• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Doping In Athletics

Page 39 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 4, 2012
193
0
0
Hmm, Radcliffe's statement ignores the most damning aspect of the Sunday Times report:

"The experts consulted by the Sunday Times say that dehydration may have a small effect on blodd values, but the British athlete's off-score was 40% higher on the day of the race than in a test taken two days before the race."
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

Cramps said:
I don't know how to interpret this number -- 2.8% Hb and no change in retic % -- can anyone put it into context?
Radcliffe says this is marginally above the 1 in 100 standard. So about 1% of samples would be expected to show this? And then dehydration is a mitigating factor?

Dear Wiggo said:
Her Hb went up 2.8!!?

Here's the IAAF headline from the race where that test was taken, one where she says it was not one of her best performances:
Paula Radcliffe may not have delivered the world best performance everyone was forecasting when the 12th IAAF World Half Marathon Championships took place in Vilamoura, Portugal today. But clinching a third world half marathon title in four years, Radcliffe's winning margin of one minute and 27 seconds was the greatest ever achieved in the 12-year history of the championships.
http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/radcliffe-wipes-out-the-opposition-in-vilamou
If a pro tour cyclist enters the Tour with a Hgb of say 15, by the end of the tour due to hemo-dilution, you expect a 10% drop, so it would be around 13.5.

To go up 2.8 during a race from say 14 is a 20% increase.

To do so due to hem-concentration, she would need to lose so much fluid to have that much impact on her Hgb that she would be dehydrated, surely? And thus performing poorly, not putting in the biggest winning margin since ever?
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Cramps said:
I don't know how to interpret this number -- 2.8% Hb and no change in retic % -- can anyone put it into context?
Radcliffe says this is marginally above the 1 in 100 standard. So about 1% of samples would be expected to show this? And then dehydration is a mitigating factor?

Dear Wiggo said:
Her Hb went up 2.8!!?

Here's the IAAF headline from the race where that test was taken, one where she says it was not one of her best performances:
Paula Radcliffe may not have delivered the world best performance everyone was forecasting when the 12th IAAF World Half Marathon Championships took place in Vilamoura, Portugal today. But clinching a third world half marathon title in four years, Radcliffe's winning margin of one minute and 27 seconds was the greatest ever achieved in the 12-year history of the championships.
http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/radcliffe-wipes-out-the-opposition-in-vilamou
If a pro tour cyclist enters the Tour with a Hgb of say 15, by the end of the tour due to hemo-dilution, you expect a 10% drop, so it would be around 13.5.

To go up 2.8 during a race from say 14 is a 20% increase.

To do so due to hem-concentration, she would need to lose so much fluid to have that much impact on her Hgb that she would be dehydrated, surely? And thus performing poorly, not putting in the biggest winning margin since ever?
JTL managed his side of the equation by a 30-odd unit bender then not drinking at all the next day..whilst ridiculous it might get you to ballpark that level of dehydration...a half marathon for a world class athlete i doubt...lets await the piss up excuse :)
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
Re: Re:

wansteadimp said:
Cake said:
you can't libel anyone if it's within the walls of the Palace of Westminster, covered by parliamentary privilege. Wonder what will happen next, will the other names in the Sunday Times investigation be made public in the DCMS hearing?


ETA: weirdly it looks like she wasn't named but she has said she was linked to it? Eh?
I think it was revealed that one of the people in the report was a former London Marathon winner and British. That combination in this time period has only one answer, Paula.
Yes, that's what happened. I just watched this now. Norman didn't mention her by name but did so in the description as you say.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
A quick search says 1 bag of blood = 1g/DL Hgb increase.
2.8 increase is therefore around 3 bags.

A shame they do not track athletes post- comp, as a decrease in retic% over the ensuing week would point to a transfusion.
 
Sep 4, 2012
193
0
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
A quick search says 1 bag of blood = 1g/DL Hgb increase.
2.8 increase is therefore around 3 bags.

A shame they do not track athletes post- comp, as a decrease in retic% over the ensuing week would point to a transfusion.
But would it not show a decrease in retic% immediately? ie the post-competition test should show both increase in Hgb and decrease in retic%?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
A quick search says 1 bag of blood = 1g/DL Hgb increase.
2.8 increase is therefore around 3 bags.

A shame they do not track athletes post- comp, as a decrease in retic% over the ensuing week would point to a transfusion.
Man you have been spot on with your last few posts!

Thanks for point to this for the folks that might not have the knowledge.

I find it impossible to believe her lines - if she is in fact the athlete in question.
 
Re:

Freddythefrog said:
Bought the Times. Makes good reading. Identification of the athlete is gender neutral and script is designed to give no clues away. Dirty races are 2001 to date - 1500, 20km walk, 800 5,000 3k steeplechase, 10k 50k walk heptahlon/decathlon, marathon. So it was somebody in that set.

Useful quotes ".....three occasions in their career the athlete's test results were so "abnormal" that there was only a one in a thousand chance that they were natural. ....One of those scores was recorded just days before winning a major race.
"The athlete firmly states that they "never cheated" and supports calls for more money to be spend on stamping out blood-doping.
"The IAAF put a red mark agains the athlete's name, which experts say should have resulted in folllow-up tests. Several years later the athlete was investigated by the IAAF but it decided not to take any action.
" Was this athlete cheating or was there some explanation for the scores? At the meeting with The Sunday Times in a hotel lobby last week, the athlete swore on the lives of loved ones that they had never blood doped but they did not want their results to be published here in full."

"You print it and I sue you [and] you won't be getting any money back in future like Lance Armstrong - I promise you that."

"Last week the athlete said their score had been elevated because it had been taken when they were dehydrated after winning a race in summer temperatures. "I would have been targeted afterwards. And they didn't come back to me becasue there isn't anythign to show." the athlete said.
"The files show that nine other athletese were also tested after teh same event, yet the British Athelte recorded the highest off-score by some way.
"The experts consulted by the Sunday Times say that dehydration may have a small effect on blodd values, but the British athlete's off-score was 40% higher on the day of the race than in a test taken two days before the race.
"Such a rise in the concentration of red blood cells could have been achieved by an illicit blood transfusion, but this is only a suspicion and certainly not proven by the results.
"one of our experts queried whether the result could be instrument error, but there were 29 other tests with the same device that were at normal levels.
"A second high test several years later did spark an investigation by the IAAF. The British athlete said that 12 experts from the IAAF had viewed the data o these tests and 11 had concluded that the results were consistent with an athlete training at altitude.
"The Sunday times has not seen the 12 experts' assessments, but other experts we have spoken to say that altitude training has only a limited effect on an athlete's blood scores."

There is also a para that states that "Before 2009 the IAAF would not ban any athlete for high blood scores alone and used the only as a guid to whether an athlete should be targeted for urine testing..."

So I think our athlete was active up to 2009. So we have those races and a window 2001 to 2009. And an event in which the field is so large that a total of 10 athletes in that same event which the Brit won were tested. And we have a blind eye turned first and years later a record of a red having been flagged and investigated by the IAAF and dismissed.

Next step all the runners and riders.

However - What was it that Brit director of the IAAF said about the previous leak of PRs data - we did investigate it and there was nothing and it should have stayed in the IAAF safe in Monaco where it belonged. Then he went out and took more snaps of PR with kittens and children (- ok no kittens or children but what other retired athlete who lives in Monaco gets their picture for running a half marathon in Monaco on the International Governing body's web site taken by a director who also lives in Monaco. Protection ! ) and posted them up on the IAAF website.
Maybe time for a reminder of the original piece in the Sunday Times
 
Jun 26, 2012
133
0
0
Re: Re:

Cramps said:
Dear Wiggo said:
A quick search says 1 bag of blood = 1g/DL Hgb increase.
2.8 increase is therefore around 3 bags.

A shame they do not track athletes post- comp, as a decrease in retic% over the ensuing week would point to a transfusion.
But would it not show a decrease in retic% immediately? ie the post-competition test should show both increase in Hgb and decrease in retic%?
Higher Hb slow down the production of reticulocytes, but you still have a pool of them in blood that have to transform into erythrocytes, which takes about a day. So you would get a drop in ret relatively quickly, but not immediately.
The only thing that might cause immediate decrease in ret, would be if reticulocytes died in a blood bag, but I doubt that - my assumption, so better check that!
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
If a pro tour cyclist enters the Tour with a Hgb of say 15, by the end of the tour due to hemo-dilution, you expect a 10% drop, so it would be around 13.5.

To go up 2.8 during a race from say 14 is a 20% increase.

To do so due to hem-concentration, she would need to lose so much fluid to have that much impact on her Hgb that she would be dehydrated, surely? And thus performing poorly, not putting in the biggest winning margin since ever?
The trouble with single-day performances is that you can't expect plasma-expansion the same way as a GT race. Even more than that, are the different strategies in getting ready for rest day: some rest with a drop in volume and intensity; some maintain most the volume, dropping the intensity; and others do the opposite. The middle of the training block would also change, depending on how that athlete trains. I don't know how each strategy may effect plasma volume.

As far as her 3 off offscores, again, we need more context. If it's out there, please share, but knowing when they occured, and also how her whole season came together. If she was off-tested before the World Half championships, can anyone give more details as to when it was? Someone like Radcliffe could not need to peak, and may not use up a BB on that kind of race. Or she would, but it depends.

Are there more details/timeline out there?
 
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
Ed Harry - BBC World Service Athletics commentator

"Paula Radcliffe has spoken out against drug cheats her whole career. I remember watching the 2001 World Championships from Edmonton, Canada, where Radcliffe and team-mate Hayley Tullett sat holding an 'EPO cheats out' banner during a 5,000m heat in protest at the inclusion of Olga Yegorova. The Russian had been allowed to compete, despite a recent failed test for EPO.

"Radcliffe's protest received more coverage than the race at a time when her own greatest claim to fame was winning the World Cross Country Championship. In my experience, her voice on these issues has always been one of the loudest in the sport.

"This story goes to the heart of what conclusions can or should be drawn from data taken from a single blood test - rather than the repeated testing that forms the basis for the modern Biological Passport system."
Because Paula had the EPO Cheats out! sign this "single" blood test doesn't mean anything. It's not the modern bio bassport!
 
Re:

SeriousSam said:
Ed Harry - BBC World Service Athletics commentator

"Paula Radcliffe has spoken out against drug cheats her whole career. I remember watching the 2001 World Championships from Edmonton, Canada, where Radcliffe and team-mate Hayley Tullett sat holding an 'EPO cheats out' banner during a 5,000m heat in protest at the inclusion of Olga Yegorova. The Russian had been allowed to compete, despite a recent failed test for EPO.

"Radcliffe's protest received more coverage than the race at a time when her own greatest claim to fame was winning the World Cross Country Championship. In my experience, her voice on these issues has always been one of the loudest in the sport.

"This story goes to the heart of what conclusions can or should be drawn from data taken from a single blood test - rather than the repeated testing that forms the basis for the modern Biological Passport system."
Because Paula had the EPO Cheats out! sign this "single" blood test doesn't mean anything. It's not the modern bio bassport!
Jaysus :rolleyes:

when a BBC Sports Journo walks into a room, it must reduce the average IQ by about 20 points !
 
Jul 10, 2010
697
0
0
Wiggo - seriously do we have a date for the blood anomaly and tieing it to that win in the half marathon ? that is awesome if the legal team drafting her statement put that spin on it and she OKd it knowing her actual result.

Look at the clock and then imagine the finish of a 1,500 race and then watch the second hand hit a point. Then watch the second hand move for 7 seconds. That is the gap every mile that Paula put into the Kenyan who has run the second fastest Marathon in history behind her. One hell of a gap. Now just think how much more time she would have put into all those dopers who can't get near her time, if she was boosted to the max. Fifteen or more like twenty seconds? Watch the clock and think of a 1500m finish and count 20 seconds. Is there anyone who has watched a 1500m thinks that is at all credible ?

You all know where I am coming from. Paula hired Walsh to do Whitewash 1.0 and he gave up trying to construct her autobiography part way through and then just copied part of her training diary. Froome hired Walsh to do Whitewash 3.0 and by this time Cound and Fran had sorted out a narrative to keep Walsh hooked - riding in sandals at Delhi, badzilla, educated in a tin hut, fighting tigers on the way to school, (oops wrong continent) keep Bobby Julrich out of the story.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
............so how much longer will paula's marathon record stand......................

Mark L
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

nogav1ca said:
Cramps said:
Dear Wiggo said:
A quick search says 1 bag of blood = 1g/DL Hgb increase.
2.8 increase is therefore around 3 bags.

A shame they do not track athletes post- comp, as a decrease in retic% over the ensuing week would point to a transfusion.
But would it not show a decrease in retic% immediately? ie the post-competition test should show both increase in Hgb and decrease in retic%?
Higher Hb slow down the production of reticulocytes, but you still have a pool of them in blood that have to transform into erythrocytes, which takes about a day. So you would get a drop in ret relatively quickly, but not immediately.
The only thing that might cause immediate decrease in ret, would be if reticulocytes died in a blood bag, but I doubt that - my assumption, so better check that!
This is my understanding also.

Yes, the body will stop producing retics over time, but the process is a natural process, not an instantaneous one. Consider the loss of partial pressure of oxygen in the blood stream when training at altitude -- it takes 3-5 days to raise the Hgb to the point where you are back at equilibrium. By the same token, it would take a few days (I am taking a self-educated guess) for a transfusion to lead to "the final number of" depressed retics.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re:

Freddythefrog said:
Wiggo - seriously do we have a date for the blood anomaly and tieing it to that win in the half marathon ? that is awesome if the legal team drafting her statement put that spin on it and she OKd it knowing her actual result.
Immediately after the half marathon.

Moreover, data obtained for example in Vilamoura in 2003, with bloods collected before and right after the half marathon, ran in hot conditions, are typically showing effects of confounding factors. The increase of 2.8 in Hb (and no significant effect on ret%) is due to a drastic hemo-concentration caused by the specific race conditions. This post-race value, as most of the others, today would not be validated, and then not be implemented in a real biological passport.
 
Sep 4, 2012
193
0
0
Re: Re:

Here's a conglomeration of reports for a start (Times, IAAF, and PR's statement), concerning her before- and after- tests in the half-marathon championships in Vilamoura 2003.

1. According to the IAAF (thanks Dear Wiggo), she was widely expected to break the world record that day, but the conditions were very difficult.
2. The Times reported an increase in off-score of 40% over a 2-day period which seems linked to this race. One sample taken immediately after the race, the other two days before.
3. PR says this is "marginally above the 1 in 100 accepted threshold", but I don't know if this likelihood refers to the second blood test on its own, or the comparison between the two.
4. The head of the WADA accredited laboratory in Lausanne looked at the two blood tests in question. He was not concerned and claims to identify the underlying basis of the increase: "The increase of 2.8 in Hb (and no significant effect on ret%) is due to a drastic hemo-concentration caused by the specific race conditions."
5. The WADA head was approached by PR with the data after the Times article. Although he was not told the identity behind the tests, he evidently was informed about the race conditions.
6. The WADA head adds, "any interpretation of these data implemented in an individual and longitudinal blood profile between 2001 and 2008 can be considered to my eyes as intellectually dishonest and scientifically biased".
7. Although one approach for PR would be to release her blood records from around this time period to show the larger context, this seems unlikely, as PR suggests in her statement that she will not be releasing her confidential medical data, as "such partial and historic data is of little value on its own, and, can only result in further misinterpretation and speculation".
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
Dear Wiggo said:
If a pro tour cyclist enters the Tour with a Hgb of say 15, by the end of the tour due to hemo-dilution, you expect a 10% drop, so it would be around 13.5.

To go up 2.8 during a race from say 14 is a 20% increase.

To do so due to hem-concentration, she would need to lose so much fluid to have that much impact on her Hgb that she would be dehydrated, surely? And thus performing poorly, not putting in the biggest winning margin since ever?
The trouble with single-day performances is that you can't expect plasma-expansion the same way as a GT race. Even more than that, are the different strategies in getting ready for rest day: some rest with a drop in volume and intensity; some maintain most the volume, dropping the intensity; and others do the opposite. The middle of the training block would also change, depending on how that athlete trains. I don't know how each strategy may effect plasma volume.
Did you follow that my pro cyclist GT example was hemo-dilution, and Paula is claiming hemo-concentration? Because your first sentence discusses plasma expansion and Paula is claiming plasma contraction as the reason her Hgb went up 2.8g/dL. I don't follow you if you feel the sentence is adding to or helping my post.

To get that much plasma reduction, as I go on to point out, she would have to have the following occur:

Hgb: 14 g/dL Hgb (an average example)
Litres of blood: 10l
Total Hgb: 14g of Hgb

Result post-race: 16.8 g/dL Hgb (claimed 2.8 increase)
Total Hgb: 14g of Hgb (assuming no transfusion)
Litres of blood: 8.3l (10 * 14/16.8)

ie a 17% loss in plasma fluid.

Now I am pretty sure a 2% loss impacts performance. But a 17% loss?

:eek:
 
Re:

SeriousSam said:
Ed Harry - BBC World Service Athletics commentator

"Paula Radcliffe has spoken out against drug cheats her whole career. I remember watching the 2001 World Championships from Edmonton, Canada, where Radcliffe and team-mate Hayley Tullett sat holding an 'EPO cheats out' banner during a 5,000m heat in protest at the inclusion of Olga Yegorova. The Russian had been allowed to compete, despite a recent failed test for EPO.

"Radcliffe's protest received more coverage than the race at a time when her own greatest claim to fame was winning the World Cross Country Championship. In my experience, her voice on these issues has always been one of the loudest in the sport.

"This story goes to the heart of what conclusions can or should be drawn from data taken from a single blood test - rather than the repeated testing that forms the basis for the modern Biological Passport system."
Because Paula had the EPO Cheats out! sign this "single" blood test doesn't mean anything. It's not the modern bio bassport!
Ha. By this logic, someone who can get a photo of themselves at an anti NRA rally, will forever be free to go around shooting people.
 
Re:

Freddythefrog said:
Wiggo - seriously do we have a date for the blood anomaly and tieing it to that win in the half marathon ? that is awesome if the legal team drafting her statement put that spin on it and she OKd it knowing her actual result.

Look at the clock and then imagine the finish of a 1,500 race and then watch the second hand hit a point. Then watch the second hand move for 7 seconds. That is the gap every mile that Paula put into the Kenyan who has run the second fastest Marathon in history behind her. One hell of a gap. Now just think how much more time she would have put into all those dopers who can't get near her time, if she was boosted to the max. Fifteen or more like twenty seconds? Watch the clock and think of a 1500m finish and count 20 seconds. Is there anyone who has watched a 1500m thinks that is at all credible ?

You all know where I am coming from. Paula hired Walsh to do Whitewash 1.0 and he gave up trying to construct her autobiography part way through and then just copied part of her training diary. Froome hired Walsh to do Whitewash 3.0 and by this time Cound and Fran had sorted out a narrative to keep Walsh hooked - riding in sandals at Delhi, badzilla, educated in a tin hut, fighting tigers on the way to school, (oops wrong continent) keep Bobby Julrich out of the story.
I don't think there are many posters on the internet whos work I enjoy reading more than ftf. Many of us get it- that sport is rife with doping and filled at the top with cheats and corrupt beurocrats, but few can put that into prose this well.
 
Apr 18, 2014
8
0
0
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Defiets said:
She has always had big acne problems. Two years ago, five years ago.
. She was carrying a towel over both of her shoulders and back. It looked so neatly arranged it made me wonder if she did it to cover up the acne on her shoulders/back.

seriously, do you not think you are twisting the circumstances to suit your biases?

Is it called confirmation bias?

Its madness i tells yee. You are twisting this to suit your view.

It is perfectly normal to carry your towel on your shoulders.

Posts like these devalue all the valuable input in dealing with a subject which carries so much uncertainty. Posts like these make you sound like a bunch of cray conspiracy theorists.
 
Jul 10, 2010
697
0
0
Right, watched the BBC news whilst I had ITV on record. Played back the "outing" several times. She was not outed and has jumped the gun. The Chairman was ok in his choice of words. British athletes were in the frame but not winning British athletes. So Paula could have toughed it out - she has been doing that since December last year and seeing her profile on the BBC at Beijing she has been highly successful with that strategy. She has attempted to be quick out of the blocks and prevent any newspaper back pages having an undefended story to run with. The statement is carefully crafted to not tell us a great deal but have a few soundbites in it; nice little things that newspapers can quote. All cleverly thought out. Twitter has exploded tonight. However the vast majority has been highly supportive of her. Given a few weeks, this might be looked back on a time when even with all the work that had gone into preparing the statement, it was best left unused by the PR team.

There will be the blind PR followers just like the Lance followers and Sir Brad followers. However there will also be a bunch who are not internet forum inhabitants who will start to ask the question - just why did she say that ? Didn't Lance have the best lines ever and he very nearly got away with it ? It may well get a few people digging where the ground was previously left undisturbed. We can only hope.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS