Mo Farah sues Ben Bloom

You need to re-read what I wrote and what "casual obsever" wrote. He said "experts were convinced that doping was the only possible way". That phrase is garbage, and I didn't find it in the ABP guidelines. If he had said "highly likely" or some such phrase, it would be defendable. I am correct that nearly 2 weeks at 2400m altitude increases blood values and off scores, and I am correct that "only possible way" is a distortion of the known historical facts.

The evidence says what it says, and not more. I don't deny the evidence, but rather some of the conclusions that do not always follow from the evidence. The "rjm33" evidence was that 109.35 was plausible, noting that 16.2 was still HIGH. Whether he backpedalled later, as casual obsever put it, from a hasty post, the original assessment was correct: - RET% doesn't indicate blood transfusions or EPO - 109.35 is possible for a clean athlete at altitude - 16.2 is HIGH (yet several sources still list ranges up to 16 and 16.5 as NORMAL) But it does make me wonder, are there other rjm33 posts which are "hasty", and how can we tell?

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.

Which sweeping false generalizations? My statements are concise? That's a rare and refreshing criticism. But if it sounds like a truthful statement, what can I say: "it must be a duck", or "where there's smoke there's fire".

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

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

Too Many Trolls! wrote:

0/10

Dumb post!

0/10

Dumb post!

You might draw that conclusion, "being given and knowing only the above info". With more information, we know we cannot reliably conclude there was a rise of 2.8g at all. This was well documented with concrete evidence by many with distinct scientific backgrounds. We also know that the Costill study lacks the intensity of a half-marathon in 67 minutes, or a 10K in 31 minutes, and only looks at dehydration.

rekrunner wrote:

You need to re-read what I wrote and what "casual obsever" wrote.

He said "experts were convinced that doping was the only possible way".

That phrase is garbage, and I didn't find it in the ABP guidelines.

The guidelines make it clear that this was pretty much the opposite of an open and shut case, i.e. they prove you wrong.

On top of that, the fact that the decision was not unanimous means that not all experts shared the opinion that her strange values could have been caused without doping. So, that in turn indeed means that

"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. "

Nothing discussed here means that this was evidently a false positive, which was your original claim.

Do you really think that you bringing up this case here again, and lying about it, predictably causing us to correct you with facts and evidence, helps Paula?

I didn't think so. See, that's why I am convinced that you have some kind of personal vendetta against her.

And yes, I know you are trolling me, but when I have time, I enjoy correcting you.

rekrunner wrote:

You need to re-read what I wrote and what "casual obsever" wrote.

He said "experts were convinced that doping was the only possible way".

That phrase is garbage, and I didn't find it in the ABP guidelines.

If he had said "highly likely" or some such phrase, it would be defendable.

I am correct that nearly 2 weeks at 2400m altitude increases blood values and off scores, and I am correct that "only possible way" is a distortion of the known historical facts.

DHT123 wrote:

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

Try replying to the main content of what I wrote in my post

I thought you were done. Remind me again why you believe that the final conclusion was not unanimous in favor of altitude? I'm sure you enjoy this, but you cannot correct me if you are not correct. The result was intially flagged, a case was opened, reviewed, and closed, concluding no basis to pursue the case as a potential adverse finding, noting altitude was a plausible explanation. Open, reviewed, shut. Fact. Case closed. Are you suggesting that it was never a false positive at any stage while the case was open? Just out of curiosity, how do you describe this status of this sample, before, during, and after investigation? I'll address the ABP guidelines "proving me wrong" a little later as a response to DHT123.

DHT123 wrote:

Try replying to the main content of what I wrote in my post

You asked for it.

First, I responded to the only part that was relevant to my post. You made a reference to the ABP Guidelines, as if it contradicted me, and supported “casual observer’s” characterisation of “only possible way”. The ABP uses words like “may be”, “highly likely”, and “highly unlikely”. After reading the ABP Guidelines, characterizing it as “only possible way” is a distortion.

For some reason you guys want to do some kind of deep forensic analysis on one sample, to figure out how long it was considered “highly likely”, before being determined to be plausibly caused by high altitude. It has already garnered way more discussion than it is worth.

But OK -- on your advice, I read the ABP Guidelines, and listened to Paula’s audio interview. Some preliminary observations:

- You linked v4.0, when v3.1 would have applied in 2012

- It’s not clear at what point the experts become aware of altitude information, but it looks to me quite late in the process. You wrote the first expert has it, but that is not so obvious from the ABP guidelines (see below).

- It’s also not clear that Paula was ever notified of the expert review at the time, or was asked to explain the sample

According to the ABP Guidelines, the steps are:

Pre-review:

- Sample is collected, transported, analyzed, and WADA lab enters results into ADAMS

- At collection, a Doping Control Form is filled out, which includes many things, like altitude and hypoxic device

Appendix D: Results management

1) Administration: APMU ensures data is in ADAMS and/or ABP software, and does preliminary review

2) Review by the Adaptive Model -- software analyzes longitudinal profile for atypical HGB and/or OFFS.

3) Expert review: In case of an evaluation of “highly unlikely” clean and “may be” doping, send to two more experts

4) Formal review by a group of three experts: “same logic as presented in 3”. “Unanimous opinion necessary in order to proceed, considering the available information contained within the Passport at this stage.”

5) Follow up on expert opinions:

- At this point, the APMU prepares an ABP Documentation Package, including:

c) Information on … altitude

f) Information from the Doping Control Form (e.g. hypoxic device, training, racing schedule)

The ABP Documentation Package shall be sent to the same panel of three experts who will subsequently review the additional information. The panel of three experts is responsible to provide a joint evaluation that shall be signed by all three experts.

6) Review of Explanation from Athlete

7) Disciplinary Proceeding

So, after reading this, the main question is: when do the experts find out about altitude?

In Step 4, what does “considering the available information contained within the Passport at this stage” mean?

In Step 5, what does “the additional information” mean?

In Step 4, the experts have a chance to ask for more information, including information relating to any Sample in the profile. This could include altitude, but it doesn’t look mandatory to ask any information.

If they don’t ask, it looks to me like the panel of experts do not find out altitude until Step #5, when they receive a complete ABP Documentation Package.

What about the radio interview?

You wrote: “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.”

So imagine my surprise when I listened to the radio interview and heard:

She saw the sample (according to paragraph 5.1, every athlete can see their own values in ADAMS).

She mentioned that the value was high, to a doctor at UK Athletics (not UKAD, not IAAF, not APMU, not expert panel).

The UKA doctor told Paula “don’t worry, they will see you were at altitude, injured, not crushing red blood cells“ (see Footstrike Hemolysis or Hemolytic Anemia from Footstrikes).

Paula does not say she provided that, or any explanation, to the expert panel.

She later learned that indeed the 2012 was flagged and reviewed -- this sounded like well after the fact, rather than Step 6 describe above.

Looks to me likely the case stopped at Step #5, when the experts finally received a documentation package including altitude information. Possibly at Step #4, if they asked for altitude information.

Independent expert/s reported that the blood values looked liked doping/artificial blood manipulation. IAAF brought in some hired guns to "argue" that the blood values could be explained by altitude, dehydration etc... This sort of thing has likely happened on multiple occasions with different athletes.

what most likely happened wrote:

Independent expert/s reported that the blood values looked liked doping/artificial blood manipulation. IAAF brought in some hired guns to "argue" that the blood values could be explained by altitude, dehydration etc....

Martial Saugy. He's the federation fix-it man in Switzerland. If there's a doping problem important to the federation, Saugy has swooped into the process to never test anyone positive. Football, running, cycling all at some point used Saugy to make a doping problem go away.

On top of which other threads exhausted those claims use multiple research sources as very, very, unlikely.

Trying to get this thread back on track!

Has anyone bothered to list how many bizarre explanations Mo has made? In my head, Radcliffe list has him beat by a mile. But, I could be wrong.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Trying to get this thread back on track!

Nice try but what do expect pop? rekrunner's EPO thread got locked down to registered users only. That's where the Paula saga was more appropriately discussed at. Maybe the thread could be unlocked?

Finally we're getting somewhere. Great that you have finally acknowledged that the first expert concluded that it was 'highly likely' that the result was 'the result of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method'.

With regard to altitude, are you really trying to suggest that the Experts who conduct the 'expert review' do NOT have access to the information on the Doping Control form, which includes the answers to the (obligatory) questions about altitude and hypoxic tents etc.? How on earth would they be able to conduct a proper review without this information? Imagine what a waste of time and resources it would be to do things this way - having to involve additional experts, 'formal expert reviews', preparing an ABP Documentation Package etc. - only to THEN receive the information about the athlete training at altitude (which will be a high % of all athletes). You are clutching at straws.

Interesting analysis of Paula's interview. A question - where is your reference to paragraph 5.1, that every athlete can see their own values in ADAMS? I struggle to believe that information about a suspicious test is available for athletes to see in real time, whilst an investigation into that test result is ongoing. But I am open to being corrected. Please show me.

Here you can see clear evidence that the questions about altitude are fully integrated into the information that is captured when an athlete is tested:

So the experts 100% had the information about altitude when they made their judgements.

DHT123 wrote:

Here you can see clear evidence that the questions about altitude are fully integrated into the information that is captured when an athlete is tested:

So the experts 100% had the information about altitude when they made their judgements.

Yes. Obviously. Again, all these facts - including the evidence - have been pointed out to rekrunner years ago, repeatedly, when first discussing Radcliffe's case. Then again with Jager. Then again with Farah here in this thread, starting on page 4.

Next week, he will start denying all of that again... He just loves it when we point out all the damning facts about Paula, for whatever reason.

Just go back a few pages in this thread to see how he - ever so coincidentally - brought the topic to Paula, and then wouldn't let go.

Here it was, his first and only example for "simply training at high altitude already generates false positives" (his own words). Well played, rekrunner, we are now stuck again in one of your infinite loops about Paula's blood values. Poor Paula though - this discussion doesn't exactly help her...

rekrunner wrote:

If you still want an example, you are well aware of Paula in 2012, above population sea-level threshold, below population altitude threshold, trained at 2400m, sample objectively flagged for further review, then subjectively dismissed due to altitude being a plausible explanation.

So Rekrunner explain to new this, was the Sabadell physiotherapist part of the Aden group? You seem to imply that he had never met them before in his life.

I'm not suggesting anything. You suggested I read the ABP WADA Guidelines. I went to the WADA site, and read v3.1, from April 2012 (this is also too late -- see below), and not the one you linked, v4.0 from Nov. 2013. I read it, and outlined what I found, and posed it as a question. What does "available information" mean in Step 4, and what does "additional information" mean in Step 5? But it doesn't change much, whether it died in Step 4, or Step 5, when one or more of the experts finally recognized altitude was plausible. Unless ... now that you mention it, you are right -- I didn't challenge that it went to the three experts at all, because it's been repeated so often. Maybe I should have. Remind me again, how do we know the first expert "didn't believe altitude"? (UPDATE: How do we even know there was a "first expert"? See below.) How do we know that the final determination was not unanimous, either the first expert, or the three experts later, in favor of altitude being plausible? (UPDATE) However, I just now realized even v3.1 from April 2012 is too late, for evaluating a sample from Feb. 2012. The previous version on the website is v2.1 dated Jan. 2010, with a slightly different procedure. In this version, Appendix D, paragraph 2, if the sample is high enough (either HGB or OFF-score), as identified by the Adaptive Model, there is no "first expert" review, but it goes automatically to a three expert panel for the full formal review. "A profile in which the Adaptive Model has identified the Hb or Off-hr score abnormal with a 99.9% probability or more shall be reviewed by a panel of three experts." Maybe the high HGB triggered an automatic 3-expert panel review, which then dismissed it due to altitude, at Step 3 -- in other words, an open and shut case. Thanks for asking me to read the ABP Guidelines. Regarding the athletes right to their own data in ADAMS: In v3.1, page 21, paragraph 5.1: "ADAMS will also furnish access to the Athlete to their biological data upon request." In v2.1 page 13, paragraph 5.2, bullet 8: "All raw data coming from the WADA-accredited Laboratories (scattergrams, internal and external quality controls etc.) should be made available to the Athlete ... upon request ...." (I didn't provide the links because of "embedly" but the archived versions of the ABP Guidelines can be found on the same page as the latest version, at the WADA website).

I had no doubt the information was collected in a DCF at the time. The question was at what stage does that information get to the expert. v3.1 wasn't that clear to me -- but v2.1 is clearer. I note you link to an entry added August 04, 2014. What existed in Feb. 2012?

DHT123 wrote:

Here you can see clear evidence that the questions about altitude are fully integrated into the information that is captured when an athlete is tested:

...

So the experts 100% had the information about altitude when they made their judgements.