Paula Radcliffe's blood tests that cleared her of any doping during her career have been revealed as the fallout from the allegations of mass cheating among athletes continues to surround the women’s marathon record holder.
Sky News have released the blood test results that were discussed in parliament by the head of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Jesse Norman, questioned David Kenworthy, the chairman of Ukad – Britain’s anti-doping agency – about a prominent British marathon runner under parliamentary privilege.
Sky News claims to have seen the results which Radcliffe says fall below the normal results seen after altitude training.
Any result of a blood test that comes in above 103 can trigger an investigation into target-testing, with three of Radcliffe’s results exceeding that mark after they recorded measures of 114.86, 109.86 and 109.3.
However, the ‘normal’ threshold for blood tests can increase for a number of reasons, two of which include training at altitude and testing soon after extreme exertion. 41-year-old Radcliffe added that all three results were recorded after periods of altitude training, with the highest recording and one other coming immediately after a race.
Sky News adds that two of the results fall below the recommended cut-off for altitude training by the analysts used in The Sunday Times’ investigation into widespread doping in athletics.
Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, who were both involved in The Sunday Times’ investigation, wrote in 2003 in the Haematologica journal that a commonly used cut-off for results after altitude training is 111.7, while Radcliffe claims that her only result of over that mark is explainable through circumstances that no longer apply to anti-doping rules because it was taken immediately after a half-marathon in Portugal ran in 29C heat. The World Anti-Doping Association (Wada) no longer analyses tests taken within two hours of competition.
"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,” Radcliffe told Sky News.
"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."
Join our new commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies