Doping In Athletics

[Catwhoorg]

Re:

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.

The sample can be too dilute. Obviously not an issue with a dehydrated person.
One of the first steps the lab does is dilute a sample to a standard gravity.

 

[johndoe99]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/paula-radcliffe-blood-data-is-leaked--but-she-wont-release-more-10495897.html


The independent experts just looked at the off-scores.

 

[simoni]

Re:

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.

My one and only urine sample was borderline because of this and some testers may have asked me to do another one. I was badly dehydrated post-race and had to load myself with water to produce anything at all.

 

[the sceptic]

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...

If she was clean she would have released all the data and tried to explain why she was on that list when she first found out 9 months ago. But instead she chose to lawyer up and hope it would all go away, and when it didn't she released a carefully crafted essay with layers upon layers of Lance-speak.

If this guy is still giving Paula the benefit of the doubt he is beyond help and is never going to change, like Walsh. He will believe whatever spin Paula comes up with next, to explain why she can't possibly release any values.

 

[Bumeington]

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.

She claims to have been on antibotics before Vilamoura. Think it's more reasonable to assume a normal retic of 1% which would indicate 80-85 as a normal off-score for Paula.

Is the 2.8 increase in Hb and no change in retic consistent with dehydration? If it was a blood bag retic would go down?

 

[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...

If she was clean she would have released all the data and tried to explain why she was on that list when she first found out 9 months ago. But instead she chose to lawyer up and hope it would all go away, and when it didn't she released a carefully crafted essay with layers upon layers of Lance-speak.

If this guy is still giving Paula the benefit of the doubt he is beyond help and is never going to change, like Walsh. He will believe whatever spin Paula comes up with next, to explain why she can't possibly release any values.

You are of course entitled to that opinion and I can respect it. If she were to release everything now I don't see much difference. Weldon has set out his stall as both a well known runner and a friend of Paula Radcliffe. Personally I'm interested to see if he says more when the results are not forthcoming (if that's the way it happens).

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

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.

The sample can be too dilute. Obviously not an issue with a dehydrated person.
One of the first steps the lab does is dilute a sample to a standard gravity.

Can I just explain that when I used the word "viable" initially it was a reference to the fact that she would likely have been unable to pee straight away.

 

[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/

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...

If she was clean she would have released all the data and tried to explain why she was on that list when she first found out 9 months ago. But instead she chose to lawyer up and hope it would all go away, and when it didn't she released a carefully crafted essay with layers upon layers of Lance-speak.

If this guy is still giving Paula the benefit of the doubt he is beyond help and is never going to change, like Walsh. He will believe whatever spin Paula comes up with next, to explain why she can't possibly release any values.

You are of course entitled to that opinion and I can respect it. If she were to release everything now I don't see much difference. Weldon has set out his stall as both a well known runner and a friend of Paula Radcliffe. Personally I'm interested to see if he says more when the results are not forthcoming (if that's the way it happens).

My thoughts too KB.

 

[Cramps]

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.

She claims to have been on antibotics before Vilamoura. Think it's more reasonable to assume a normal retic of 1% which would indicate 80-85 as a normal off-score for Paula.

Is the 2.8 increase in Hb and no change in retic consistent with dehydration? If it was a blood bag retic would go down?

Yes, that seems reasonable, an infection would reduce retic %, so compensating does bring her closer to the other released athletes.
The Lausanne WADA chief whom PR brought in to do the analysis said the Hb increase w/no retic change was consistent with dehydration.

 

[wendybnt]

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.

Just my opinion, but I think you'd lose that bet.

Remember that BBC documentary earlier this summer, about doping? About half of it was the interview with two US athletes, that I doubt many Brits will have heard of, saying their coach had encouraged them to dope.

Their coach was called Salazar, again unknown to most Brits. Ask yourself why the programme was focusing on this? Purely because Salazar is Farah's coach and the programme makers were making an implicit connection whilst expressing an explicit refutation that the programme was anything to do with Farah.

The Brits are subtle. Sometimes you have to read between the lines.

 

[armchairclimber]

From Ross Tucker https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

From Ross Tucker https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664

Autobiographies coming back to haunt athlete's is wonderful .

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

From Ross Tucker https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664

Autobiographies coming back to haunt athlete's is wonderful .

especially when they're written by Walsh

 

[simoni]

Could someone explain in plain English what this means? Is it the case this low haemoglobin level with an offscore as quoted can only be consistent with a suspicious level of reticulytes?

 

[Cramps]

Could someone explain in plain English what this means? Is it the case this low haemoglobin level with an offscore as quoted can only be consistent with a suspicious level of reticulytes?

That's what I was trying to show earlier. It doesn't seem like there's anything very weird about her retic% based on the off-scores and Hb values we now have. It might be a little lower than average, but as pointed out, she claimed at the time to have an infection which could have depressed the value.

My point was that based on the resulting retic%, and her reported Hb, her off scores would be routinely much higher than other athletes who have released their data.

However, if she had an infection, then the estimated retic% is probably an underestimate of her normal retic, and the routine off-score I calculated is probably an overestimate.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

From Ross Tucker https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/642229103266033664

Autobiographies coming back to haunt athlete's is wonderful .

especially when they're written by Walsh

Very true. Walsh is awesome, truly awesome.

Small details he misses now and then like blood doping and asthma

 

[armchairclimber]

Tucker's last word seemingly, for now. http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

Interestingly Renato Canova is absolutely adamant that the temp was nearer 30 C on the day of the test in question and that standing out in the sun for more than a few minutes was unbearable.

I don't think the Walsh penned autobiography does any harm to her arguments at all. The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer. The passage from her autobiography also confirms that she didn't rate it as one of her best performances...and why. What does seem utterly remarkable to me is that she still won by a distance having slowed down.

Tucker is absolutely right that she would have been better putting all this stuff out there last December.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Tucker's last word seemingly, for now. http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

Interestingly Renato Canova is absolutely adamant that the temp was nearer 30 C on the day of the test in question and that standing out in the sun for more than a few minutes was unbearable.

I don't think the Walsh penned autobiography does any harm to her arguments at all. The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer. The passage from her autobiography also confirms that she didn't rate it as one of her best performances...and why. What does seem utterly remarkable to me is that she still won by a distance having slowed down.

Tucker is absolutely right that she would have been better putting all this stuff out there last December.

Radcliffe's actions have been seen numerous times before by athletes with something to hide. Doping.

The only course a clean athlete would take is to be completely open and transparent. Radcliffe did not do this. Threatening her lawyers on the media is now a sign that points to doping.

 

[simoni]

Excellent, I think I understand the situation now following that latest Tucker article.

Seems to me that if Radcliffe wants to win over the majority who don't know what to believe (myself included) she has little choice but to release all her data.

Not sure why she's handled it in the way she has but its been a mess and does nothing for her credibility. But there remains an opportunity to win back lost ground - I hope she takes it.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Tucker's last word seemingly, for now. http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

Interestingly Renato Canova is absolutely adamant that the temp was nearer 30 C on the day of the test in question and that standing out in the sun for more than a few minutes was unbearable.

I don't think the Walsh penned autobiography does any harm to her arguments at all. The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer. The passage from her autobiography also confirms that she didn't rate it as one of her best performances...and why. What does seem utterly remarkable to me is that she still won by a distance having slowed down.

Tucker is absolutely right that she would have been better putting all this stuff out there last December.

Radcliffe's actions have been seen numerous times before by athletes with something to hide. Doping.

The only course a clean athlete would take is to be completely open and transparent. Radcliffe did not do this. Threatening her lawyers on the media is now a sign that points to doping.

Well it would be if it wasn't for the obvious fact that it's what you'd do if you were clean too. Fact is she hasn't taken legal action.
But then, even if she released all her blood data and had Ashenden and Parisotto give them their seal of approval would you then consider her to be clean?

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer.

The IAAF doesn't care if athletes are doping or not. What matters is public perception. If they start launching investigation into it's biggest stars, it looks bad. If they look the other way and hope no one ever finds out, it looks good.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer.

The IAAF doesn't care if athletes are doping or not. What matters is public perception. If they start launching investigation into it's biggest stars, it looks bad. If they look the other way and hope no one ever finds out, it looks good.

That doesn't make any sense. They may be hopelessly behind the curve but if they didn't care at all, why bother with the ABP, sending docs out to test etc? They needn't bother. It's not as though it's something visible to the public.
However, I don't think Coe has done the IAAF any favours in that department. Until he stops pretending that his Nikje contract doesn't represent a conflict of interest and until he stops behaving as though PR is his best buddy (with friends like him, she doesn't need enemies) then he doesn't have any credibility in my eyes.

 

[the sceptic]

busting dopers is bad publicity. Which is bad for attracting sponsors. Which is bad for people who want to remain in high positions within the IAAF. What do you think would happened if Bolt tested positive?

They need to pretend they care because of previous scandals. Throw a few Russians under the bus now and then when things are really bad. But never ever dream of catching anyone that matters.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Tucker's last word seemingly, for now. http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

Interestingly Renato Canova is absolutely adamant that the temp was nearer 30 C on the day of the test in question and that standing out in the sun for more than a few minutes was unbearable.

I don't think the Walsh penned autobiography does any harm to her arguments at all. The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer. The passage from her autobiography also confirms that she didn't rate it as one of her best performances...and why. What does seem utterly remarkable to me is that she still won by a distance having slowed down.

Tucker is absolutely right that she would have been better putting all this stuff out there last December.

Radcliffe's actions have been seen numerous times before by athletes with something to hide. Doping.

The only course a clean athlete would take is to be completely open and transparent. Radcliffe did not do this. Threatening her lawyers on the media is now a sign that points to doping.

Well it would be if it wasn't for the obvious fact that it's what you'd do if you were clean too. Fact is she hasn't taken legal action.
But then, even if she released all her blood data and had Ashenden and Parisotto give them their seal of approval would you then consider her to be clean?

A super injunction against the Sunday Times is not legal action?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Tucker's last word seemingly, for now. http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

Interestingly Renato Canova is absolutely adamant that the temp was nearer 30 C on the day of the test in question and that standing out in the sun for more than a few minutes was unbearable.

I don't think the Walsh penned autobiography does any harm to her arguments at all. The antibiotics, illness and the dehydration together might explain why the IAAF considered her to have no case to answer. The passage from her autobiography also confirms that she didn't rate it as one of her best performances...and why. What does seem utterly remarkable to me is that she still won by a distance having slowed down.

Tucker is absolutely right that she would have been better putting all this stuff out there last December.

Radcliffe's actions have been seen numerous times before by athletes with something to hide. Doping.

The only course a clean athlete would take is to be completely open and transparent. Radcliffe did not do this. Threatening her lawyers on the media is now a sign that points to doping.

Well it would be if it wasn't for the obvious fact that it's what you'd do if you were clean too. Fact is she hasn't taken legal action.
But then, even if she released all her blood data and had Ashenden and Parisotto give them their seal of approval would you then consider her to be clean?

An athlete who threatens to set lawyers on a publisher over blood values is not clean. Fact!