Why does everyone forget that Bernard Lagat failed a drug test?

jjjjjj wrote:

because he was exonerated by the far more accurate b test and because he is a great guy and a tremendous competitor.

There is nothing inherently more accurate about the 'B' test. All it does is allows the athlete to have representation during the test.

I Lagat had taken EPO his PR wouldn't be 3.26, it would be something like 3.22!

rekrunner wrote:

NOLIMIT wrote:

I just don't know why he gets a free ride.

So your whole rant is about what you don't know.

On the contrary, everyone remembers the failed test. And they remember that the "B" sample did not confirm the finding, suggesting that the failure was in the testing process of the A sample.

Going to the Olympics is a big deal -- usually a once in a lifetime opportunity. I can understand putting the Olympics ahead of "his love of being an American citizen", although there are many critical of this certain little lie.

And he's still competitive at 35. He enjoys the sport. He is likeable, and a great role model. Not only does everyone admire that, but long careers are usually a confirmation that long term success was not drug-aided.

The A and B samples need to be examined at the same time, not allowed to be delayed by the athlete so as to permit the B sample time to degrade. Given the current rules, A samples are the ones that are more trustworthy.

That's not how it works. Lagat's A sample was improperly handled, having unrefrigerated for an extended period of time in an unusually warm summer in Europe. Investigators concluded that this was the cause of the A sample result, and not the presence of any rhEPO.

If forensic examiners can exhume bodies after years of decomposition (in some cases, hundreds of years) and test them for minute traces of chemicals, I wouldn't worry about a urine sample spending an extra 30 days on ice.

Does rhEPO appear in a sample after it's been left unrefrigerated?

They just didn't want to catch an 'ever so nice and clean' African, so the B-Sample came back miraculously 'negative'.

Huh? Degradation of samples is never an issue, in the small timeframes between "A" and "B" testing.Allowing the athlete to be present for the "B" test is a question of fairness, representation and due process.Testing two samples at the same time would double the costs. The resulting work overload may lead to more false positives.If an A sample becomes tainted, or mishandled during testing, then it becomes less trustworthy.The probability of the B sample becoming tainted the same way is small, when the two tests are independently conducted, especially if the "B" testing procedure is under more scrutiny.

Ignore B samples wrote:

The A and B samples need to be examined at the same time, not allowed to be delayed by the athlete so as to permit the B sample time to degrade. Given the current rules, A samples are the ones that are more trustworthy.

Yes, exposure to relatively high heat (35-40C) outside of the human body for extended periods of time can cause naturally occurring EPO to recombine so that it will resemble rhEPO enough that it can cause a positive result on a test.

This was the finding agreed to by Lagat's own expert, the IAAF doping representative, the head of the anti-doping lab in Köln, and the head of the anti-doping lab in Lausanne:

B) While the test of Mr. Lagat´s B-sample did not reveal any reactive components in positions taken as indication of a positive test, the original A-sample showed bands in this region which, however, were not fully identical with those of the reference recombinant Epo and might well be due to glycoprotein modifications.

This makes no sense. African athletes have been caught and convicted of doping offenses before, and furthermore there is no gain in such protection, as there is no means of for Africa to have a sizable investment in the sport. Meanwhile, top European and American stars have been caught, and those are precisely the ones that it would make sense to sweep under the rug (the Baumanns, Lombards, Chambers, Gatlins and Merritts of the athletics world).

If a sample is stored unfrozen, this can make natural EPO look like synthetic EPO, and create a false positive.Statistically speaking, corrected for population, East African elites outnumber the rest of the world by a factor of about 1700. It boggles my mind to think that the East African athletes, even with the backing of European coaches, can produce a concealed doping program that is 1700x more effective than the rest of the world combined.It's more plausible that a negative "B" sample was simply the un-miraculous result of applied integrity by the testers, associations, and athletes.

trollism wrote:

Does rhEPO appear in a sample after it's been left unrefrigerated?

They just didn't want to catch an 'ever so nice and clean' African, so the B-Sample came back miraculously 'negative'

trollism wrote:

Does rhEPO appear in a sample after it's been left unrefrigerated?

No, and it didn't then because re-examination of the A sample results showed that it wasn't consistent with rhEPO but degradation products. Also it wasn't just left 'unrefrigerated' it was exposed to temperatures in excess of 30ºC, no biological samples (particularly impure mixtures such as urine samples) should be treated like that. The treatment of the samples was sloppy and they shouldn't have even been considered, the testing cost ~$1,000/sample and yet they couldn't even spend a few bucks to pack it in 'dry ice' (standard practice with materials that I purchase).

rekrunner wrote:

Huh? Degradation of samples is never an issue, in the small timeframes between "A" and "B" testing.

Allowing the athlete to be present for the "B" test is a question of fairness, representation and due process.

I think there's a huge disconnect by many why there is an A and a B sample. (not you, rekrunner) It's not because one procedure is more accurate or reliable than the other, it's simply in the interest of expediency and due process. The first "negative" is merely a flag that something is amiss. The 2nd test, the "B" sample, allows the athlete to be there for the procedure. First of all, to witness the integrity of the chain of custody. Then, secondly to witness the actual treating procedure.

If you didn't have a two step A and B procedure, then the integrity of the testing procedure would be unknown. The only way to insure accuracy then would be for everyone to witness their test as it occurred. As one would image, the costs of doing things this way would be unnecessarily prohibitive.

Phil. wrote:

No, and it didn't then because re-examination of the A sample results showed that it wasn't consistent with rhEPO but degradation products.

Your source?

This is what I read:

http://www.letsrun.com/2003/lagatfull.doc

malmo wrote:

Phil. wrote:

No, and it didn't then because re-examination of the A sample results showed that it wasn't consistent with rhEPO but degradation products.

Your source?

The scientific report on the B-test by Dr Hans Heid.

Phil. wrote:

malmo wrote:

Your source?

The scientific report on the B-test by Dr Hans Heid.

Which can be found here:

First of all, that is a summary from Lagat's agent, written by his hired technical expert, Dr Hans Heid. It is not a WADA document. But let's step up the reading comprehension a bit more and go directly to the text.

They did not re-examine the A samples, this was an opinion from Lagat's hired technical expert. It was merely a surmisal of what COULD HAVE happened. It was not the finding of the B test by WADA, as you have stated.

While it's all well and good for Lagat's paid technical expert to put out a report full of conjecture and indictments, please do not confuse it with the results of his B sample or the opinion of WADA.

The B sample was negative, that's all that needs to be said. The report by Dr Hans Heid was irrelevant in this case.

malmo wrote:

First of all, that is a summary from Lagat's agent, written by his hired technical expert, Dr Hans Heid. It is not a WADA document. But let's step up the reading comprehension a bit more and go directly to the text.

They did not re-examine the A samples, this was an opinion from Lagat's hired technical expert. It was merely a surmisal of what COULD HAVE happened. It was not the finding of the B test by WADA, as you have stated.

While it's all well and good for Lagat's paid technical expert to put out a report full of conjecture and indictments, please do not confuse it with the results of his B sample or the opinion of WADA.

The B sample was negative, that's all that needs to be said. The report by Dr Hans Heid was irrelevant in this case.

No it isn't because among other things it documents incompetent sample handling which of course WADA did not want to acknowledge! It's expert testimony which has never been refuted by WADA.

Regarding the A sample: "Looking very carefully at the A-sample result, especially the enlarged picture with the comparison between rhEpo and the weak A-sample bands, we realized that the A-sample bands of Mr. Lagat were not exactly in the same positions as the rhEpo reference bands but were slightly displaced, some millimeters higher to the more basic side."

So they did re-examine the A sample results.

The test was rushed in and was the first of its type used by WADA, it revealed shortcomings in sample handling and protocol which needed to be addressed, it was certainly not suitable as a diagnostic test as conducted at that time.

Phil. There's (presumably) no refutation by WADA becasue there needn't be one. The B sample was negative. Whatever speculation by the hired gun as to why Lagat's A test was positive are irrelevant to WADA's case.

"They" did review some results from the A sample as you a had previously indicated but "they" did not come to the conclusion that you wrote -- "re-examination of the A sample results showed that it wasn't consistent with rhEPO but degradation products."

In fact, Dr heid issued merely another specualtive musing "the original A-sample showed bands in this region which, however, were not fully identical with those of the reference recombinant Epo and might well be due to glycoprotein modifications."

"Not fully identical with EPO" and your phrasing "wasn't consistent with EPO but degradation products" are two different characterizations, all semantics aside.

i won't wrote:

That's not how it works. Lagat's A sample was improperly handled, having unrefrigerated for an extended period of time in an unusually warm summer in Europe. Investigators concluded that this was the cause of the A sample result, and not the presence of any rhEPO.

If forensic examiners can exhume bodies after years of decomposition (in some cases, hundreds of years) and test them for minute traces of chemicals, I wouldn't worry about a urine sample spending an extra 30 days on ice.

The fact that athletes (or those close to them) have admitted to taking EPO after the fact (Pettigrew, Marion Jones), and never been tested positive; while the likes of Ramzi was only caught after almost certainly remaining undetected for several seasons, makes the arguments concerning Lagat's A and B samples a pretty moot point. The test (either A or B) wasn't accurate or reliable, full stop. It didn't catch Jones, or Pettigrew, and only got Ramzi once new procedures for keeping samples long term, were put in place in 2008. If top American athletes, who would have been subjected to rigorous testing throughout their careers, weren't caught by the test, it's not a giant leap of reality to presume there were many others guilty, who weren't tested anywhere near as often by their "poor national federations". Even to this day, some countries don't test their athletes out of season.

The reason why more Americans get tested positive is because they are monitored regularly and thoroughly by their own National governing body as well as by the IAAF. Most African nations do not test their athletes out of season, due to financial constraints. Thus if you're taking EPO, you'll be far more likely caught if you're American (though even then you'd have to be somewhat stupid) than if you're running for an African nation.

It's got nothing to do with the morality of different nationalities and back grounds. It's simply down to the law of averages. Those tested more often are more likely to get caught.

bump