Mo Farah sues Ben Bloom

This looks like a diversion tactic to avoid these points: - You've claimed to possess detailed knowledge of the ABP software without providing any source - You've claimed that there was a "first expert", and yet I've provided a source that says some samples did not use a "first expert", if one of the measures failed a test of the Adaptive Model. - You've often claimed that the "panel vote" was "hung", implying Saugy was a rogue expert providing non-unanimity. Was there an original source for that outside of your mind? The only thing I found regarding a vote was 11-12 in favor of altitude. I don't start all over again -- I've raised these points once and they've always been there. I only bring them up when they are ignored. Then you will apply the tactic you recommended to me -- wait a few weeks and come back with your own "same old, same old".

casual obsever wrote:

Yes. Same old, same old. Deletions are his last defense.

And then he starts all over again a la bad faith, unreliable data, nothing to see here, and so on.

rekrunner wrote:

This looks like a diversion tactic to avoid these points:

- You've claimed to possess detailed knowledge of the ABP software without providing any source

I thought it was you who claimed detailed knowledge of the ABP and the policies governing sanction procedures? ? If I remember correctly, didn't you explain that the infamous "likely doping" classification didn't concretely imply "doping" but could be the result of altitude training, dehydration, illness, etc. affecting the blood values?

I don't think I ever made such a claim, but I did read a lot about it. Way back on page 4, fairly specific claims were made about what the ABP software considers, and what the IAAF considers when deciding follow up tests, without linking any authoritative source. Is it real or a favorable assumption? This specific concern you quoted here is how, if at all, in Feb. 2012, the Adaptive Model used altitude information, recorded on the DCF, and entered into the Passport, when determining if Hgb or Off-hr violates the 99.9% threshold. The official ABP term "likely doping" can mean many things, depending on the stage of the ABP evaluation process, and what external non-doping factors have been considered. What is absolutely clear is that the intermediate result of "likely doping" from the Adaptive Model can be overturned by up to four subsequent stages of subjective analysis by experts, based on all of the external factors you list, and more.

Passport Era Doping wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This looks like a diversion tactic to avoid these points:

- You've claimed to possess detailed knowledge of the ABP software without providing any source

I thought it was you who claimed detailed knowledge of the ABP and the policies governing sanction procedures? ? If I remember correctly, didn't you explain that the infamous "likely doping" classification didn't concretely imply "doping" but could be the result of altitude training, dehydration, illness, etc. affecting the blood values?

Sorry to double respond to this, but back on page 5, regarding this specific point, I actually claimed I didn't have detailed knowledge regarding if or how altitude was factored into the "ABP software", when flagging results for further expert review, or how the IAAF decides to who to follow-up:

rekrunner wrote:

b) I don't know. Exactly how does the software factor in altitude?

c) I don't know. Exactly how does the IAAF factor in altitude when deciding for follow-up tests?

Passport Era Doping wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This looks like a diversion tactic to avoid these points:

- You've claimed to possess detailed knowledge of the ABP software without providing any source

I thought it was you who claimed detailed knowledge of the ABP and the policies governing sanction procedures? ? If I remember correctly, didn't you explain that the infamous "likely doping" classification didn't concretely imply "doping" but could be the result of altitude training, dehydration, illness, etc. affecting the blood values?

For someone who claims to back up what he says with links, and accused me of never providing links, it's odd that you have not provided supporting links, after multiple requests, for the following points: - How is altitude factored into the ABP software? - How do we even know "Paula only got away because the three experts couldn't agree on a verdict"? If the voting is secret, how do "we know" that the three-expert panel weren't unanimous in favor of altitude, rather than your often repeated claim of a "hung jury" getting Paula off on a non-unanimity technicality? Your silence is deafening. I've showed you a link on the ABP guidelines v2.1 that perhaps there was never any first expert, if the threshold of 99.9% was violated in the Adaptive Model, by either Hgb, or Off-hr score. I've shown you a link to Sunday Times reporting 11 out of 12 experts believed "altitude". Here is another link, how the IAAF described the "Initial Review" in the "IAAF’s RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS OF BLOOD DOPING IN ATHLETICS": "In fact, as Dr Ashenden and Mr Parisotto acknowledged elsewhere, the very most they could do was conduct the ‘Initial Review’ that is conducted by a single expert as the first stage of the results management process set out in the WADA ABP Protocol, i.e., looking only at the blood values and not looking at any documentation or any other materials that would allow them to assess any of the various potential causes of abnormal deviations in those values other than blood doping." This seems to suggest that "looking only at the blood values" and "not looking at documentation" compares to the initial expert review because it is based only on blood values, and not on any information (i.e. recent stay at altitude) recorded on the doping control form. (This could also explain why so many names appear on the Fancy Bears leaked list, compared to convictions.) I've provided three links while you've provided none. Now once again, do you have any links to support your interpretation? Or shall I safely conclude that they were always products of your exagerrated imagination all along? I will interpret silence, and/or the lack of explicitly relevant supporting links, as a silent concession on your part, in my favor. I will interpret name-calling, personal attacks, and any other non-responsive post, as a concession on your part, in my favor.

rekrunner wrote:

This looks like a diversion tactic to avoid these points:

- You've claimed to possess detailed knowledge of the ABP software (that altitude is factored in) without providing any source

- You've claimed that there was a "first expert", and yet I've provided a source that says some samples did not use a "first expert", if one of the measures failed a test of the Adaptive Model.

- You've often claimed that the "panel vote" was "hung", implying Saugy was a rogue expert providing non-unanimity. Was there an original source for that outside of your mind? The only thing I found regarding a vote was 11-12 in favor of altitude.

rekrunner wrote:

Sorry to double respond to this, but back on page 5, regarding this specific point, I actually claimed I didn't have detailed knowledge regarding if or how altitude was factored into the "ABP software", when flagging results for further expert review, or how the IAAF decides to who to follow-up:

Lets talk some ABP functions: So, what is your take on the Fancy Bears leaked document on USADA's "likely doping" status for some of the athletes mentioned in the report? When their passports were flagged wouldn't the possibility of altitude training be looked into before the "likely doping" status was declared? (I wouldn't think altitude training wouldn't equal "likely doping" once that has looked into as the cause of the flag).

And what is also interesting for a few of athletes is in the comments section it states to test for an "ESA 2 to 4 weeks before competition" (not anticipating an athlete glowing IC but more during the washout period prior to competition?). Without any #'s and off-score given, is USADA seeing a corresponding rise in Hb & RET%? Wouldn't the two markers rising suggest an ESA opposed to blood doping? (Hb & retics would work opposite of each other during thw withdrawl & infusion aspects of blood doping kicking the off-score up signficantly). Of course, altitude training would raise Hb & RET%, so does the ABP allow for some flexibility within the upper parameters before a flag would occur or does that need to be investigated once the ABP is tripped from a significant rise in Hb & RET%?

And not having further information on any of these cases, it sounds like once a "likely doping" status is reached for elevated Hb & RET%, the preferred strategy might be to just target test and hope for a positive (?).

Here's the document I'm referencing:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2017/07/say-aint-fancy-bears-hack-reveal-many-track-fields-biggest-stars-likely-doping-see-latest-fancy-bears-documents/

I guess you mean IAAF and not USADA. The Fancy Bears leak was intended to make non-Russian athletes look guilty, and make it look like IAAF anti-doping enforcement is not fair. It is an intermediate spreadsheet describing a testing strategy presented to the public without any explanatory context. My take is that whatever was leaked to the public out of context, was intended to be misleading, exaggerating the value of the evidence. According to the IAAF, "The official terminology which includes “Likely doping”, (...) are used to classify profiles flagged as “atypical” by the ADAMS mathematical model, ..." Without deeper insight into the mathematical model, you can speculate what you want. A finding of "likely doping" in Step 1 has a very different meaning than after the expert panel hears the athlete's explanations.

rekrunner wrote:

The Fancy Bears leak was intended to make non-Russian athletes look guilty, and make it look like IAAF anti-doping enforcement is not fair.

I'm broadly in agreement with you, but I'd be careful - how do you know what the FB leak was intended to do? We can surmise that, but we don't know.

Fair enough, but I was asked what was "my take".

larkimm wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The Fancy Bears leak was intended to make non-Russian athletes look guilty, and make it look like IAAF anti-doping enforcement is not fair.

I'm broadly in agreement with you, but I'd be careful - how do you know what the FB leak was intended to do? We can surmise that, but we don't know.

rekrunner wrote:

Once I saw the evidence, I was one of the people against Lance, because I assessed the quality of the evidence against him as quite strong. There is nothing that rises to that level of quality for Mo and Paula.

Rekrunner, this is, by far, the BEST trolling you have ever done in a thread.

Considering this only drew one response before yours, my BEST trolling was not a very good trolling. I guess I could become better if I ever started trying.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Once I saw the evidence, I was one of the people against Lance, because I assessed the quality of the evidence against him as quite strong. There is nothing that rises to that level of quality for Mo and Paula.

Rekrunner, this is, by far, the BEST trolling you have ever done in a thread.

Anti-doping Countermeasure Experts wrote:

That's only because he confessed to Oprah and was looking for empathy. I bet you thought up to that point he was clean as a whistle passing some 500+ drug tests and not tripping his ABP in the 09 & 10 seasons. Passing drug controls & not tripping your ABP means absolutely nothing.

Before Armstrong confessed, I thought some scientists felt that Armstrong's biological passport values in the 2009 tour de France were suggestive of blood doping:

However, these interpretations were not fully accepted and some doctors claimed that Armstrong's biological passport readings may well be due to Armstrong having some sort of unique physiology. Sounds familiar ?:)

rekrunner wrote:

Considering this only drew one response before yours, my BEST trolling was not a very good trolling.

Well, your disadvantage is that that username of yours is known as a troll name, say like jamin, so you get fewer and fewer responses.

never tested positive wrote:

However, these interpretations were not fully accepted and some doctors claimed that Armstrong's biological passport readings may well be due to Armstrong having some sort of unique physiology. Sounds familiar ?:)

Right - super athletes have super blood.

One could have stopped all these cheats of the last decade by properly using the ABP instead of going for a pointless test phase of several years, and then still let the anomalies go unpunished after 2009. Politics, politics.

never tested positive wrote:

Anti-doping Countermeasure Experts wrote:

That's only because he confessed to Oprah and was looking for empathy. I bet you thought up to that point he was clean as a whistle passing some 500+ drug tests and not tripping his ABP in the 09 & 10 seasons. Passing drug controls & not tripping your ABP means absolutely nothing.

Before Armstrong confessed, I thought some scientists felt that Armstrong's biological passport values in the 2009 tour de France were suggestive of blood doping:

http://nyvelocity.com/articles/features/armstrong-tour-blood-values-suspicious/

However, these interpretations were not fully accepted and some doctors claimed that Armstrong's biological passport readings may well be due to Armstrong having some sort of unique physiology. Sounds familiar ?:)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-armstrongs-tour-blood-levels-debated/

The general consensus is that his ABP for the 09 TdF showed abnormal blood values:

Also during the 09 TdF, French authorities found packaging of "AICAR" in the Astana team hotel during the Tour de France. Hmmm...very interesting. ?

Hmmm...AICAR...very interesting. ?

But Lance says he was clean in 09. ?

People tend to misuse the word. It's a child-like tactic to change the subject, combined with a cheap shot at name-calling. According to this definition, what often gets called "trolling" is not "trolling": "To clarify, “trolling” refers to a specific act: throwing bait into the internet water in the form of deliberately provocative statements (not personal attacks, that’s “flaming”) and waiting for someone to bite." When I give truthful statements (take my BEST example above) this is not "deliberately provocative", and I'm not waiting for "someone to bite". Definition comes from:https://theconversation.com/the-media-dangerously-misuses-the-word-trolling-79999

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Considering this only drew one response before yours, my BEST trolling was not a very good trolling.

Well, your disadvantage is that that username of yours is known as a troll name, say like jamin, so you get fewer and fewer responses.