflection of the IAAF testing, or simply (and sadly) the state of the art of anti-doping testing?

Rek this doesn't mean we can rule out microdosing. It is all about the rules of the game. Back in 2003/05 Paula knew that all she needed to do was have no sign of epo in her samples, while running up really high off scores, that would see her banned today. By 2012 this was the micro-dose era, where all blood metrics are monitored. Paula was waiting for testers to come and clear her. Then the doping begins, Conte has warned WADA repeatedly, don't test them once and comeback again in 2-3 weeks time. Test them in the morning, then surprise them at 11:00 that night, then in 2 days time etc send them a message.

ESAs perhaps.

What is wrong with you? First you lie, then I correct you with historical facts, then you use a letsrun poster's hasty opinion (which he later changed!) that says what some experts say who prove that you lied. And you use that to attack me?

First, your lie:

"The evidence is that it was flagged in the first place, as it was obviously elevated due to a lengthy stay at high altitude, as the committee of experts noted, before closing the case."

Then the historical facts:

"As you know. It was not "obviously elevated due to a lengthy stay at high altitude"; rather 1 or 2 of the three experts were convinced that doping was the only possible way for Paula to reach such values (including a normal RET-%) , and 2 or 1 of the three experts were convinced that it might have been possibly caused by altitude. "

How did you IAAF phrase what some of the reviewers thought?

"this altitude exposure was a plausible explanation"

Then rjm:

"I think this score could be obtained by a clean athlete at altitude"

No one outside of you ever said that "it was obviously elevated due to a lengthy stay at high altitude".

And it is not my hope that the experts decision was not unanimous, that's a historical fact.

All the rest: strawman. Booooring.

I am done here. Troll somebody else. And get over Paula already; she got away with it, so what?

But this is all wishful thinking and baseless speculation.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Rek this doesn't mean we can rule out microdosing. It is all about the rules of the game. Back in 2003/05 Paula knew that all she needed to do was have no sign of epo in her samples, while running up really high off scores, that would see her banned today. By 2012 this was the micro-dose era, where all blood metrics are monitored. Paula was waiting for testers to come and clear her. Then the doping begins, Conte has warned WADA repeatedly, don't test them once and comeback again in 2-3 weeks time. Test them in the morning, then surprise them at 11:00 that night, then in 2 days time etc send them a message.

ESAs perhaps.

rekrunner wrote:

But this is all wishful thinking and baseless speculation.

Is everything "baseless speculation" to you?

That's great. One thread down, one to go. What is wrong with me is that I started replying to you three years ago, and I haven't stopped. It's like the alcoholic who knows drinking is bad for him, but still can't resist the next drink. I beg to differ but it still looks like you are confused between lies and historical facts. It is a scientific and measurably observed fact that an extended stay of nearly 4 weeks at 2400m will produce highly elevated Hgb values, up to 1.4 g/dl higher in women. Frankly it's amazing to me that you continue to deny and ignore and argue this. A sample that falls below the population altitude threshold, after an extended stay at a really high altitude, is simply not that damning. Your characterization that any "experts were convinced that doping was the only possible way" is a massive distortion, and your dithering on whether it was 1 or 2 experts is actually irrelevant, fabricating a controversy where none exists. One expert flagging a sample, without complete information, for further review, at the most preliminary first stage, is far from a final determination, and far from any tacit admission that "doping was the only possible way". Paula got away with what -- altitude training? Whew that was a close one.

No. Only things with no basis.

Thunder Thighs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But this is all wishful thinking and baseless speculation.

Is everything "baseless speculation" to you?

You really need to read the WADA ABP guidelines Rekrunner, because Casual Observer is correct and you are talking garbage.

The first expert who looked at Paula's profile concluded that it was 'highly likely' that this was the result of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method (page 48). And that's after having all the information about training at altitude and sleeping in a hypoxic tent available from the Doping Control Documentation (page 30) and of course her whole ABP profile with (one imagines) lots of data points.

Here's where it gets unclear. There's two potential stages that Paula's test could have now taken. Either it was 'cleared' when the panel of three experts looked into it (page 49) OR (and here it gets interesting) the three experts initially agreed that it was still highly likely that it was the result of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and asked for a further response from the athlete. This is documented on pages 50-52. (It includes the comical quote 'The review at this stage is anonymous, however it is accepted that some specific information provided may allow one to identify the athlete. This shall not affect the validity of the process'.)

As I've said on another thread, Paula states in this interview (

) that she was notified about this test result and 'told them' that she was injured at altitude, and therefore 'not crushing the red blood cells'. This suggests that it's pretty likely that all three experts did conclude (initially) that she was using a Prohibited Substance/Method, and she was only cleared after providing this additional information.

Three things to note:

- as WADA themselves note, there's suddenly (perhaps inevitably) a total lack of anonymity in the testing process at this stage. How might this have impacted the process?

- There's never been any confirmation of Paula being injured in Kenya other than her telling us this - indeed to the contrary, interviews conducted a week before she left had her telling us how she was running 150km a week, running twice a day, really running hard etc etc.

- I've never seen any confirmation/evidence that 'being injured and not crushing the red blood cells' will result in higher Hb and therefore a higher Off-score. Anyone?

Dr. Stray-Gundersen needs to look at the hemoglobin levels in his OWN altitude study that used US elite male and female runners.

J Appl Physiol (1985). 2001 Sep;91(3):1113-20.

"Living high-training low" altitude training improves sea level performance in male and female elite runners.

Stray-Gundersen J1, Chapman RF, Levine BD.

Abstract

Acclimatization to moderate high altitude accompanied by training at low altitude (living high-training low) has been shown to improve sea level endurance performance in accomplished, but not elite, runners. Whether elite athletes, who may be closer to the maximal structural and functional adaptive capacity of the respiratory (i.e., oxygen transport from environment to mitochondria) system, may achieve similar performance gains is unclear. To answer this question, we studied 14 elite men and 8 elite women before and after 27 days of living at 2,500 m while performing high-intensity training at 1,250 m. The altitude sojourn began 1 wk after the USA Track and Field National Championships, when the athletes were close to their season's fitness peak.

Sea level 3,000-m time trial performance was significantly improved by 1.1% (95% confidence limits 0.3-1.9%). One-third of the athletes achieved personal best times for the distance after the altitude training camp.

The improvement in running performance was accompanied by a 3% (actually 3.2% improvement) in maximal oxygen uptake (=VO2max) from (72.1 +/- 1.5 to 74.4 +/- 1.5 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)).

Circulating erythropoietin levels were near double initial sea level values 20 h after ascent (8.5 +/- 0.5 to 16.2 +/- 1.0 IU/ml). Soluble transferrin receptor levels were significantly elevated on the 19th day at altitude, confirming a stimulation of erythropoiesis (2.1 +/- 0.7 to 2.5 +/- 0.6 microg/ml).

Hb concentration measured at sea level increased 1.0 g/dL over the course of the camp (13.3 +/- 0.2 to 14.3 +/- 0.2 g/dl). We conclude that 4 wk of acclimatization to moderate altitude, accompanied by high-intensity training at low altitude, improves sea level endurance performance even in elite runners. Both the mechanism and magnitude of the effect appear similar to that observed in less accomplished runners, even for athletes who may have achieved near maximal oxygen transport capacity for humans.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11509506

Their hemoglobin levels of male and female elite US runners went from an average of 13.3 g/dL to 14.3 g/dL (7.5% increase) after 27 days of altitude training, which is a typical 5 to 10% maximum seen with altitude training. Their VO2 max levels increased by an average of 3.2%, and their time in a 3000m improved by 1.1%. This would be the equivalent of about 20 seconds of improvement for a 30:00 10000m runner to improve to 29:40. This is similar to other studies which I have seen.

A 1.0 g/dL increase in hemoglobin increases VO2max around 3.2 to 3.3%, which leads to ~ 1.1% improvement in actual race time or time trial performance.

It turns out that Ms. Paula Radcliffe is not going to settle for a puny and pathetic increase of normal hemoglobin values from 13.3 g/dL to normal hemoglobin values of 14.3 g/dL after altitude training. Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe's hemoglobin value goes up to a way ABOVE NORMAL RANGE value of 16.2 g/dL after altitude training in Kenya.

The numbers from Renato Canova for Sondre Moen (male) had maximum hemoglobin values of 15.3 g/dL (OFF score 103) and 15.1 g/dL (=14.1 g/dL in a female) with an OFF score of 92 after altitude training.

Ms. Radcliffe is also not going to settle for a puny and pathetic 1.0 g/dL increase in her hemoglobin levels after 27 days of altitude training to a puny and pathetic level of only 14.3 g/dL.

There is NO WAY that Ms. Radcliffe is going to settle for such pathetic normal female human hemoglobin values.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/04/12/005A4F6F00000258-3303406-image-a-35_1446640504599.jpg

Ha Ha Ha

rekrunner wrote:

No. Only things with no basis.

Thunder Thighs wrote:

Is everything "baseless speculation" to you?

Part 2:

Ha Ha Ha:

Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe's hemoglobin level can increase by a massive 2.8 g/dL from 12.8 g/dL to an ABOVE NORMAL RANGE value of 15.6 g/dL in ONLY 2 DAYS...at the same time that her reticulocyte% is decreasing by 20% to a BELOW NORMAL RANGE value of 0.47% of RBCs. (ha ha ha)

Here is a math example using the numbers from the Stray-Gundersen study:

If a 1.0 g/dL increase in hemoglobin increases VO2max by 3.2% and performance by 1.1%, we multiply everything by 2.8 for Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe. Let's assume that Paula could of run a 2:20:00 marathon clean with normal hemoglobin levels for a female human...but she increased her normal female human hemoglobin levels by 2.8 g/dL IN ONLY 2 DAYS to an ABOVE NORMAL RANGE (= ABNORMAL=ATYPICAL=SUSPICIOUS=LIKELY DOPING) HEMOGLOBIN VALUE OF 15.6 g/dL FOR A FEMALE HUMAN...which increases her VO2max by (2.8 x 3.2%) = 9.0%...and increases her performance by (2.8 x 1.1%) = 3.08%.

A 3.08% performance improvement for a 2:20:00 marathon = 140 minutes x 0.9692 = 135.688 minutes = 2:15:41 predicted marathon time.

Actual World Record Marathon time for Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe = 2:15:25

OK.

It turns out that my marathon time prediction for Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe is off by...16 seconds.

It is just a Coincidental Synchronicity™.

Why does Stray-Gundersen think that Ms. Radcliffe having a hemoglobin level of 16.2 g/dL is normal in a female is normal after altitude training???

A hemoglobin level of 16.2 g/dL would of caused Ms. Radcliffe to be BANNED FROM COMPETITION IN CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING...and the equivalent 48.6% hematocrit (= 51.6% in a male) was also above the 47% cutoff hematocrit level used in female professional cyclists, which would of caused Ms. Radcliffe to be BANNED FROM COMPETITION IN PROFESSIONAL CYCLING.

He probably just looked at the OFF score of 109.35 and thought that it was just under the cutoff level. He probably never saw the actual 16.2 g/dL number. The OFF scores used in the ABP to avoid false positives (high specificity) sacrifices sensitivity (= lots of false negatives in the ABP), so it was only able to detect about 45% of EPO microdosing in the Scandinavian study under normal conditions. The detection dropped to around 11% by drinking 1000mL of water 1 hour before the test, which lowered the OFF scores by about 3%. Lance Armstrong was famous for evading testers and doing an intravenous saline IV to lower his Hct score to stay below the 50% cutoff in cycling. There are also cyclists who have been banned for using plasma volume expanders such as hydroxyethyl starch (HES) to manipulate Hct and hemoglobin concentrations on blood tests.

EPO and autologous blood transfusions also work well together. When the RBCs are removed, there is a dramatic decrease in RBCs and HB on the blood tests, which might be detected. An explanation of "sickness"..."antibiotic use" etc might be used try to explain the decrease in hemoglobin levels. The VO2max goes down and performance goes down after the blood removal. Lance and Tyler always complained about how tired they were in training after the RBC removal to store for their autologous blood transfusions, which they used for important competitions.

The lifespan of an RBC is about 120 days, so about 1% of RBCs have to be replaced with new RBCs, which are called reticulocytes, which have a normal range of 0.5 to 1.5% of RBCs (not total blood volume like hemoglobin). Reticulocytes are a marker of the process of erythropoiesis. They will have a small increase some with a hypoxic stimulus such as altitude, or a small decrease for about 3 to 4 weeks after altitude training because the hypoxic stimulus of altitude has been removed. The effect is much weaker than EPO use.

Reticulocytes increase a lot with EPO use to an above normal range value of up to 2 or 3% of RBCs, indicating increased erythropoiesis. The OFF score picks up EPO use 1 to 3 weeks after EPO is stopped. The athlete is OFF EPO, which is why the method has that name. The massive stimulus for erythropoiesis (rhEPO injections) has been removed. The body has an oxygen regulation system which involves Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1alpha (HIF-1alpha), which is a transcription factor for about 200 genes, including the gene for endogenous EPO synthesis by cells in the kidney which produce EPO. The EPO binds to EPO receptors in the bone marrow, and new RBCs are produced. When EPO use is stopped, the reticulocytes will decrease a lot, frequently to below normal range, but the hemoglobin level still remains high for weeks after the EPO use is stopped.

For example, a leaked OFF score of 135 with a hemoglobin level of 16.9 g/dL in Mariya Sharapova can be solved for the reticulocyte% score which gives the 135 OFF score = Hb x 10 - 60 (square root of the reticulocyte%)= 0.32% reticulocyte score, which is below normal range of 0.5 to 1.5%. EPO is also useful after the removal of blood to increase the speed of recovery of blood levels of RBCs, hemoglobin, and aerobic performance. Ms. Radcliffe did not use EPO before the 2003 or 2005 World Championships because her hemoglobin levels and OFF scores would be high pre-competition if she used EPO...and her pre-competition scores were 82 (with a hemoglobin level of 12.8 g/dL in 2003), and 92 (with an unknown hemoglobin and reticulocyte level) in 2005. These are normal scores within normal range...which rapidly increase in 1 or 2 days to ABOVE NORMAL RANGE hemoglobin levels of 15.6 g/dL in 2003, and 15.1 g/dL in 2005...at the same time that she has BELOW NORMAL RANGE reticulocyte scores.

This is evidence of an autologous blood transfusion by Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe at the 2003 World Championship and 2005 World Championship. These were races that were important. Blood transfusions can only be done a few times per year for major events, while EPO, HIF stabilizers such as FibroGen's FG-4592 (roxadustat), and xenon and/or krypton noble gas inhalation to increase endogenous EPO levels and stimulate erythropoiesis can all be used at any time during the year.

Some "very smart doctors with no integrity" like Dr. Michele Ferrari and Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes would even sometimes use EPO MICRODOSING close to competition to try to increase the reticulocyte% score, in addition to using a saline IV just before competition (to decrease the high hemoglobin value at the same time) in an attempt to MASK THE AUTOLOGOUS BLOOD TRANSFUSION (which can cause the reticulocyte score to decrease by the dilution from the old stored blood... which is seen in the 20% decrease of reticulocytes (from 0.59% of RBCs to a BELOW NORMAL RANGE value of 0.47% of RBCs) blood test results for Ms. Paula Radcliffe at the 2003 World Half-marathon Championships. The very LOW reticulocyte scores of 0.47% and 0.47% for Ms. Paula Radcliffe in 2003 and 2005, respectively, are not even close to the normal reticulocyte level of 1.0% used by Stray-Gunderson in his "examples."

Using an altitude chamber after coming back from Kenya (where she may have used EPO out-of-competition to raise her hemoglobin level to 16.2 g/dL) might keep the reticulocyte score higher than it would normally be after EPO use. The urine EPO test will be negative 3 to 5 days after subcutaneous administration and perhaps only around 16 hours after intravenous EPO microdosing.

The only way to detect EPO use is in out-of-competition testing because the athletes are going to stop EPO use before the competition. Rita Jeptoo and Jemima Sumgong were caught doping with EPO in OOC urine tests.

There were no ABP sanctions done by the IAAF before 2009, so they couldn't ban Ramzi (even though he had very abnormal blood test results with an OFF score of 157) until he had a urine test which was positive for CERA (3rd generation EPO with a half-life 20X longer than regular EPO) in 2008.

In conclusion:

1) Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe is a Brit-Doper-Cheater-Liar-Fraud™.

I have some new studies about the timing of blood tests and the effects of dehydration on hemoglobin values in marathon runners in hot conditions versus more temperate conditions.

You remember the David Costill study from the 1970s with men that ran for 2.5 to 3 hours (probably with fluid restriction also) to cause dehydration with the loss of 4% of bodyweight (=6lbs in a 150 lb male). Hypohydration is defined as the loss of 2% or more of bodyweight, which can decrease performance. The average in that study was a hemoglobin increase of 1.6 g/dL. That is the largest increase that I have been able to find in a study. The other studies, including one with women that ran for 1 hour and 20 minutes showed very small changes including either small increases or even small decreases of hemoglobin levels of 0.2 or 0.3 g/dL after running with no 2 hour waiting period.

Here is a new study with male marathon runners running a marathon in 2 different temperature conditions.

Twenty-six Brazilian male endurance runners participated in this study and ran in both 26.2 mile marathon races.

Both races were commenced at 08:00 a.m. and fluid ingestion was allowed ad libitum during the race. Water was provided at every 2-3 km on the running course, sports drinks at 18 and 36 km, and potato or carbohydrate gel at 30 km. The weather parameters at São Paulo International Marathon in 2014 (HE) between 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. were average TEMPERATURE of 31.4°C, maximum temperature of 35°C, and minimum temperature of 25.8°C; and average relative humidity of 30.4%, maximum relative humidity of 51%, and minimum relative humidity of 26% (National Institute of Meteorology, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Supply).

The weather parameters at the São Paulo International Marathon in 2015 (TE) between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. were average TEMPERATURE of 19.8°C, maximum temperature of 22.6°C, and minimum temperature of 16.7°C; and average relative humidity of 72.8%, maximum relative humidity of 86%, and minimum relative humidity of 61% (National Institute of Meteorology, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Supply).

In Hot Environment, the hemoglobin value increased by 0.2 g/dL while in Temperate Environment decreased by 0.2 g/dL after the race:

Hemoglobin (g/dL)

Before Immediately after

HE 15.4 ± 0.2 15.6 ± 0.2 (increase of 0.2 g/dL)

TE 15.2 ± 0.2 15.0 ± 0.2 (decrease of 0.2 g/dL)

Hematocrit (%)

Before Immediately after

HE 47 ± 0.5 46 ± 0.5∗

TE 47 ± 0.5 46 ± 0.5∗

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5753004/

Check out what is stated in this other study on World Cup soccer players who are being given blood tests for analysis at a WADA lab.

The quality of the analyses was at the required level as described in the WADA technical documents. The urinary steroid profiles of the players were stable and consistent with previously published papers on football players. During the competition, amphetamine was detected in a sample collected on a player who had a therapeutic use exemption for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The blood passport data showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in hemoglobin values between out-of-competition and postmatch samples.

"Whole blood samples were collected from all the qualified players during the OOC tests and all tested players after the games. The WADA procedures for the blood tests, as described in the operational guidelines for the biological passport, were entirely applied, except for the 2 h delay before blood collection after the match. In the operating guidelines, the appendix A is dedicated to the blood sample collection requirements. “If collection occurs after training or Competition, test planning shall … ensure testing does not occur within two hours of such activity…If for some reason, the Sample was taken within two hours of training or competition, the nature, duration and intensity of the exertion shall be recorded.”

"For logistical reasons, the 2 HOUR WAIT after exercise was NOT FEASIBLE at the FIFA World Cup and, therefore, was not applied.

"In fact, antidoping tests in football right after the game have always been challenging because of the players. In principle, blood collection is not time-consuming, in contrast to urine sampling. For this reason, the antidoping authorities of FIFA collect the blood tests as soon as the player arrives in the antidoping collection room, directly after the game. Depending on the location of the antidoping room in the stadium and the duration of press interviews, the time after exercise can vary from 15 and 90 min, if the player was still on the pitch at the end of the game. Furthermore, the nature and the duration of participation in the competition were recorded.

"The main lesson learned from the FIFA World Cup 2014 were:

(1) meticulous organisation of antidoping tests on the field and well-controlled shipments of samples to the laboratory by the antidoping authority does not compromise the samples. This allows the accredited laboratory to provide valid results.

(2) No differences were observed between out-of-competition and postcompetition for hematological values."

It is just a Coincidental Synchronicity™.

Check out the names of all of the people on this study.

One of the names on this study is:

Dr. Martial Plan B Saugy = the (former) director of the WADA Lausanne, Switzerland lab...and the "blood test expert" for Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe.

The study was done at the Lausanne WADA lab during the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil. Over 1000 samples were collected in total and analysed in the WADA accredited Laboratory of Lausanne.

Figure 9 shows that the parameters measured for the red cell lines are not significantly different between IC and OOC samples.

As observed in table 2, there is homogeneity in the blood data between the different groups, with no significant effect within the groups, if the collection was done IC or OOC.

Blood passport values of players depending on their position and the time spent on the field

Position and time spent on the field (minimum) In competition Precompetition

HGB RET OFF-score HGB (g/dL) RET (%) OFF-score

Defender 96 14.9 1.24 82.9 14.9 1.21 83.9

 0–45 45 14.8 1.25 81.1

 45–90 3 14.8 0.96 89.7

 90–135 48 15.1 1.25 84.2

Forward 78 15.1 1.26 84.0 15.1 1.22 85.4

 0–45 38 14.8 1.27 80.8

 45–90 19 15.6 1.31 88.4

 90–135 21 15.1 1.20 85.9

Goalkeeper4315.0 1.15 86.2 15.2 1.24 86.5

 0–45 26 15.0 1.11 87.4

 45–90 2 16.1 1.49 87.4

 90–135 15 14.9 1.18 84.0

Midfielder88 15.3 1.25 86.2 15.1 1.21 85.8

 0–45 42 15.2 1.26 85.6

 45–90 15 15.5 1.11 92.6

 90–135 31 15.2 1.30 83.9

Unknown156 15.1 1.20 85.5

Total/mean 15.1 1.24 84.6 15.1 1.21 85.3

Figure 10

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.

Object name is bjsports-2015-094762f10.jpg

Cumulative frequency distribution curves for haemoglobin (left panel) and reticulocytes (right panel) in the in competition (red line) and out-of-competition (black line) samples.

Check out the 2 to 3% reticulocyte levels seen out-of-competition indicating EPO use versus 3% rectiulocyte levels not seen in competition.

Check out the 0.47% reticulocyte scores for Ms. Paula Radcliffe on the frequency distribution curve.

Check out the 15.6 g/dL hemoglobin level for Ms. Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe which is at the same time as the atypical reticulocyte score.

Check out the frequency of a 16.2 g/dL hemoglobin level on the frequency distribution curve for MALES.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25878079

"Whole blood samples were collected from all the qualified players during the OOC tests and all tested players after the games. The WADA procedures for the blood tests, as described in the operational guidelines for the biological passport, were entirely applied, except for the 2 h delay before blood collection after the match. In the operating guidelines, the appendix A is dedicated to the blood sample collection requirements. “If collection occurs after training or Competition, test planning shall … ensure testing does not occur within two hours of such activity…If for some reason, the Sample was taken within two hours of training or competition, the nature, duration and intensity of the exertion shall be recorded.”

"For logistical reasons, the 2 HOUR WAIT after exercise was NOT FEASIBLE at the FIFA World Cup and, therefore, was not applied."

"In fact, antidoping tests in football right after the game have always been challenging because of the players. In principle, blood collection is not time-consuming, in contrast to urine sampling. For this reason, the antidoping authorities of FIFA collect the blood tests as soon as the player arrives in the antidoping collection room, directly after the game. Depending on the location of the antidoping room in the stadium and the duration of press interviews, the time after exercise can vary from 15 and 90 min, if the player was still on the pitch at the end of the game. Furthermore, the nature and the duration of participation in the competition were recorded."

"The main lesson learned from the FIFA World Cup 2014 were:

(1) meticulous organisation of antidoping tests on the field and well-controlled shipments of samples to the laboratory by the antidoping authority does not compromise the samples. This allows the accredited laboratory to provide valid results.

(2) No differences were observed between out-of-competition and postcompetition for hematological values."

BRITISH Journal of Sports Medicine

Br J Sports Med. 2015 May; 49(9): 614–622.

doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094762

PMCID: PMC4413745

Antidoping programme and biological monitoring before and during the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil

Norbert Baume,1 Nicolas Jan,1 Caroline Emery,1 Béatrice Mandanis,1 Carine Schweizer,1 Sylvain Giraud,1 Nicolas Leuenberger,1 François Marclay,1 Raul Nicoli,1 Laurent Perrenoud,1 Neil Robinson,1 Jiri Dvorak,2,3 and Martial SAUGY1

Contributors:

Jiri Dvorak and Martial Saugy conceived the study design and the antidoping programme.

NB, NJ, CE, BM, CS, SG, NL, FM, RN, LP and NR managed the samples and data analyses.

Norbert Baume and Martial Saugy wrote the first draft... and all authors contributed to the revision of the final manuscript.

The Martial 'Plan B' Saugy study was published in the BRITISH Journal of Sports Medicine in May, 2015.

Dr. Martial 'Plan B' Saugy was the blood test "expert" for Ms. Paula 'Pantani' Radcliffe.

Dr. Martial 'Plan B' Saugy LIED for the Brit-Doper-Cheater-Liar-Fraud™.

It's just a Coincidental Synchronicity™.

Ha Ha Ha

https://news.sky.com/story/radcliffe-give-athletes-lie-detector-tests-10340201

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3315269/The-Latest-Russian-bank-VTB-end-partnership-IAAF.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-4467504/Paula-Radcliffe-sue-world-records-erased.html

DHT123 wrote:

You really need to read the WADA ABP guidelines Rekrunner, because Casual Observer is correct and you are talking garbage.

Rekrunner has seen the evidence 1000 times. Yet he keeps denying it. This is no surprise.

And rekrunner, what happened to rjm seeing Paula's 16.2 as plausible? Ha ha, he saw your nonsense and corrected it swiftly.

casual obsever wrote:As for the IAAF's budget, yes that is part of the problem. But of course IAAF isn't the only organization testing athletes.

It's the only organization with the authority to start sanctions though.

And with no visibility into the cleanliness, or not, of podium athletes they can simultaneously permit doping for favored athletes and sanction the relatively unknown idiots who get caught doping like idiots.

Rekrunner, you are on fire today. Your sweeping, false, generalizations are concise and sure sound like truthful statements.

Everyone should know by now, an athlete using EPO-like drugs do so at high altitudes to mask the effects of EPO on blood values. Set a new PR and never test positive. Case closed.

The only people pretending Mo is clean is the IAAF and Mo himself. Doping is okay for the IAAF. As long as they get paid and the athlete doesn't kill themselves.

0/10

Dumb post!

and here we go again wrote:

DHT123 wrote:

You really need to read the WADA ABP guidelines Rekrunner, because Casual Observer is correct and you are talking garbage.

Rekrunner has seen the evidence 1000 times. Yet he keeps denying it. This is no surprise.

And rekrunner, what happened to rjm seeing Paula's 16.2 as plausible? Ha ha, he saw your nonsense and corrected it swiftly.

I have been following this argument from afar, and the above long post from rjm is very well done and put together. He's obviously someone with a distinct scientific background. Without bumping that long post and ruining all of our thumbs in the process, I'd suggest that anyone that's interested in the controversy over Paula's ABP scores and drastic rise in hgb over a 2 day period should read the above- especially costill's study. Excellent points backed up by concrete evidence. Were I to be offered a large bet (being given and knowing only the above info), I'd say that the rise in 2.8g was indeed facilitated in a non-physiologic manner. I would certainly hope that not to be the case, however. Likely, (and given the current state of affairs with doping and the IAAF's handling of such) this will not again be addressed by authorities. Were nefarious activity to have occurred, the only chance for justice will be a leak by a disgruntled person within the athlete's training camp. Even then, many will only discredit that individual. See only Landis, Goucher, Magness, or D Torrence for such a scenario.