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

Doping In Athletics

Page 40 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
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:
I just responded to comparing the effects of a three-week race to a one day race, which after reading your post again I realize you didn't actually do; you were just using the numbers as a reference point.

Here is SportsSceintists talking about fluid loss:

Human beings can safely lose big volumes of fluid without their body temperature shooting through the roof. Typically, in a marathon on a reasonably warm day, we lose about 2 to 3 L of fluid over many hours. Faster runners lose more – Haile Gebrselassie is reported to have finished his Berlin World Record 5kg lighter than at the start. We have a race in South Africa, the Comrades Ultra-Marathon, run over 90km, from morning to evening, with temperatures typically in the mid- to high-20s for about six of those hourse, and controlled research has found that most of the field finish with around 2 to 4% body weight loss, a proxy for fluid loss.
I don't want to defend Paula, but dehydration does happen. What I don't know is how whole-body fluid loss translates into plasma fluid loss.

What I've found on his blog:

To give an idea of normal plasma loss
What is also noteworthy from this study was that the crampers had an average loss of body weight of 2.9%, compared to 3.6% for the non-cramping controls. In otherwords, the people who DID NOT cramp lost more weight than the people who did. It goes further than this, because Schwellnus et al were able to measure the change in plasma volume as well – a more direct measure for what is happening to fluids. Here, they found that the crampers actually gained a small amount of 0.2% during the race. The non-cramping control subjects LOST 0.7%. So the sum effect of this data is that it suggests very strongly that cramping is not associated with dehydration, or with lower serum electrolyte levels, which is what we have had drilled into us for many years!
Voume loss's effect on exercise:

What is also noteworthy from this study was that the crampers had an average loss of body weight of 2.9%, compared to 3.6% for the non-cramping controls. In otherwords, the people who DID NOT cramp lost more weight than the people who did. It goes further than this, because Schwellnus et al were able to measure the change in plasma volume as well – a more direct measure for what is happening to fluids. Here, they found that the crampers actually gained a small amount of 0.2% during the race. The non-cramping control subjects LOST 0.7%. So the sum effect of this data is that it suggests very strongly that cramping is not associated with dehydration, or with lower serum electrolyte levels, which is what we have had drilled into us for many years!
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
I tweeted Ross et al and he's going to get back to me. Plasma contraction can occur without fluid loss, apparently. :-/

Physiology is weird :D
 
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
I tweeted Ross et al and he's going to get back to me. Plasma contraction can occur without fluid loss, apparently. :-/

Physiology is weird :D
Cool.

This is what I meant to quote in the second one

Effects of volume loss on performance: (the body figures out a way to compensate)
In 1979, Ethan Nadel published a study [1] where he compared exercise in the heat to exercise in the cold, specifically to look at the circulatory system. In that paper, he showed that the challenge to the circulation as a result of plasma volume contraction was more than adequately met by a redistribution of blood from the splanchnic, renal and gastro-intestinal circulatory systems.

Is there a challenge to the circulation whenever plasma volume is reduced (be it high temperatures or fluid loss)? Yes, but the body is more than capable of adjusting to this ‘stress’. A number of other studies by scientists in Denmark particularly (Savard, Nielsen, Nybo) confirmed this for exercise in the heat.
I saw your tweet at Ross. I have the feeling the answer is going to start off with "It's complicated...", with a lot of "it depends..." sprinkled in.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
Re: Re:

Eyeballs Out said:
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
Paul Kelso in his Sky News report said she was pursued by media for over 6 months on this. I seem to remember Ben Rumsby with The Telegraph a few weeks back at the time of the above report saying on twitter that they knew.

This was well-known in the media circles.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
Ben Rumsby is actually writing about this in tomorrow's paper.

It is now almost nine months to the day since The Telegraph first revealed that a major British star was among a list of athletes whose “suspicious” blood values the International Association of Athletics Federations had allegedly failed to act on.

We did so to highlight both the seriousness of the claims and the importance that they were investigated for the sake of the integrity of sport in this country.

We refrained from identifying Radcliffe to prevent her being unfairly tarnished as a drugs cheat in the absence of the full context behind those “suspicious” readings. We reached out to the marathon world record holder in an attempt to offer her an opportunity to provide that context. We received no response.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11852600/Paula-Radcliffe-invited-suspicion-with-her-lack-of-transparency.html

Radcliffe was on ITV news tonight(video)

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-08/exclusive-paula-radcliffe-tells-of-devastation-and-anger-over-doping-allegations/
 
Sep 4, 2012
193
0
0
Sep 9, 2015
12
0
0
Doping manual:

You deny and hope it will pass.

If there is no more denying, hope that it will come out in a fashion where 90% of your competitors are also accused so you can claim the strongest still won.

Never be the first to admit. You'll be crucified while the rest of the dopers move on with their career.
 
Jun 4, 2015
285
0
0
Re: Re:

Chipist said:
armchairclimber said:
The Carrot said:
armchairclimber said:
Well, I watched this expecting the worst. Frankly, there's naff all in that interview that bothers me. I would prefer that she did let her blood results into the public domain, but I absolutely understand why she doesn't. She is right...they won't prove anything either way and she will never in a million years convince this tiny constituency in here that she ran 3 minutes faster than anyone else clean (despite the fact that she was effectively paced to that time). All this bobbins about her eyes....she has always had a frickin weird manner. Always.

If Jo Pavey and Mo release their BP data, is anyone here seriously going to do a sudden about turn and say "Oh yeah, I believe in them now"? It's a pointless exercise. What would impress me more would be for these athletes to hand their long term data over to someone like Ashenden...privately...and to allow him to make an assessment.
She went quiet after the first ARD/ST report several months ago IIRC.

It's not the interview per se it's the latest in a long line of comedy gold from this pantomime:

1. Prominent British Athlete with Dodgy blood values earlier in the year.
2. Seven London marathon victories in 12 years 'under doping suspicion'.
3. The super injunction (an action which I think Jeremy Clarkson described as a very expensive way of letting the world know what you've done wrong.)
4. Going 'off the grid' until Seb Coe gets elected, therefore ensuring her protection.
5. Changing her view on releasing blood values/tests.
6. Now this comedy interview which essentially says those were her dodgy blood values everyone was talking about.


Master Criminals this lot, so she deserves all the over analysis coming her way, dodgy eyes and all. Thing is though, they may have made a mistake protecting her as she has never been that popular since her failure at the Olympics, dumping in the street etc.
1. No confirmation that it is her.
2. Not hers
3. Super injunction? Bllx.
4. What protection?
5. Changing her mind? Er...oh yeah, I do that a lot.
6. No it doesn't.

If you are going to go after someone, do it properly.
In the light of yesterday's events:

1. Her.
2. Hers.
3. Looking highly likely injunction is/was in place.
4. Tbc over this one now.
5. Changing stance still looks dodgy.
6. Yes it did.
 
Yes her data. No to super-injunction .... didn't exist.
Regards to changing her mind...I don't think she should have. If she wanted the data public, as she claims, then she should have ignored WADA/IAAF advice... however, I don't think it would have made a blind bit of difference to whether or not she is perceived as a doper at this point.

Now that this is out...and I'm glad it is (so, if she can be believed is she), I don't think there is protection that the IAAF can offer really going forward. I think her off scores and reasons for them will be subject to scrutiny .... the press will no doubt be getting their own experts to critique. I'll be interested to hear what Ashenden and Parisotto say in response to her accusation that they were irresponsible.
 
Sep 26, 2009
1,815
0
0
Ufe retweeted
Lance Armstrong ‏@lancearmstrong 6h6 hours ago
@Digger_forum @kristenworley @stevemagness @Scienceofsport meanwhile, @DavidWalshST is awfully quiet.
Ha ha Lance putting the knife into Walsh - on the Radcliffe bandwagon
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
Cycle Chic said:
Ufe retweeted
Lance Armstrong ‏@lancearmstrong 6h6 hours ago
@Digger_forum @kristenworley @stevemagness @Scienceofsport meanwhile, @DavidWalshST is awfully quiet.
Ha ha Lance putting the knife into Walsh - on the Radcliffe bandwagon
And your point???
 
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
That Walsh is a hypocrite so hilarious, not even Lance is oblivious to it. But, to be fair, Lance might not like Walsh that much.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
Re:

SeriousSam said:
That Walsh is a hypocrite so hilarious, not even Lance is oblivious to it. But, to be fair, Lance might not like Walsh that much.
This was released only yesterday.

It's one of the most meaningless responses I've seen so far to this topic, other than as you say from his own somehow satisfaction at getting a jibe in.

It's means nothing in the wider scale of the importance of this issue and particularly that Lance doesn't have the slightest interest or care in the world for.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
I think these are not the actions of a clean athlete

However, with Radcliffe what doesn't sit well with me is the way she went about it. When approached before the Sunday Times piece broke, she threatened lawsuits if they mentioned her name and remarked that they wouldn't get their money back like they did in the Armstrong situation.
Further than that, she had her lawyers threaten lawsuits to any journalist who revealed that her name was on the list. At the very same time, she was initially stating that the names on the list should be released. A tune she had held since she was an athlete when she suggested her blood data be shared publicly.
The hypocrisy is quite concerning but it only got worse. Once the 2nd Sunday Times story broke about the detailed list of names AND values, she changed her tune in public stating that the names should not be released to anyone.
It took until her back was against the wall when British parliament officials hinted at her being on the list that she finally came forward.
This all screams doper with something to hide.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
I think these are not the actions of a clean athlete

However, with Radcliffe what doesn't sit well with me is the way she went about it. When approached before the Sunday Times piece broke, she threatened lawsuits if they mentioned her name and remarked that they wouldn't get their money back like they did in the Armstrong situation.
Further than that, she had her lawyers threaten lawsuits to any journalist who revealed that her name was on the list. At the very same time, she was initially stating that the names on the list should be released. A tune she had held since she was an athlete when she suggested her blood data be shared publicly.
The hypocrisy is quite concerning but it only got worse. Once the 2nd Sunday Times story broke about the detailed list of names AND values, she changed her tune in public stating that the names should not be released to anyone.
It took until her back was against the wall when British parliament officials hinted at her being on the list that she finally came forward.
This all screams doper with something to hide.
yup...but with psuedo-scientists like Ashenden stalking the globe..what is a girl to do...
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

gooner said:
SeriousSam said:
That Walsh is a hypocrite so hilarious, not even Lance is oblivious to it. But, to be fair, Lance might not like Walsh that much.
This was released only yesterday.

It's one of the most meaningless responses I've seen so far to this topic, other than as you say from his own somehow satisfaction at getting a jibe in.

It's means nothing in the wider scale of the importance of this issue and particularly that Lance doesn't have the slightest interest or care in the world for.
Walsh has been very quick to respond on twitter to other stuff.

He has tweeted he will be writing about PR for this Sundays ST, but that is all.
 
Sep 26, 2009
1,815
0
0
My post was to show a tweet from Lance stating that Walsh is being quiet on Radcliffe - the topic is ATHLETICS, RADCLIFFE is an athlete....Lance is taking the opportunity to rubbish Walsh (his bezzy mate)

now where in all of that is my post not relevant.
 
Sep 8, 2015
120
0
0
Re:

Dumorain said:
Doping manual:

You deny and hope it will pass.

If there is no more denying, hope that it will come out in a fashion where 90% of your competitors are also accused so you can claim the strongest still won.

Never be the first to admit. You'll be crucified while the rest of the dopers move on with their career.
I agree, and by the way that "how to deal with it" manual also applies to other great scandals of our time e.g. MPs expenses / phone hacking etc. It becomes a game of --string it out till everyone else has confessed, and no one will remember you confessing at the end--.

In a way, it's a perverse form of "last mover advantage"
 
Jun 27, 2013
4,352
2
0
What are you people talking about? Brits don't dope. It's only the foreigners....

Reactions from british people to this whole thing on social media remind me of this scene from Blackadder

Captain Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
General Melchett: Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!
Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies...
General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Here's a nice summary of Paula's missteps.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/08/paula-radcliffe-fighting-doping-allegations

The IAAF probably helped write that nonsense statement from yesterday's hearing.

In theory, there are frozen blood samples from her peak performance era somewhere. Let's imagine she stops taking the IAAF's advice and locates the samples and releases them to Ashenden and Parisotto. There are real questions about the frozen blood being intact-enough to perform modern testing.

At this point, Radcliffe is another Chris Horner. A PED user that never tested positive.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts