Paula Radcliffe says test results 'exonerate her of wrongdoing'

By Paul Kelso, Sky News sports correspondent

Saturday 12 September 2015 17:03, UK

Paula Radcliffe insists test results included in a leaked database were cleared by the IAAF and exonerate her of any wrongdoing, writes Sky News sports correspondent Paul Kelso.

The world marathon record holder, who this week spoke out to deny doping, claims the results, which can be explained in the circumstances in which they were taken, fall below normal levels for samples given following altitude training and 'destroy the case against her'.

Radcliffe's "off-scores" - the measure used to gauge an athlete's blood values - in the three tests were 114.86, 109.86 and 109.3.

Anything above 103 can be considered unusual for a female athlete, but the 'normal' threshold rises for a number of factors including altitude training, and tests taken immediately after extreme exertion.

Radcliffe says all three sample numbers were taken after periods of altitude training, and two, including the highest, were taken immediately after she had raced. Radcliffe says these factors explain the figures.

Sky News has learned that two of the figures also fall below the cut-off for altitude training recommended by the same experts used by the Sunday Times, in a peer-reviewed paper.

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

She says the third, which gave the highest reading of 114.86, can be explained by circumstances that would now render it invalid.

It came from a sample taken immediately after a half marathon in 29C heat in Portugal. The World Anti-Doping Association now considers any samples taken within two hours of competition as invalid, because exertion can affect blood values.

Independent

Speaking to Sky News, Radcliffe said the test results were followed up and cleared by the IAAF at the time they were given, and she has since had independent expert advice that clears her name.

She also stressed that her case demonstrates the complexities of analysing blood values, and the difficulty of drawing conclusions without the full context.

"This data needed to be looked at in context by the right experts so I requested WADA go back and go over again all of this data," she said. "UK Anti-Doping can do that as well, I know that the IAAF have done that, I have requested that independent experts do that and I have those reports.

"I had to wait to get those in place but I'm very glad I have them. They can tell me you don't have three values that crossed any threshold, not when you apply the context of whether the test followed a period of altitude training or was carried out at altitude. Not when you apply whether the two-hour rule, that it cannot be used within two hours of hard competition or hard training, is not valid. That rules out two of the tests they are referring to, and the other is not above the threshold."

The three tests are drawn from an IAAF database of athletes' blood samples leaked to the Sunday Times and German broadcaster ARD.

According to the newspaper the test results, which they attributed to "a top British athlete", were "highly unusual" and "abnormal". It said one of the test results could be attributed "to an illicit blood transfusion, but this is only a suspicion and certainly not proven by the results".

This week Radcliffe revealed that she is the British athlete in question, and categorically denied cheating at any stage of her career.

IAAF president Lord Coe has backed Radcliffe, telling ITV: "I think everybody knows Paula is a clean athlete, she had to defend herself, which I thought she did very well the other day, but I don't think she should have been in the position of having to do that.

"I don't believe any athlete, any person, should be forced to put private information in the public domain like that."