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".
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".