Boulami tests positive...

Ah,sorry.

I'm the one twho said I heard he tested positive for EPO(i don't know details).sorry.Please forget the post above.

Yes infact there are more athletes that are using drugs than those that are being caught. It is the unfortunate thing about this sport, but we should be happy that people are being caught. As for your saying that the Africans are the users and leaving the Americans behind...that is too funny to even believe! The questioning about Africans in distance running is that same as that of Americans in sprints! Don't try to fool yourself into believing that Americans are being left behind -- if anything, they are probably the ones with the most users! Boulami and Mourhit should be punished for life, and it's about time that people get stricter punishments. As for you guys to blame all Africans for cheating just because of these morons is not right. If the Africans were juicing as much as you say, then they would have more sprinters, jumpers, throwers, etc...just like the three top nations (US, Russia, and GB).

Yeah,

He tested positive for both blood samples first and urine samples next.I'm very sorry .And hearing will be held and then B sample will be tested as a confirmation.

drewp wrote:

Before a test is used, validation studies of it are supposed to be published in peer-reviewed journals. Maybe someone can point me to one, but I haven't found any references to published validation studies of the EPO test.

A study used to set up the protocol was published in a message on Marius Bakken's message board about a year ago, and showed the wide range of overlap. But I don't have the specific thread for that link.

I thought about Kartelite's hypothetical breakdown, and it's seriously flawed. When you say that a test is "95 percent accurate" you have to define what that means. You are suggesting it means that 5 percent of all tests are just randomly wrong. I am not a professional drug tester, but I am guessing that it is much easier to miss something (drug presence) than to see something that isn't there. I can believe that 5 percent of those who are on drugs will test negative for drugs. That's a false negative. But you mean to tell me that 5 percent of clean people will test positive for drugs on their "A" sample? No way! It doesn't work that way--if it did, we would have WAY more total positive "A" samples. It would mean that if you test 1000 clean people, 50 are guaranteed to test positive on their "A" sample because of error. This is not the case. You state "Keep in mind too that false positives generally occur at a higher rate than false negatives". This is not true--I think you mean that false positives occur at a higher FREQUENCY than false negatives. So, sure, you'll get more false positives than false negatives, but that's because 90% of your testing pool is clean, so there's a greater number of people to draw from to create false positives.

So, it's the number "45" that's the main problem here. That number makes it look like over 30 percent of all positives drug tests are wrong. But in reality, the number 45 is majorly inflated, and thus, Kartelite's estimate of false positives is also majorly inflated.

Why? Because, again, the test, I would think, is more likely to call a dirty person clean than a clean person dirty.

"Directionally correct" tho, I think -- I'm rusty on this, but when the underlying sample shows such a high ratio of negatives to positives (and T&F qualifies for this even if everyone's dirty, b/c masking & cycles are good dodges), the probability that a positive is false is pretty significant.

That's one of the reasons there are A's and B's, so that the joint probability of two false positives is pretty small drops dramatically .

And that's why lawyers almost always address the handling of the sample, not the test itself, b/c there's more statistical wiggle room.

inquiringminds wrote:

there was no drug use? Can a man run under 3:30, 7:30, 8:00, 13:00 & 27:00 without drugs? At what point do we draw a line in the sand & say there is no way this could be without meds? Are the current WRs, any of them drug free times?

would you have said the same thing in 1965 about running under 28:00 for 10,000 or was Clarke on drugs also.

molfin wrote:

So in some people's mind.

some Moroccans are dirty ?¨all Morroco are dirty ?¨?@all Black people and Muslim are dirty ?¨The entire sports is dirty(but white are clean somehow) ,and they cried 'they can't believe anything(except their peope?)!'

Wow.it's fun .

Dipshit - there have been more athletes in the weight events dinged throughout the history of T&F - the vast majority of them white.

US Miler wrote:

you mean to tell me that 5 percent of clean people will test positive for drugs on their "A" sample? No way! It doesn't work that way--if it did, we would have WAY more total positive "A" samples. It would mean that if you test 1000 clean people, 50 are guaranteed to test positive on their "A" sample because of error.

If I recall correctly, there was an announcement that 10 percent of the athlete's tested for EPO at the last winter Olympics had been in the group you would call testing positive.

the test, I would think, is more likely to call a dirty person clean than a clean person dirty.

The testing for the protocol was something like this. Which is is not to scale since I don't have the information right now, so it's just what I remember of it.

So hypothetically speaking -

Let's say you have a test sample of 400 "subjects" (not athletes), and the A (clean) group has a range of 20 to 78 units of XYZ with a mean value of 40. The B group (with the artificial XYZ) has a range of 45 to 99 units of XYZ, with a mean value of 65.

Remember these subjects are non athletes. So from this you make a protocol. Where do you make it? If you make it at 65 then you will miss 1/2 the ones who took the artificial XYZ. But if you make it lower than that then more and more "clean" athlete's will indicate "positive" for taking the artificial XYZ.

So let's say they make it at 55. That's 15 units higher than the average for clean (non athletic) subjects.

Okay -- do you see the problems with this!

There are going to be a high number of false positives.

And probably more false positives than real positives that "got away with it".

Really I don't care if someone got away with it because I think it doesn't make any difference in the first place. It's just a means to eliminate certain competitors and define who can compete and who can't. But you might think artificial XYZ works so let's go to the next step which is -

The high number of false positives.

Surely you know this must happen, and often!

Oh some of these athletes say over and over they didn't take any EPO. Well geez just maybe they didn't. I haven't been over to Kenya recently but I can just imagine all those doctors jumping out of the trees over there.

What I find incredulous is that people would jump on such bogus information and literally set out to destroy honest athletes who have dedicated their lives to athletics.

Joseph Aloysius McV. wrote:

That's one of the reasons there are A's and B's, so that the joint probability of two false positives is pretty small drops dramatically .

Aren't both samples taken at the same time? So they should both be the same.

The problem is not with the samples.

It's with -

(1) the way the protocol was set up in the first place, and the overlap of normal and "positive" values;

(2) the very high potential of tampering, to get certain athletes barred from the sport, which could be for political, competitive, business, personal, or any number of reasons.

It could very well be that (2) is the reason all the drug "testing" was set up in the first place.

>>If I recall correctly, there was an announcement that 10 percent of the athlete's tested for EPO at the last winter Olympics had been in the group you would call testing positive.

What's event?The protocol is different in each event.And only blood testing make not a few normal people test positive.

>>Remember these subjects are non athletes. So from this you make a protocol. Where do you make it? If you make it at 65 then you will miss 1/2 the ones who took the artificial XYZ. But if you make it lower than that then more and more "clean" athlete's will indicate "positive" for taking the artificial XYZ.So let's say they make it at 55. That's 15 units higher than the average for clean (non athletic) subjects. Okay -- do you see the problems with this!There are going to be a high number of false positives.And probably more false positives than real positives that "got away with it".

Why are you making fiasco alone?First what you are saying are all unpractical supposition ,right?And then why you got to the sensational conclusion?Didn't you even hit upon the IAAF or whatever the scientists are thinking otherwise and so careful not to make that situation? First,I heard they are sure about accuracy,that's why so few tested positive for EPO among countless samples..Second,your logic is all unpractial supposition and doesn't mean anything.

>>The high number of false positives.Surely you know this must happen, and often!

And contrary to your sensational conclusion,it's not happening so.

>>Oh some of these athletes say over and over they didn't take any EPO. Well geez just maybe they didn't.

If you seriously think so,there are no cheaters in the world not only EPO testing.

>>What I find incredulous is that people would jump on such bogus information and literally set out to destroy honest athletes who have dedicated their lives to athletics.

What I found is that you so love cheaters and do whatever to defend cheaters.

You have a point... BUT I don't believe drug use was an issue at that point. I don't think that Clarke was ever tested during his time at the top, I understand your point totaly. Funny you should say this, because I think Clarke is one of the best ever! The question has not been ever broached by this board, what are reasonable WRs or levels that would be hard to break without the use of drugs?

The IAAF knows the test is not accurate. That is why it has has still not been approved as a stand alone testing procedure. Because it is not accurate. So the scientists have said the same thing that I am.

Prove it.

Exactly. There are cheaters in the world. That is why the testing procedures won't work. PR has proven this as she is still competing. So I repeat my original message -- CHEATS OUT -- PR get out of the sport so the real runners can compete!

molfin you sound as bad as wejo.

Here we go molfin' around again.

Anytime wejo gets an inclination we see headlines about drug cheats. It would be nice if there was some factual information to back up those accusations, not just emotional hysterics, but there isn't.

Americans and Europeans are much more susceptible to spot testing, etc. Africans are not, due to a variety of factors. Just being associated with Dr. Rosa should lend suspicion to the squeaky clean Kenyans. Like others noted, the E. Africans are easily able to avoid spot testing because of location, and Rosa tosses the race card around quite easily to protect his runners. To say the African's would have more sprinters if they were juicing as much as the Americans, etc., requires more clarification. E. Africans, are shall we say, rather crappy when it comes to the area of sprint talent. As for West Africans, the Nigerians, where the bulk of African sprint talent arises, regularly have athletes tossed out for juicing. The American sprinters enjoy the best of both worlds, with the shoe companies and federation protecting them, and using race as a shield much as the E. Africans do behind Rosa and Hermens. The E. Africans talk a lot about others cheating, but Rosa and Hermens NEVER submit their athletes to spot or year round testing. Never. There is always an excuse, whether the runner is off in some remote town off the map, or unexpectedly left the country. The North and East Africans have been getting away with murder for over a decade when it comes to drug use. Look at Kipketer's "malaria" problems a few years back. None of the symptoms really fit malaria, but they did fit problems associated with improper dosages of EPO.

Looks like you have a pretty strong race card of your own.

Mr.Dunes;

Aren't we getting a just a little paranoid here! That's right it's all a plot to get certain athletes!

Get off your high horse! Drug tests were invoked to create the optimistic opportunity of a level physical playing field for athletics. There was a time when this might not have been necessary, however that golden age is past. Unfortunately there are people who will artificially alter their bodies with "foreign" substances in order to enhance performance. The rationale for this testing, from a medical perspective, is to inhibit the excesses that might accompany this "experimentation" which is, or could be, dangerous to the health of the affected athletes. There is evidence that Steroids can cause unhealthy side-effects, as can EPO (at least for some cyclists in the earlier years who died because of its misuse). The job of doctors (according to the hippocratic oath) is to protect people, sometimes even from themselves. Sports bodies also, under the guidelines of these medical people, have a responsiblity to the public(and to themselves) to ensure that sports are conducted as fairly as possible (which may sometimes be easier said than done) and with as little potential for tragedy as possible.

1)The scientific protocols are still evolving, with the possibility of mistakes. However,since everyone denies culpability (even Ben Johnson presumes someone tampered with his sample!) regardless, then this becomes a moot point. I guess the scientists are always wrong! yeah right.

2) That there is the possibilty of tampering is true, this is another reason for the A and B samples, but to leap to the logic that this is why it was instituted in the first place(to catch "certain athletes") is beyond belief - even from you! But then I forgot, it's all a plot!

There have alwasy been suspicions for the Hermans and Rosa groups, but it is well known and the IAAF are infact testing them. If you think about it, these guys are all in this sport for the money and to receive the money, they must have two out of competition tests each year. The IAAF actually does show up for random testing of the Kenyans for sure (I am not too sure about the other Africans, but I would think that the IAAF is testing the Nigerians and Ethiopians the same). Infact, the IAAF shows up in their training camps or on the track in the middle of their work outs! Given the poor road conditions, this is understandable for the drug tester to catch up with the athletes on the track and not go wondering around to search for the villages!

I am just writing to let the people know that not all Africans cheat, just like there are some clean Americans. This is the main problem in the sport, which is why it does not bring the publicity or revenue like many other professional sports. It is bad for the sport to have people running around saying that everyone is on drugs, or a specific country is all on drugs, and especially to say that a specific religion of athletes are all on drugs. People do get tested, and they can avoid it for a while if they try real hard, but in the end, they won't get the money and they are running for nothing.

Said-Saif tried to escape from the drug testers by actually running away, but he got caught and is now banned. You can run from the testers, but you will forever live in hiding and with no money for your efforts. Some people do it, but not all.

Mr. Dunes;

You Quote: There are cheaters in the world. That is why the testing procedures won't work. PR has proven this as she is still competing. So I repeat my original message -- CHEATS OUT -- PR get out of the sport so the real runners can compete!

Since you are saying that Radcliffe is a cheat it is up to you to come up up with the drug test, any test, that might indicate this. With Yegorova, one could suppose that she "got off" on a technicality, because there was a "smoking gun", the initial positive report (which came from a paris lab not the press!) - you are the only one indicating otherwise, and why should we believe you? In the eyes of the IAAF she is innocent (but then so was OJ), but there is still the stain of suspicion, unfortunately. Upon what basis do you suspect Radcliffe? Other than pure spite.

The logic of the first two quoted sentences escapes me! What have either got to do with one another. Who says that the testing procedures won't work - Oh yes, I forgot, since you know more than anyone at WADA (or any other drug testing body for that matter) then you presume that they CAN'T come up with a reliable system - Not only is your logic flawed, but your arrogance is getting the better of you as well.

Hmmm...Kipketer...isn't he Danish...wasn't he living in Denmark at the time {returning from a visit to Kenya}...so how'd he get away with it...being one of those "more susceptible" Europeans?

Man...you Americans and Europeans need to just take your licks like men...or stick to golf (Tiger isn't on the juice by the way), polo, car-racing, fishing, cutting down trees and those other sports where you can be competitive. Or are non-white, non-American&European athletes the only ones who are cheating? Why can't the white, American & European cheats hang with them? Most of them make it through the Tour de France without getting busted, so why should can't they do the same thing on the track circuit?

Let me get this right...the Africans are off in their "remote" villages preparing all of these drugs and coming up with ways to not have them detected, while the American and European scientists are lagging behind in their research, and don't have the necessary funds to buy the drugs from the Africans, so that explains why most of the Africans are on the stuff, and the Americans and Europeans are not...except in baseball, football, soccer, cycling, swimming, etc....Or is it just that enough Americans and Europeans are enjoying success in these areas that there is no need to raise a ruckus...

Listen...face the facts...you can talk about changed birth certificates, EPO, blood doping, altitude, fast-twitch muscles fibres..whatever you please...don't let any of that crap obscure the truth...

African runners & runners of African descent are superior to American and European athletes not of African descent. Period. If you don't like it, there is always ice-hockey.