Rare is the positive test I consider faulty. Dianne Modahl comes to mind. A better question would be which athletes tested positive and admitted guilt and didn’t claim some system fault? Tyson Gaye admitted guilt to some degree but exceptional he is. Athletes always claim some excuse from too much sex, too many beers, or using extenze for penis enlargement. That’s another thread what’s the best missed test, positive, positive excuse?
Um no, testing is 100% foolproof. There is no room for error.
You're all so dense.
Galen Rupp
Internetsherlock wrote:
Not talking about someone spiking their drinks but an honest athlete whose blood/urine test were manipulated or
some other reasons.
Almost everyday we hear about athletes doping but .... are the testing labs 100% accurate ? can someone please educate me on this issue ?
The 2 athletes that come to mind is Lagat and Ajee Wilson. I am well versed in both of these athlete's situation and I'm nearly 100% certain Wilson did not dope and I'm about 90% on Lagat. I don't have time to go into details but if you read through enough information you will most likely probably come to the same conclusion, It is ashame because word doping will likely forever be in both of these athlete's bio. There are 2 other athletes, Centro and Rupp whose name came up with doping implications on this message board. There is absolutely no evidence that they ever did EPO or anabolic steroids, or speed. Perhaps they crossed the line in some way but I am relatively certain they never did the big boy stuff.
TrackCoach wrote:
Internetsherlock wrote:
Not talking about someone spiking their drinks but an honest athlete whose blood/urine test were manipulated or
some other reasons.
Almost everyday we hear about athletes doping but .... are the testing labs 100% accurate ? can someone please educate me on this issue ?
The 2 athletes that come to mind is Lagat and Ajee Wilson. I am well versed in both of these athlete's situation and I'm nearly 100% certain Wilson did not dope and I'm about 90% on Lagat. I don't have time to go into details but if you read through enough information you will most likely probably come to the same conclusion, It is ashame because word doping will likely forever be in both of these athlete's bio. There are 2 other athletes, Centro and Rupp whose name came up with doping implications on this message board. There is absolutely no evidence that they ever did EPO or anabolic steroids, or speed. Perhaps they crossed the line in some way but I am relatively certain they never did the big boy stuff.
There is solid evidence that Rupp was taking testosterone medication in high school. AFIK, Rupp has never directly denied that specific charge. I think he and Alberto have tried to explain away the “testosterone” listed in Dr. Brown’s notes as some sort of over the counter herbal supplement but that seems unlikely coming from a renowned endocrinologist who specializes in hormone treatments. Rupp was also listed by WADA as likely doping Based on his blood profile ( ie - epo or blood transfusions) in the hacked but authentic Fancy Bears leak.
So yes, Rupp has been linked to credible, specific doping allegations on multiple allegations.
Barefoot Count wrote:
Um, ever heard of Lagat?
he was guilty and it was covered up
rekrunner wrote:
Let's tell it like it really is wrote:
That's not correct - there's sufficient evidence that EPO was part of her souped-up drug cocktail. If you have evidence that an athlete used EPO, and you have an "A" positive/"B" negative situation - that would indicate a false negative with the "B" sample...or...the "B" sample was tampered with.
The question is not whether she took EPO, but whether it was present in the urine sample.
Given the short detection window in urine, that's a real possibility.
And given the errors in the early tests, it remains a real possibiilty.
The other question is whether EPO would make sprinters faster.
That actually isn't the question. EPO wouldn't of itself make a sprinter faster - that would depend on a drug that increased muscle mass or efficiency. But what EPO would do, through it's enhancement of endurance - as we see there with distance runners - is enable a sprinter to train harder for longer. In that way it would indirectly enable a sprinter to become faster, and particularly when used in combination with a cocktail of other drugs that include steroids. It might also aid in competition, to stem fatigue when used over a series of rounds that are run close together or in longer sprint like the 200m and 400m. Fatigue is also the enemy of sprinters and not just distance runners.
alsal wrote:
Barefoot Count wrote:
Um, ever heard of Lagat?
he was guilty and it was covered up
Based on no support vs the actual report findings themselves.
Ryan Braun basically ended some FedEx workers career the first time he was caught
Armstronglivs wrote:
The other question is whether EPO would make sprinters faster.
That actually isn't the question. EPO wouldn't of itself make a sprinter faster - that would depend on a drug that increased muscle mass or efficiency. But what EPO would do, through it's enhancement of endurance - as we see there with distance runners - is enable a sprinter to train harder for longer. In that way it would indirectly enable a sprinter to become faster, and particularly when used in combination with a cocktail of other drugs that include steroids. It might also aid in competition, to stem fatigue when used over a series of rounds that are run close together or in longer sprint like the 200m and 400m. Fatigue is also the enemy of sprinters and not just distance runners.[/quote]
You say it's not the question, but then proceed to answer it.
Reposted with the mangled quotes fixed:
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The other question is whether EPO would make sprinters faster.
That actually isn't the question. EPO wouldn't of itself make a sprinter faster - that would depend on a drug that increased muscle mass or efficiency. But what EPO would do, through it's enhancement of endurance - as we see there with distance runners - is enable a sprinter to train harder for longer. In that way it would indirectly enable a sprinter to become faster, and particularly when used in combination with a cocktail of other drugs that include steroids. It might also aid in competition, to stem fatigue when used over a series of rounds that are run close together or in longer sprint like the 200m and 400m. Fatigue is also the enemy of sprinters and not just distance runners.
You say it's not the question, but then proceed to answer it.
I understand that the question as to whether EPO helps sprinters is interesting, but surely the point here is that nobody believes Marion Jones wasn't taking EPO or that her B Sample negative showed that she was clean?
Yet people will believe that Lagat is clean despite having the positive A sample and subsequently 'cleared' with a negative B sample, in the very same season that it happened to Jones.
And many of those same people of course 100% believe Paula, Mo to be guilty because..well..not American.
@Rekrunner - are you actually saying that?
That you accept that Marion Jones was one of the dirtiest (steroid etc) cheats in history, but 'there is no proof' she took EPO, because she was 'cleared' with the B sample? Just as Lagat was?
So the two athletes who test positive in an A sample and negative for their B sample are 1/ Marion Jones - one of the most notorious drug cheats in track history and 2/Bernie Lagat, the second fastest 1500m runner of all time competing in the EPO era.
And both were entirely innocent? And just a co-incidence these weird test results happened (in the same season) to these two rather than some random Swiss shot putter, or a Finnish 400m runner nobody remembers?
I've been looking up some statistics.
Each year, WADA conducts hundreds of thousands of blood tests on sportsmen across the world.
In 2005, there were 3,909 A sample positives and only 15 of those were for EPO (Lagat's case was in 2003, and the Jones positive occurred in 2006).
So in the 2000's let's say roughly speaking :
There were over a million blood tests taken by WADA (maybe closer to 5 million) in a multitude of Olympic sports.
Perhaps around 150 featured A samples for EPO (based on the figure for 2006).
Out of those 150, there were three cases as far as I know of a B sample coming back negative and the athlete in question 'cleared' - Bernard Lagat, Marion Jones, and Italian cyclist Fabrizio Guidi.
So out of between maybe 1 and 5 million blood tests in the 2000's, the 3 cases of EPO being detected in an A sample, then the B sample 'clearing ' the sportsman are :
1 - Bernard Lagat, still the second fastest 1500m runner in history, still 2 or 3 seconds faster than his Kenyan compatriots can run 20 years later.
2 - Marion Jones - later confirmed to be at the center of the most notorious doping case in the history of American sport (other than the Lance Armstrong scandal).
3 - An Italian cyclist competing in the Lance Armstrong era.
Seriously, it's not co-incidence is it? Either Bernard Lagat was targeted (I can only think of El G/Morocco trying to remove him - not saying it's remotely plausible, just the only remote possibility) or he was doping with EPO, and presumably his negative B sample and subsequent exoneration by the report of a German doctor was the result of American pressure.
Which is it?
Coevett wrote:
I understand that the question as to whether EPO helps sprinters is interesting, but surely the point here is that nobody believes Marion Jones wasn't taking EPO or that her B Sample negative showed that she was clean?
Yet people will believe that Lagat is clean despite having the positive A sample and subsequently 'cleared' with a negative B sample, in the very same season that it happened to Jones.
And many of those same people of course 100% believe Paula, Mo to be guilty because..well..not American.
In that season the EPO test processing and handling was flawed and prone to errors.
It's not my place to lecture you, but here is what I believe is correct:
- You should believe athletes are clean, or dirty, based on the strength of facts, or lack thereof.
- The cases of Marion Jones and Lagat have plenty of supporting facts around them.
- The allegations against Paula and Mo do not have strong supporting facts, but weaker circumstances and ambiguity, which work in tabloids, but not in court.
- You should not ever base your beliefs on nationality, whether American, British, or Kenyan.
Coevett wrote:
@Rekrunner - are you actually saying that?
That you accept that Marion Jones was one of the dirtiest (steroid etc) cheats in history, but 'there is no proof' she took EPO, because she was 'cleared' with the B sample? Just as Lagat was?
So the two athletes who test positive in an A sample and negative for their B sample are 1/ Marion Jones - one of the most notorious drug cheats in track history and 2/Bernie Lagat, the second fastest 1500m runner of all time competing in the EPO era.
And both were entirely innocent? And just a co-incidence these weird test results happened (in the same season) to these two rather than some random Swiss shot putter, or a Finnish 400m runner nobody remembers?
No I am not actually saying that.
When you read Lagat's B-sample analysis full report, you will see the unanimous conclusion was that the B-sample result did not corroborate the A-sample results, and furthermore, upon re-inspection, the A-sample result did not match any of the EPO references.
The report concludes that the A-sample result was in fact NOT POSITIVE.
What I said about Marion Jones, is that, even if she took EPO, given the short detection window in urine, it is possible that EPO was no longer present in the urine, and that her results were misinterpreted due to flaws in the process at that time, similar to Lagat's.
I'm not saying that is what actually happened, but that it is not inconsistent that she would take EPO, yet her urine samples could still be clean, notwithstanding the results of the A-sample positive and B-sample negative.
Keep in mind that doping testing is not randomly distributed across all athletes. Athletes like Marion Jones and Lagat are over-represented compared to random Swiss shot putters and a Finnish 400m runner, because athletes who win more are tested more, while random also rans are tested by random choice, if at all. This is because doping testing is expensive, so more of the focus is put on those who win.
Coevett wrote:
I've been looking up some statistics.
Each year, WADA conducts hundreds of thousands of blood tests on sportsmen across the world.
In 2005, there were 3,909 A sample positives and only 15 of those were for EPO (Lagat's case was in 2003, and the Jones positive occurred in 2006).
So in the 2000's let's say roughly speaking :
There were over a million blood tests taken by WADA (maybe closer to 5 million) in a multitude of Olympic sports.
Perhaps around 150 featured A samples for EPO (based on the figure for 2006).
Out of those 150, there were three cases as far as I know of a B sample coming back negative and the athlete in question 'cleared' - Bernard Lagat, Marion Jones, and Italian cyclist Fabrizio Guidi.
So out of between maybe 1 and 5 million blood tests in the 2000's, the 3 cases of EPO being detected in an A sample, then the B sample 'clearing ' the sportsman are :
1 - Bernard Lagat, still the second fastest 1500m runner in history, still 2 or 3 seconds faster than his Kenyan compatriots can run 20 years later.
2 - Marion Jones - later confirmed to be at the center of the most notorious doping case in the history of American sport (other than the Lance Armstrong scandal).
3 - An Italian cyclist competing in the Lance Armstrong era.
Seriously, it's not co-incidence is it? Either Bernard Lagat was targeted (I can only think of El G/Morocco trying to remove him - not saying it's remotely plausible, just the only remote possibility) or he was doping with EPO, and presumably his negative B sample and subsequent exoneration by the report of a German doctor was the result of American pressure.
Which is it?
You should restart with a correct set of facts.
Lagat and Marion Jones tests were urine tests, not blood tests. I'm unaware of an EPO test for blood.
After the A-sample result, Lagat was outed (improperly) by Athletics Kenya.
It is not normal to announce positives after the A-sample result until accepted by the athlete, or until confirmed by the B-sample result.
This explains why there are so few known to the public.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The other question is whether EPO would make sprinters faster.
That actually isn't the question. EPO wouldn't of itself make a sprinter faster - that would depend on a drug that increased muscle mass or efficiency. But what EPO would do, through it's enhancement of endurance - as we see there with distance runners - is enable a sprinter to train harder for longer. In that way it would indirectly enable a sprinter to become faster, and particularly when used in combination with a cocktail of other drugs that include steroids. It might also aid in competition, to stem fatigue when used over a series of rounds that are run close together or in longer sprint like the 200m and 400m. Fatigue is also the enemy of sprinters and not just distance runners.
You say it's not the question, but then proceed to answer it.[/quote]
Yes, I did but your question implied that EPO might enable a sprinter to run faster because of the qualities it imparts. My answer was to say - no, not of itself. But its capacity for enabling more intense training for longer periods could help a sprinter, and thereby make them faster. I am sure you see the distinction.
Kiprop will magically return wrote:
Kiprop seem to be such a case.
LOL
Btw, his appeal was ultimately dropped a few weeks ago. Bye Kiprop.
To answer the OP's question: There are many cases where top runners have been accused of doping, yet ultimately not banned. That of course neither proves that they were clean nor that they were dirty.
alsal wrote:
Barefoot Count wrote:
Um, ever heard of Lagat?
he was guilty and it was covered up
It is impossible to account for what Rupp or any athlete does as a youth; in theory, kids can dope as much as they want to because they are not tested. Rupp entered the testing pool quite early, in 2004 at age 18 and through out his career is possibly the most tested distance runner in the world. Testing does not guarantee an athlete is not doping, but when you are tested frequently, doping becomes much more difficult and risky. Also, in the early 2000s, there were a number of products popular with kids, in particular football players containing creatinine and the word testosterone that you could buy at GNC. However, based on the price of actual 'anabolic steroid' testosterone, I assume what the kid's were taking back then were supplements somehow capitalizing on the name testosterone.
That is the end of the Rupp conversation, for me, this is really about 2 athlete's Lagat and Wilson whose situation I have a better understanding of.