Leaked IAAf report on doping

average_runner · 10-09-2015 01:52PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

If somebody was innocent, and knew he/she had done nothing wrong, why wouldn't you threaten to sue somebody who could potentially defame your character?

While i agree with you, Lance did sue everyone but knew himself he was guilty. Actually he probably believed himself he was clean at some stage!!

Chivito550 · 10-09-2015 01:55PM

average_runner wrote: »

While i agree with you, Lance did sue everyone but knew himself he was guilty. Actually he probably believed himself he was clean at some stage!!

Oh absolutely. Just saying that threatening to sue is not evidence of guilt.

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 01:58PM

average_runner wrote: »

But based on the evidence, there is nothing there to prove she is guilty.
Now she is innocent till someone shows evidence stating otherwise, and this evidence does not exist.

Ashenden clearly thinks there is something untoward, if he didn't, this story wouldn't exist. The whole reason radcliffes name has cropped up is because of all British athletes covered her values were the most abnormal. At least that was my interpretation of what went on. Now she has stated that here values were within certain ranges and made excuses etc, let's see the data so we can compare her interpretation and anshendens.

The whole notion that releasing the data because it can be misinterpreted is a joke. It's unreleased right now and it leaves the likes of me speculating what if, surely that's the biggest chance of things being misinterpreted

Show us the data, let's compare the values with the accepted norms and see exactly who's telling the truth.

One thing I will say is that anshendens has absolutely no reason to lie or fabricate anything and having been involved with blood doping since the 90's, probably knows what he's talking about.

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 02:01PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Oh absolutely. Just saying that threatening to sue is not evidence of guilt.

Absolutely not, but what it did do was create a void where people could speculate to their hearts content. Were it me I'd have issued a statement the morning I heard saying I'm dismayed by the findings and intend to clear my name etc. not gag everybody, wait till I'm outed then continue to withhold the only thing which can effectively prove the doubters wrong.

It doesn't add up

Myles Splitz · 10-09-2015 02:08PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

One thing I will say is that anshendens has absolutely no reason to lie or fabricate anything and having been involved with blood doping since the 90's, probably knows what he's talking about.

And yet he take values in isolation and made assumptions based on these off scores. The values taken were done before ADAMS or indeed the blood passport were in effect so has no idea of testing taking place. Remember Radcliffe would have been subject to testing after her WR so suggesting that IAAF didn't act is a leap.

He also talks of IAAF's failure to act on evidence prior to blood passports coming in to affect yet never once acknowledges CAS involvement in doping cases.

His interpretations might be spot on but from all the interviews and articles he has made I have found that he does skate around area's of significance in his interpretations of the whole situation.

Stheno · 10-09-2015 02:10PM

Sky news is reporting they have obtained the data

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 02:13PM

Myles Splitz wrote: »

And yet he take values in isolation and made assumptions based on these off scores. The values taken were done before ADAMS or indeed the blood passport were in effect so has no idea of testing taking place. Remember Radcliffe would have been subject to testing after her WR so suggesting that IAAF didn't act is a leap.

He also talks of IAAF's failure to act on evidence prior to blood passports coming in to affect yet never once acknowledges CAS involvement in doping cases.

His interpretations might be spot on but from all the interviews and articles he has made I have found that he does skate around area's of significance in his interpretations of the whole situation.

He is a doctor though, not an administrator etc, (though obviously a passionate anti doping advocate). It's his medical opinion we're interested in here and actually, if he were wrong in his analysis in a high profile case like this he has something to lose, it could ruin him professionally. So release the data and remove all doubt on all sides.

Like I say, if Radcliffe is innocent she's sitting on the only thing that can effectively clear her name.

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 02:14PM

Stheno wrote: »

Sky news is reporting they have obtained the data

Some man Rupert.... Hold onto your hats guys...

rom · 10-09-2015 02:17PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

He is a doctor though, not an administrator etc, (though obviously a passionate anti doping advocate). It's his medical opinion we're interested in here and actually, if he were wrong in his analysis in a high profile case like this he has something to lose, it could ruin him professionally. So release the data and remove all doubt on all sides.

Like I say, if Radcliffe is innocent she's sitting on the only thing that can effectively clear her name.

Looks like Sky News have have it now according to TV
http://news.sky.com/watch-live

robinph · 10-09-2015 02:18PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Some man Rupert.... Hold onto your hats guys...

I wonder how information held by The Sunday Times made it's way to Sky News? Remarkable that two News International companies happen to have the same information.

average_runner · 10-09-2015 02:18PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Ashenden clearly thinks there is something untoward, if he didn't, this story wouldn't exist. The whole reason radcliffes name has cropped up is because of all British athletes covered her values were the most abnormal. At least that was my interpretation of what went on. Now she has stated that here values were within certain ranges and made excuses etc, let's see the data so we can compare her interpretation and anshendens.

The whole notion that releasing the data because it can be misinterpreted is a joke. It's unreleased right now and it leaves the likes of me speculating what if, surely that's the biggest chance of things being misinterpreted

Show us the data, let's compare the values with the accepted norms and see exactly who's telling the truth.

One thing I will say is that anshendens has absolutely no reason to lie or fabricate anything and having been involved with blood doping since the 90's, probably knows what he's talking about.

Ashenden hasn' t produced anything and that's why media has obeyed the super injunction

Myles Splitz · 10-09-2015 02:22PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

He is a doctor though, not an administrator etc, (though obviously a passionate anti doping advocate). It's his medical opinion we're interested in here and actually, if he were wrong in his analysis in a high profile case like this he has something to lose, it could ruin him professionally. So release the data and remove all doubt on all sides.

Like I say, if Radcliffe is innocent she's sitting on the only thing that can effectively clear her name.

But many of the claims he made (in particular during the parliament commitee hearing) were his opinions and not his analysis and not once does he acknowledge the fact that the merit of Blood Passport is in its longitudinal analysis.

Releasing the data to public domain has its drawbacks to.

Giving dopers this data provides a reference point on how to develop ways to cheat the system which I imagine is why WADA and IAAF have advised here. Transparency is important without a doubt but not too public but rather the experts in this field as can't imagine anyone here has the academic background to decipher the data.

If you aren't going to have any sort of faith in WADA (who are conducting indepedent commission) or IAAF (or FIFA,ATP,IRU or any other governing body) then might as well have no faith in anti doping or professional sport in general.

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 02:24PM

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-cleared-paula-radcliffe

Here's the link guys, in summary: 3 abnormal values which Radcliffe claims are mitigated by circumstance.

Interesting thing for me is she has said UKAD and WADA can look at the data again...

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 02:29PM

Myles Splitz wrote: »

But many of the claims he made (in particular during the parliament commitee hearing) were his opinions and not his analysis and not once does he acknowledge the fact that the merit of Blood Passport is in its longitudinal analysis.

Releasing the data to public domain has its drawbacks to.

Giving dopers this data provides a reference point on how to develop ways to cheat the system which I imagine is why WADA and IAAF have advised here. Transparency is important without a doubt but not too public but rather the experts in this field as can't imagine anyone here has the academic background to decipher the data.

If you aren't going to have any sort of faith in WADA (who are conducting indepedent commission) or IAAF (or FIFA,ATP,IRU or any other governing body) then might as well have no faith in anti doping or professional sport in general.

Sorry when I said release the data I meant to be retested independently etc not so you and I can pore over it;)

As regards highlighting to dopers certain thresholds you can bet every penny you have that dopers know the thresholds already, otherwise how can know when they are clear?

I have absolutely no faith in any governing body to administer anti-doping whatsoever, ironically I'd have the UCI as currently the most trustworthy, and as for other agencies, some are better than others. Have a look at Thomas hauser's article on USADA and boxing today for an example.

average_runner · 10-09-2015 03:32PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Sorry when I said release the data I meant to be retested independently etc not so you and I can pore over it;)

As regards highlighting to dopers certain thresholds you can bet every penny you have that dopers know the thresholds already, otherwise how can know when they are clear?

I have absolutely no faith in any governing body to administer anti-doping whatsoever, ironically I'd have the UCI as currently the most trustworthy, and as for other agencies, some are better than others. Have a look at Thomas hauser's article on USADA and boxing today for an example.

Sky has just said it seen the data and it proves she is clean!!!!

rom · 10-09-2015 03:40PM

average_runner wrote: »

Sky has just said it seen the data and it proves she is clean!!!!

I have more faith in Paula than sky news to report facts.

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 03:53PM

average_runner wrote: »

Sky has just said it seen the data and it proves she is clean!!!!

It really doesn't though. I've read the article a couple of times now and it reads to me that it's basically just reiterating what her previous statement said with the three values attached.

Also the suspicious values are revealed in isolation which as a previous poster alluded to, don't really mean anything.

The only actual fact now revealed is the actual numbers involved.

I'm sure as we speak the Sunday times, anshenden et al are preparing their responses.

This story definitely has a lot more to run...

mikedoherty99 · 10-09-2015 04:01PM

Looks like sky news are playing games
Setting up the counter story for the Sunday times

robinph · 10-09-2015 04:26PM

Paul Kimmage is on the Sunday Times payroll isn't he?

He just seems to be employed to stir:
https://twitter.com/paulkimmage/status/630851368241229824

However there was no super injunction. He should have known exactly who it was, if there was even an injunction. But is clearly just stirring the pot in order to drum up more sales for the paper.

This latest one just seems like more stirring again:
https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage/status/641967781810974723

Either that, or he's just an idiot troll on the internet.

Would make for a great story if there is something else out there to be released, but I really don't get the impression that there is anything. It's just a couple of people making up rumours and selling papers so far.

Edit: I seem to have linked the wrong tweet there as the first one, and now I cannot find the one I was looking for where he'd gone on about the super injunction. Google is not being helpful today.

average_runner · 10-09-2015 04:28PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

It really doesn't though. I've read the article a couple of times now and it reads to me that it's basically just reiterating what her previous statement said with the three values attached.

Also the suspicious values are revealed in isolation which as a previous poster alluded to, don't really mean anything.

The only actual fact now revealed is the actual numbers involved.

I'm sure as we speak the Sunday times, anshenden et al are preparing their responses.

This story definitely has a lot more to run...

So you believe the Sunday Times but not sky?

As i said, no one has produced any evidence on her yet

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 04:33PM

robinph wrote: »

Paul Kimmage is on the Sunday Times payroll isn't he?

He just seems to be employed to stir:
https://twitter.com/paulkimmage/status/630851368241229824

However there was no super injunction. He should have known exactly who it was, if there was even an injunction. But is clearly just stirring the pot in order to drum up more sales for the paper.

This latest one just seems like more stirring again:
https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage/status/641967781810974723

Either that, or he's just an idiot troll on the internet.

Would make for a great story if there is something else out there to be released, but I really don't get the impression that there is anything. It's just a couple of people making up rumours and selling papers so far.

Edit: I seem to have linked the wrong tweet there as the first one, and now I cannot find the one I was looking for where he'd gone on about the super injunction. Google is not being helpful today.

Paul kimmage was fired by the Sunday times for writing about doping about 3 years ago

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 04:35PM

average_runner wrote: »

So you believe the Sunday Times but not sky?

As i said, no one has produced any evidence on her yet

I'm not saying I necessarily believe either, like I say I feel the story has plenty of legs yet and it would only be a foolwho was willing to state a definitive opinion either way.

menoscemo · 10-09-2015 04:56PM

Just catching up.
So it seems the values she released are 114.86, 109.8 and 109.3.
Apparently 103 is/was enough to trigger suspicion and 111.7 is the absolute cut off value taking into account things such as Altitude training/ dehydration etc.

It seems that PR is claiming that the 114.9 reading is inadmissible as evidence since it was taken close after a race (2003 World HM) and she was dehydrated. The two 109.x values don't make the threshold for banning.

I'd say there are many ways to interpret this data tbh. From what I have read teh excuse of having abnomrally high values due to dehydration is sketchy at best, some things I have seen even suggest the opposite (it would lower your values). I'll be interested in reading the inevitable analysis before reaching my conclusions.

I think this story has some legs yet...

adrian522 · 10-09-2015 05:04PM

average_runner wrote: »

Sky has just said it seen the data and it proves she is clean!!!!

It proves no such thing. It proves nothing either way.

average_runner wrote: »

So you believe the Sunday Times but not sky?

As i said, no one has produced any evidence on her yet

Are Sky and the ST not baiscally saying the same thing? i.e that she recorded suspicious blood values on separate occasions?

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 05:06PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Just catching up.
So it seems the values she released are 114.86, 109.8 and 109.3.
Apparently 103 is/was enough to trigger suspicion and 111.7 is the absolute cut off value taking into account things such as Altitude training/ dehydration etc.

It seems that PR is claiming that the 114.9 reading is inadmissible as evidence since it was taken close after a race (2003 World HM) and she was dehydrated. The two 109.x values don't make the threshold for banning.

I'd say there are many ways to interpret this data tbh. From what I have read teh excuse of having abnomrally high values due to dehydration is sketchy at best, some things I have seen even suggest the opposite (it would lower your values). I'll be interested in reading the inevitable analysis before reaching my conclusions.

I think this story has some legs yet...

From reading I've done the values in isolation don't really mean much in any case, while the 111 number is an absolute cut off point for further investigation, apparently large deviations from a particular athletes standard range are also flagged, so while radcliffe's values might not be that suspicious in isolation if her normal range was say around 93 etc it could be suspicious while being only just over the threshold. Interestingly a cyclist who blood doped his entire career just claimed his number was never over 95...(shobukhova's was apparently 157!!!)

As an addendum it seems that where the Sunday times experts found irregularities doran athlete they examined the entire range for that athlete before coming to conclusions:

http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/blood-experts-michael-ashenden-and-robin-parisotto-respond-to-serious-reservations-expressed-by-iaaf/

Halloween Jack · 10-09-2015 05:09PM

adrian522 wrote: »

It proves no such thing. It proves nothing either way.

Are Sky and the ST not baiscally saying the same thing? i.e that she recorded suspicious blood values on separate occasions?

Well the Sunday times obtained the data and had it analysed by experts who concluded certain athletes were suspicious.
Sky news seem to have just interviewed Radcliffe essentially

chrysagon · 10-09-2015 05:10PM

Sky at times just thrashy journalism!

demfad · 10-09-2015 05:34PM

Some UKAD Blood passport procedures attached.

Presumably same as IAAF.

It seems to me if a profile is found to be atypical it is examined.

An expert then analyses the (anonymous at this stage) profile and if he/she deems it to be unlikely to be explained by mitigating legal reasons it is passed onto a panel of 3 experts who look at the data and if necessary the individuals training. They must form a unanimous decision to push for suspension/ban etc at this stage. Looks like this is the stage that was reached with Radcliffe.

The off-score can be suspicious if it is too high or too low.
I cant find out why the off-score cant count within two hours after competition. i.e too high or too low. Obviously, very significant. She hasn't elaborated here as far as i have seen?

I've read also that a limitation of the blood passport method may be that it is too conservative. i.e 1 in a 1000 rather than 1 in a 100. Some reports siding with Radcliffe claimed it was 1 in a 100.

Hopefully there will be clarity on these questions and others soon.

EDit: In her statement, she quotes from an expert saying the value would go up immediately after race on hot day.

Notwork Error · 10-09-2015 05:49PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Just catching up.
So it seems the values she released are 114.86, 109.8 and 109.3.
Apparently 103 is/was enough to trigger suspicion and 111.7 is the absolute cut off value taking into account things such as Altitude training/ dehydration etc.

It seems that PR is claiming that the 114.9 reading is inadmissible as evidence since it was taken close after a race (2003 World HM) and she was dehydrated. The two 109.x values don't make the threshold for banning.

I'd say there are many ways to interpret this data tbh. From what I have read teh excuse of having abnomrally high values due to dehydration is sketchy at best, some things I have seen even suggest the opposite (it would lower your values). I'll be interested in reading the inevitable analysis before reaching my conclusions.

I think this story has some legs yet...

I don't think they would take into account dehydration unless it actually raised the off-score.

Also, there seems to be an assumption that it was her mature RBC count that triggered the off-score, it could just as well have been her reticulocytes count that triggered it. Very high counts of reticulocytes can be used as detector of EPO even if the athletes Haemocrite is below threshold.

There is so much more to blood values than Mature RBC count and do we really know what effect dehydration and other factors has on the different aspects of each mechanism? That's why I never read much into blood values and leave it to the experts as frankly, we have absolutely no idea.

ThisRegard · 10-09-2015 06:04PM

robinph wrote: »

Paul Kimmage is on the Sunday Times payroll isn't he?

He just seems to be employed to stir:
https://twitter.com/paulkimmage/status/630851368241229824

However there was no super injunction. He should have known exactly who it was, if there was even an injunction. But is clearly just stirring the pot in order to drum up more sales for the paper.

This latest one just seems like more stirring again:
https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage/status/641967781810974723

Either that, or he's just an idiot troll on the internet.

Would make for a great story if there is something else out there to be released, but I really don't get the impression that there is anything. It's just a couple of people making up rumours and selling papers so far.

Edit: I seem to have linked the wrong tweet there as the first one, and now I cannot find the one I was looking for where he'd gone on about the super injunction. Google is not being helpful today.

He writes for the Indo so your insinuations are way off. The tweet you linked to is innocuous enough I think, dripping in sarcasm is the worse that can be said.

Leaked IAAf report on doping

Comments