Doping In Athletics

[TheSpud]

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/blood-tests-cleared-paula-radcliffe-125951975.html

Ashenden mentioned here, in relation to her values being below a threshold he had talked about. Interesting ...

"In 2003 Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, who worked closely with The Sunday Times, contributed to a paper in the journal Haematologica, which said the commonly used cut-off value for females training at altitude is 111.7, higher than two of Radcliffe's test scores."

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

Makes no odds to me, I've been working. I don't really know how much difference it makes...and is he referring to a urine test or blood test? If she was that dehydrated I can't imagine a urine test being viable straight away....as I implied upthread. Blood could have been though.

A urine sample is always a viable sample to test (assuming it is handled properly). A blood sample is always a viable sample to test.

A blood sample is not always a viable test to submit to the BP (many blood tests are not BP tests).

The formal ABP protocol ensures that any blood test used for the profile is taken 2 hours after competition.
blood sample is not always a viable test to submit to the BP (many blood tests are not BP tests).

In 2003, there was no APB. Scores and their changes were monitored in a similar, longitudinal fashion, in order to determine suspicion, and who to target test.

Paula's post race blood test was not ABP protocol; there was no protocol.

Paula's dehydration would effect/(delay) her ability to give a urine sample, not its viability.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not sure where they come from but a graph of Brit female off-scores has been posted. I updated my off-score table to include 12 Hgb as the lower value. You can spot the combinations that allow Hatti Archer to have 41 and Jo Pavey not much higher.

Curious that Paula only seems to have a few tests vs the others?

 

[Happy dude]

After I mentioned that 114 is 10% higher than the 103 mark


"Which is why results taken 2hrs after competition are invalid, as they can give false positives. Your red blood cell count spikes after extreme exertion, dehydration and times at high altitude. All of which are factors in many marathons and half-marathons.

If she had that count in a much shorter race with few or none of those factors present, it might be different.

edit: 2 of her results are below the 111.7 normal level after altitude training. The third is invalid due to when itwas taken."

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

I wouldn't pretend to read her mind but I suspects that, like most athletes, she'll use time as a marker for the merit of a performance. It's also probably not, retrospectively speaking, an event that would have been amongst the most memorable (ie not like a Chicago/Boston/New York? London marathon...just a half too).
As I said earlier, I'd like to hear what Ashenden says in response to the "irresponsible" accusation. It'll either be nothing or a robust defence.

Paula seems to feel differently:

“The World Half Marathon Championships are really special to me,” said the marathon world record-holder. “My first title was in 2000 in Veracruz in Mexico and it came off the back of my disappointment in finishing fourth at the Sydney Olympic Games after having led for 24 of the 25 laps in the 10,000m.

“It kind of was the transition and the boost that I needed at that point to show me the way towards the marathon, which really was my event later on. But at that stage, the half marathon was my event. And it was such a fun event and just something that I really loved, but it gave me my first world title and I think that probably then gave me the confidence to go on and get the world title over the cross country as a senior in Ostend in 2001 and to back it up with more world half-marathon titles.”

http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/world-half-marathon-cardiff-2016-radcliffe

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Makes no odds to me, I've been working. I don't really know how much difference it makes...and is he referring to a urine test or blood test? If she was that dehydrated I can't imagine a urine test being viable straight away....as I implied upthread. Blood could have been though.

A urine sample is always a viable sample to test (assuming it is handled properly). A blood sample is always a viable sample to test.

A blood sample is not always a viable test to submit to the BP (many blood tests are not BP tests).

The formal ABP protocol ensures that any blood test used for the profile is taken 2 hours after competition.
blood sample is not always a viable test to submit to the BP (many blood tests are not BP tests).

In 2003, there was no APB. Scores and their changes were monitored in a similar, longitudinal fashion, in order to determine suspicion, and who to target test.

Paula's post race blood test was not ABP protocol; there was no protocol.

Paula's dehydration would effect/(delay) her ability to give a urine sample, not its viability.

Well that's a verbose way of agreeing with me.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Urine samples are not always viable - I thought they had to meet a specific gravity threshold? In fact I am sure of it - having read reports of people providing a sample that failed and having to provide another.

 

[Benotti69]

Radcliffe claims 32C at World Half Champs in 2003. Reality was much lower.

https://twitter.com/ulif/status/642064012100923392

 

[keeponrollin]

Re:

Radcliffe claims 32C at World Half Champs in 2003. Reality was much lower.

https://twitter.com/ulif/status/642064012100923392

You see, this is why her initial position was the straight forward threat of litigation against the ST.

While her name wasn't in the frame, she could sit on he couch in the BBC & do a completely hypocritical about face on data transparency & 99.99% of the population thought nothing about it.

Now she's explaining, & she has to deal in facts, & when something she says is shown as complete & utter BS; there's a whittling away at her credibility, & its like worrying away at a lose tooth, it's never going to get any better, its just a matter of time till it falls out !

I went thru her 1,700+ word rebuttal, & there's pitifully little that comes under even the loosest definition of Fact, in it; there's a lot of fluff, but right now the substance of her entire rebuttal is at best hearsay.

A couple of basic questions which I would really love to have answered are:

1. Who carried out what analysis of her samples, & what were their recommendations/reports.
2. What was the Scientific reason for the change in the minimum time between the end of events & blood tests.
3. What was the exact times that her samples were taken.

I can't see any good reason why these simple questions couldn't be answered ?

 

[domination]

Re:

Sky News ‏@SkyNews 40m40 minutes ago
EXCLUSIVE: We obtain blood data which proves Paula Radcliffe has not been involved in doping

really loving this tweet.

Ashenden doesn't know anything about blood doping, but Sky News journalists are experts.

"we obtain" is great too. Like, yeah, you guys just happened to come across those blood values today. What a coincidence.

Yet two of the values are within what Ashenden has himself described as normal for altitude (and the third is invalid).

But that's the problem with the Clinic isn't it? You cast aspersions and doubts on anybody who comes out in support but hang on every word of a doubter. See below a quote from some guy on letsrun for example, but Radcliffe's former physical therapist is talking out of his backside.

But I guess that's all you can do when you haven't a shred of solid evidence.

It's fun to read though so keep it up guys.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Sky News ‏@SkyNews 40m40 minutes ago
EXCLUSIVE: We obtain blood data which proves Paula Radcliffe has not been involved in doping

really loving this tweet.

Ashenden doesn't know anything about blood doping, but Sky News journalists are experts.

"we obtain" is great too. Like, yeah, you guys just happened to come across those blood values today. What a coincidence.

Yet two of the values are within what Ashenden has himself described as normal for altitude (and the third is invalid).

Ok.

So explain to me how that "proves" Radcliffe was clean.

cos that's the problem with trolls who pop in to throw generic insults around, isn't it. You always take the side of flawed arguments.

 

[DirtyWorks]

All we need now is Coe declaring Radcliffe "never, never, never doped." The woman is never testing positive. Ever.

The same story is posted lots and lots of places.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3230301/Lord-Coe-comes-support-Paula-Radcliffe-warns-against-witch-hunts.html

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

Not sure where they come from but a graph of Brit female off-scores has been posted. I updated my off-score table to include 12 Hgb as the lower value. You can spot the combinations that allow Hatti Archer to have 41 and Jo Pavey not much higher.

Curious that Paula only seems to have a few tests vs the others?

Great post. Now we know why the UKADA were begging people to not release their values. Paula's look incredibly dodgy in comparison! And imagine how much more dodgy it would look if we had the full picture and not just the off-score

 

[the sceptic]

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

Not sure where they come from but a graph of Brit female off-scores has been posted. I updated my off-score table to include 12 Hgb as the lower value. You can spot the combinations that allow Hatti Archer to have 41 and Jo Pavey not much higher.

Curious that Paula only seems to have a few tests vs the others?

Great post. Now we know why the UKADA were begging people to not release their values. Paula's look incredibly dodgy in comparison! And imagine how much more dodgy it would look if we had the full picture and not just the off-score

RE: number of tests, Radcliffe's three tests are the only ones that have been released (leaked would probably be a better word) as she hasn't chosen to make hers public. All the others have. There will be a great many more results available and we will hopefuly get to see them eventually.

It would be interesting to see her scores over a period of time (do we know the dates each of these three were taken?) and cross reference against performance etc. Are these three extreme outliers for instance or is everything else in excess of 95? If that was the case is that plausible? Would the odd outlier be plausible? Do here explanations for these reading stack up? Does it tell us anything about her physiology/training etc. vis a vis other athletes?

 

[Cycle Chic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0324jhb

Interesting interview with Gary Lough, Radcliffe's husband on 5 Live

Apparently on the list he knows that the other 7 UK athletes ARE CLEAN and there are other world athletes on the list who are also clean but there are well known cheats on the list also.

What is he on about !

 

[armchairclimber]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0324jhb

Interesting interview with Gary Lough, Radcliffe's husband on 5 Live

Apparently on the list he knows that the other 7 UK athletes ARE CLEAN and there are other world athletes on the list who are also clean but there are well known cheats on the list also.

What is he on about !

Daft as it is, he is as entitled as anyone on here to make unqualified and unsubstantiated statements.

 

[Cramps]

Re: Re:

It would be interesting to see her scores over a period of time (do we know the dates each of these three were taken?) and cross reference against performance etc. Are these three extreme outliers for instance or is everything else in excess of 95? If that was the case is that plausible? Would the odd outlier be plausible? Do here explanations for these reading stack up? Does it tell us anything about her physiology/training etc. vis a vis other athletes?

We do know about another blood test, according to the ST, taken 2 days before the Vilamoura half-marathon, which was a 40% lower off-score. That would put it right in the range of the other athletes we've seen. So she had a perfectly normal score in the build up to an event, and then very high score immediately after the event.

 

[the sceptic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0324jhb

Interesting interview with Gary Lough, Radcliffe's husband on 5 Live

Apparently on the list he knows that the other 7 UK athletes ARE CLEAN and there are other world athletes on the list who are also clean but there are well known cheats on the list also.

What is he on about !

Daft as it is, he is as entitled as anyone on here to make unqualified and unsubstantiated statements.

most of us don't get our opinions printed in official propaganda media.

I'd wager to say the BBC would never consider interviewing anyone who thinks Paula is not cleans.

 

[johndoe99]

Who are the independent experts who have reviewed the data and cleared her?
And where are the results of the review?

 

[simoni]

As ever with Letsrun the quality of writing is not the best but the explanation from Tucker is interesting.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/09/wejo-speaks-paula-radcliffe-can-gain-credibility-with-more-transparency-science-of-sports-ross-tucker-says-paulas-explanations-are-plausible-but-more-info-is-needed-tucker-youre-not-dealin/

 

[armchairclimber]

As ever with Letsrun the quality of writing is not the best but the explanation from Tucker is interesting.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/09/wejo-speaks-paula-radcliffe-can-gain-credibility-with-more-transparency-science-of-sports-ross-tucker-says-paulas-explanations-are-plausible-but-more-info-is-needed-tucker-youre-not-dealin/

Seems a fairly sane summation to me.

 

[the sceptic]

Tucker is the only interesting thing to come out of that article. Wejo opinions are worthless.

 

[Cramps]

Based on the available info, I think we can now estimate Hb and retic % for PR's two tests surrounding the Vilamoura event, as well as PR's "typical" off-score. Obviously take these calculations with some skepticism, I'm no expert, but they do seem to work out perfectly.

The Times says the off-score was 40% higher on the day of the race than in the test two days before.
PR released her off-score the day of Vilamoura as 109.86
PR says in her book that Hb from the blood test 2 days before was 12.0.
PR's quote of the WADA chief says Hb increased 2.8 with little change in retic%

PRE-EVENT. Off-score should be 109.86/1.4 = 78.5. The Hb = 12.0. Off-score = Hb x 10 – 60 (square root of the reticulocyte %)). So retic = .83%.

POST-EVENT. Off-score was 109.86. If Hb is 12.0 + 2.8 = 14.8, then retic = .80%. This gives some confidence because it works out perfectly consistent with WADA chief's claim, and Sunday Times figures.

The off-score before the event is unexceptional, but based on what PR says was an exceptionally low Hb score for her.

In her book, PR says her usual Hb is 14-14.5. The retic % in both tests is close, so if we estimate her usual retic % to be .83, then her usual off-score based on Hb=14-14.5, should be between 98.7 to 103.7

Compare this to the other athletes in Dear Wiggo's graph. Her usual off score would be very high compared to the other athletes who have released their data.

 

[King Boonen]

As ever with Letsrun the quality of writing is not the best but the explanation from Tucker is interesting.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/09/wejo-speaks-paula-radcliffe-can-gain-credibility-with-more-transparency-science-of-sports-ross-tucker-says-paulas-explanations-are-plausible-but-more-info-is-needed-tucker-youre-not-dealin/

Thanks, that's interesting, mainly because well known people are starting to call for what clinic regulars have been calling for all along and for a long time. Release all of your data. Paula isn't competing, it's not going to be an advantage to anyone, if she is truly clean then she should do exactly what is stated in that article: Give the data to her accusers, specifically Ashenden, and get them to assess it. If Ashenden say's nothing in the data shows doping then that's the best she can do.

I hope Weldon Johnson starts to criticise Paula and reassess his opinion if this doesn't happen...