Doping

Well, she shouldn't have fucking cheated then should she.

There is no way in the world you could get a sufficient amount of false-positives from the blood data if you were in fact clean.

You could test my blood for everything you want and I guarantee you won't find any traces of EPO. Ignore some of my stravadrafting though.

If it were me I'd say, take my blood, interpret however you like, here's a list of my TUE's, let me know how you get on.

^ this.

Holding off to prevent speculation isn't really working is it?

You could test my blood for everything you want and I guarantee you won't find any traces of EPO.

That would be rather concerning, as that would probably mean there is something seriously wrong with you. I'd get yourself checked out for severe anaemia.

(I get what you are saying though, about no exogenous epo, part of the problem is that as it is a naturally occurring cytokine, it's pretty damn hard to tell if someone is producing it naturally or topping it off exogenously).

There are tests for specific molecules actually and have been since 2000. Synthetic epo comes in various flavours though so it's not easy.

Wasn't there some talk about a Chinese produced synthetic EPO that looked and acted exactly like naturally occurring type? Or is that just wacism?

Is Paula Radcliffe the poopoo lady?

Must have been from all the performance enhancing gak she was doing. Her and Luca Paulini have the same dealer.

I mean, as if being a professional sportingpratt isn't humiliating enough.

Poo!

Certainly Conte thinks doping programmes are far ahead of the testing programmes.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats?CMP=share_btn_tw

What did you think people were talking about when they referred to the dark ages of cycling?

The Middle Ages?

(Not quite the 'dark ages' they're usually made out to be, of course.)

The media are reporting the blood values in question as recorded measures of 114.86, 109.86 and 109.3. I don't think any of the media channels remember in Science at school of the importance of including your units.

Obviously %s. All 3 are over 100 which is surely indicative of doping.

link. I'd like to lol at bad science.

found it:

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-radcliffe-says-clear-her-name

lol

They say "blood values" but I still haven't worked out what's being measured. At least if it was Hematocrit we could tell from the numbers being 50ish.

Is this a metric which can be microdosed up to threshold a LA Hematocrit? If so, insufficient datapoints are being discussed. I haven't seen an annotated graph yet.

What she seems to be saying is:

My "off-scores" are high enough to trigger for investigation and target-testing BUT they were done after altitude training and racing so would be high because they were done after altitude training and racing. I rest my case.

Seems legit

Radcliffe believes that without this crucial context, the experts could not reach an informed conclusion on her blood values based purely on the information in the database.

Then context should be given.

Whether she is innocent or guilty this feels like she is cheery picking results she can explain away. I don't think she is saying that these are the only suspicious results.

Off score is what is being measured.

Useful information here: http://sportsscientists.com/2011/03/the-biological-passport-legal-scientific-and-performance-views/

There may be legitimate reason for lack of transparency but it looks to this layperson that she has something to hide.

These pages discuss calculations of OFF Scores. https://athleticalgorithm.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/understanding-the-bio-passport-the-off-score/
http://sportsscientists.com/2011/03/the-biological-passport-legal-scientific-and-performance-views/

FYI: Radcliffe's scores are amateur compare to JTL's.
"According to UKAD, Tiernan-Locke’s figures led to a ‘highly abnormal’ OFF-score value of 155.8."

Haematocrit is a terrible indicator of doping though. It varies in endurance athletes from something around 40 to as high as the low 50s (Charly Wegalius had a normal trained haematocrit of about 52, so got busted by the UCI 50 limit). Haematocrit on its own doesn't give you anything like the whole picture.

Off scores differ between male and female athletes, so you can't compare them side by side.

Seems to me that giving 3 scores without a time line (and possibly without other scores from the same period) is giving data without context.

I refuse to get into the mindset of The Clinic and be absolute about her guilt to the point that all my further thinking is biased but what is coming out of her camp seems to lack transparency and looks to be an attempt to control the message not prove innocence.

Hasn't WADA accepted her innocence though? They'd presumably have the whole picture available to them. Or are the allegations inferring that the IAAF is in cahoots with WADA to conceal dopers in athletics?

WADA coming out with a statement now to say they have reviewed the data and find nothing suspicious would push me towards believing she is innocent, her ham fisted PR attempt is actually pushing me the other way.

My mind is open to either scenario.

Doesn't the data pre-date the biological passport?

This Sports Science page agrees with you. It's incomplete so explanations can only be speculated. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1061634447180927&id=213103522034028