Boulami tests positive...

>>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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/our_man_at_edmonton/1474992.stm

"The EPO test has been used by cycling, it's been verified by the UCI (International Cycling Union) but not by the IAAF and International Olympic Committee."

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/2001/08/03/FFXG5I8FVPC.html

>>This comes as the EPO test is being further refined with the International Olympic Committee. The IAAF is accepting a urine-only test for the drug instead of the two-part blood-urine test adopted at the Sydney Olympics.

http://www.athletix.org/IAAFpr.htm

>>At this time, it remains the only means of testing for EPO that has been scientifically validated. Since Sydney, further extensive scientific research has been undertaken to finalise a single urine only test. The research is believed to be complete, but the IAAF has been informed that the test still awaits final validation. The IAAF believes that, in the circumstances, the test conducted by the French authorities on Ms Yegorova in Paris should not have been carried out.

I prefer blood and urine tests.But because it is just more of a confiramation and for law suit problems.IAAF seems not to think as you expressed above judgin from these..This time show me something indicate that IAAF thinks in the way you express.If you cannot,let's serch for together.

>>Prove it.

Ah,I only meant there were few positive tests.If that's not enough no one here can prove it or otherwise.

>>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>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!

Sorry,I meant athletes on drugs by 'cheaters'.Very sorry.

Let's wait for another topic...

>>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.

Let's say you have a test sample of 400 "subjects" (not athletes), and the A (clean) group has a range of 20 to 40 units of ABC with a mean value of 30. The B group (with the artificial ABC ) has a range of 30 to 120 units of ABC, with a mean value of 85.Remember these subjects are non athletes. So from this you make a protocol. Where do you make it? If you make it at 30 then you will none of the ones who took the artificial ABC. But if you make it higher than that then more and more "dirty" athlete's will indicate "negative" for taking the artificial ABC.So let's say they make it at 50. That's 20 units higher than the average for clean (non athletic) subjects. the Higher ,the more artificial ABC and the more enhancements.

Okay -- do you see the problems with this!There are going to be none of false positives.

Surely you know this will rarely happen, !

Please wait for another topic...

>>PR cheated with her false accusations, holding up signs in the stadium, getting Yegorova black balled from meets, stirring up public opposition to a better runner who she feared.

First I asked you to stop scattering twised facts,She does so ,because Yego tested positive for EPO.First you have already admitted that.All right?And according to your post IAAF overturned their opinion ,right?

And that's why other Canadian or Britan or whatever the athletes ,Szabo, or Gebrserassie or other athletes or most people on the internet outspoke her.And you saw even IAAF couldn't hide their chagrin judging from ttheir comments I showed in another thread.

So after that they overturned their decision according to your post?All right?And so let's serch the article or IAAF news or whatever saying that.

>>The test was done by a lab. The false report was published by the press. All of this is very well known and public knowledge.

And no one here knows that public knowleges.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Yegorova+test+positive+EPO&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

None of this said that also.

And I could notfind any of the article which said what you are talking,though I have serched for a long time.

So contrary to your expression it's anything but public knowledge.

So look at people and me ,here ,we are so ignorant about athletic and we don't know such important information.

So show us.Or let's serch,together.Please give me hints.When did IAAF overturn their opinion about Yegorova's Sample's positive in Pari?

All other posts ,I have already said.

Steel wrote:

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!)

I wouldn't consider failure to perform the blood test OR the urine test on the B sample a "technicality." That term implies that Yegorova somehow skirted justice due to a legality, when actually there were very real problems with the way the testing was performed. Nevertheless, the media insisted on calling it a "technicality," giving the impression that Yegorova somehow worked the system. That's simply false. As the IAAF was finally forced to admit, Yegorova did not test positive. She couldn't have. The proper tests weren't performed.

The story below was the final word on the French lab's investigation of their failure to come up with a B sample result for Yegorova. I'm not sure how to interpret ". . . couldn't get a reading. . .." Does that mean the B sample was negative, or does it mean that it simply couldn't be tested? It's all very mysterious, and smells a lot like bureaucratic CYA. It appears that the only person being held responsible for the French blunder is the victim, Yegorova, and you can bet no one has apologized to her for ruining her reputation. In fact, one French meet promoter added insult to injury by barring her from their meet this last winter.

The Associated Press

PARIS (October 2, 2001 06:09 PM EDT) - French authorities have closed a doping case and ruled out sanctions against Russian Olga Yegorova after a laboratory failed to explain why one of her urine samples was unusable.

A doping adviser at France's sports ministry said Tuesday that it remained unclear why two vials taken during a July meet in France did not match up. The A sample showed traces of the performance-enhancing EPO. For unknown reasons, the laboratory couldn't get a reading on the B sample.

"The matter is closed, in the sense that there will be no real follow-up to the affair," Jacques Donzel told The Associated Press. Donzel said that French officials would draw up a detailed written procedure for drug testing, specifying who can be present, how much time must pass between laboratory tests, and other measures designed to prevent such problems.

Yegorova tested positive for EPO during the Golden League competition in Paris on July 6. She was initially suspended by the International Association of Athletics Federations but was then allowed to compete after the IAAF cited procedural flaws in the testing. She went on to win the 5,000-meter gold medal in Edmonton.

Thank you very much for replying politely and showing the article.Are you sure that the article was the last one?If that's the case ,I read it,too.

Technicality may not be actually not right word,But IAAF secretary used that term,maybe it's the beginning?.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/2001/08/11/FFX1APRU6QC.html

"Last week, we were really embarrassed because on a technicality we had to let her (Yegorova) go, but we thought it morally impossible to let her compete, so we tested her again," Gyulai said.

>>As the IAAF was finally forced to admit, Yegorova did not test positive. She couldn't have. The proper tests weren't performed.

But still her urine sample tested positive for EPO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/our_man_at_edmonton/1481240.stm

Yegorova tested positive for banned performance-enhancing hormone EPO at the Golden League meeting in Paris last month and was initially banned by athletics' governing body, the IAAF. But she was reinstated on Saturday on a technicality when it was revealed that French doping authorities had failed to carry out a blood test to back up the results of her urine sample, as IAAF regulations state.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/1474020.stm

>>The world indoor 3000m champion had been suspended by the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) when she tested positive for the endurance-boosting drug EPO. The IAAF has dismissed the case because of a legal blunder. Yegorova was suspended after she tested positive at the Golden League meeting in Paris last month. "For rule and legal reasons the IAAF has no choice but to lift the ban on the athlete," said Arne Ljunqvist, head of the IAAF anti-doping commission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/english/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/newsid_1469000/1469931.stm

>>But International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) spokesman Giorgio Reineri said on Thursday: "She is suspended from the championships."The IAAF has decided to suspend the Russian despite not having completed a second test of the athlete's urine. However, it has the power to suspend an athlete after the first test if it proves positive, as Yegorova's did.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/our_man_at_edmonton/1474992.stm

Dutch-based Hermens told BBC Sport on Sunday: "We accept the technicality - that's part of the sport. But she [Yegorova] has cheated. It's proven. "The EPO test has been used by cycling, it's been verified by the UCI (International Cycling Union) but not by the IAAF and International Olympic Committee."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/athletics/news/2001/08/12/notebook_ap/

Among those who passed drug tests Saturday was 5,000-meter gold medalist Olga Yegorova of Russia. She was the subject of much criticism from competitors after she was allowed to compete even though a urine sample taken last week in Paris was positive for the endurance-enhancer EPO. She was allowed to compete because no blood test was done, as is required by the IAAF.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/2001/08/11/FFX1APRU6QC.html

"Last week, we were really embarrassed because on a technicality we had to let her (Yegorova) go, but we thought it morally impossible to let her compete, so we tested her again," Gyulai said.

Look,Mr,Gulai is saying this kinda thing...Even I can't believe...

IAAF or any of the articles found on the internet did not say Yegorova didn't tested positive for EPO and instead said otherwise.

So if you want to overturn this ,you have to show the article in which IAAF or whatever like it said she didn't test positive for EPO,And that's what dunes runners referred to and I have been serching for long time.

Please wait for the post about other matters...

molfin wrote:

Thank you very much for replying politely and showing the article.Are you sure that the article was the last one?If that's the case ,I read it,too.

Technicality may not be actually not right word,But IAAF secretary used that term,maybe it's the beginning?.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/2001/08/11/FFX1APRU6QC.html

"Last week, we were really embarrassed because on a technicality we had to let her (Yegorova) go, but we thought it morally impossible to let her compete, so we tested her again," Gyulai said.

>>As the IAAF was finally forced to admit, Yegorova did not test positive. She couldn't have. The proper tests weren't performed.

But still her urine sample tested positive for EPO.

That was the last report of the French investigation that I could find. Since the French official said the case was closed, I assume there was little journalistic followup, if any.

A positive result on a single urine sample does not mean that her urine was positive. Positive results on 2 samples is required. I would guess that, as someone else on the message board mentioned, this is required to reduce the chance of a false positive. A preliminary study of the Australian protocol showed a false-positive rate of 1/189 tests. That may not sound high, but when you consider the number of athletes tested and the number of times each athlete is tested, you could easily have a lot of false-positives. But requiring a test of a B sample would seem to reduce this risk considerably, since the odds that two false-positives would occur in the same pair of tests for the same athlete would be low.

It's unfortunate that people who should know better use terms like "technicality" thoughtlessly, but then Gyulai is probably not a native English speaker and therefore may not understand the connotations of what he said. The second story you cited, from the BBC, went so far astray as to call the flawed testing a "legal blunder." Rubbish, as they say across the pond.

Ah,I'm surprised thank you very much for very useful information.

>>A positive result on a single urine sample does not mean that her urine was positive. Positive results on 2 samples is required.

You may be right .I don't know how 'positive test'is defined,but as you see,all media(and I and other people here and people on the internet as far as I visited?) use the term to her positive result.And looking at the dictionaries' test positive,I don't think I'm wrong.But maybe in the strict meaning in the sports world ,you may be right.How IAAF is doing?

details of this case and test.

http://www.runnersworld.com/dailynew/archives/2001/August/010813.html

Is there a lesson to be learned here in Edmonton at the World Championships?

The Olga Yegorova EPO drug test debacle clearly points out an item likely to be near the top of new International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge's to-do list: A universal set of anti-doping rules.

How do you explain to an athlete that a drug test that would be considered positive for a cyclist can't be considered positive for a distance runner?

For the International Association of Athletics Federations, the answer is simple: Because cycling and track and field have different drug testing rules.

What happened in the Yegorova case certainly was embarrassing for the IAAF, but the responsibility really lies with French authorities who decided--without consulting the IAAF--to use a urine-only test for EPO on the 12 athletes who had already been selected for IAAF drug testing at the Grand Prix meet in Paris July 6. Given that the Paris lab is at the center of nearly completed work (with four other labs) to validate the urine-only test for use by the IAAF and the IOC, the mystery is who gave the go-ahead for a test that couldn't be accepted under current rules.

The IAAF first learned of Yegorova's positive from the press. Although unhappy that they had not been informed of the test beforehand, the IAAF incorrectly assumed the test was its accepted combined blood/urine test because the Paris lab knew the urine-only test had not yet been approved. Days passed before it was clear to the IAAF that there was no companion blood testing in Paris.

The French have been one of the most aggressive countries in the sports doping wars, often using police work to bolster the campaign. Were they trying to push the envelope with the urine-only test after seeing its successful use on the Tour de France? Or was it simply a regrettable oversight? And why does cycling stand nearly alone in its decision to go with the single test?

Arne Ljungqvist, the head of the IAAF's medical commission, took great pains to explain to the press the reasons why Yegorova's case had to be dismissed, despite the fact that EPO was discovered in her urine sample. He also conceded that it might be appropriate for him to meet with athletes such as Gabriela Szabo and Paula Radcliffe to give the same explanation and answer their questions.

He pointed out that 50 to 60 athletes (including Radcliffe and Yegorova) from "the traditional risk group--middle and long distance runners" had been given out-of-competition validated blood/urine tests in Edmonton before they competed. In addition, several athletes had been targeted by the IAAF for follow-up surprise EPO testing based on their blood tests from the Sydney Olympics. The current combined test uses blood samples to indicate that EPO has been used with confirmation coming from the more complicated urine test, which reveals the actual presence of EPO. The blood test can indicate use going back several weeks, the urine test only several days. Athletes whose urine tests do not confirm their suspicious blood samples are targeted for unannounced tests.

Ljungqvist went on to say that the decision of the cycling federation (UCI) to do urine-only EPO testing was "very different" from the IAAF's consideration of the test. The UCI decision came, "because there was a wish among cyclists to have it done." The cycling world obviously had plenty of hard information--not just rumors--to show what had to be done to try to restore credibility. Track and field hasn't reached the crisis level of the Tour de France. Instead, it's been floundering under the weight of doping accusations. Despite having her case dropped, Yegorova may well be the rallying cry needed to prod movement among sports federations to get their rules in line.

Then we can get back to enjoying races like last week's blood-and-guts marathon race to the wire.

And about her B sample...

Her B sasmple test result came to 'illegibe'.

But since it was not anything whatever the police or others was able to do anything.No one was able to do anything.And it was the end of the subject.

Molfin - you continue to repost the witch-hunt articles from BBC and RW - of course the press is much more interested in scandals like someone testing positive, yet will hush up any story like the one about French authorities stopping their investigation.

They will continue to call this a technicality, while completely misinterpreting the facts of the case. I would question why the French lab, while it leaks the info about A sample (which is against the rules in itself) cannot get any reading on B sample. They got a lot of negative reaction from IAAF for releasing info on A sample, so they should have been very motivated to prove that they were right and B sample confirms their illegal leak.

Frankly, french are known to be a little overzealous when it comes to such accusations - their '99 investigation into Lance Armstrong and team US Postal is still pending, even though they finally admitted they got absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing. They even tried to get him on tax evasion - after they realized their doping case is not panning out.

About 1/189 probability of a false positive (which is what we are dealing here in Yeg's case) - let's say 100 posters of LetsRun.com are tested continuously through the summer, say about 10 times each (every major GP-level meet, plus heats and finals of Edmonton, Goodwill games etc.). You got a 100 people producing 2000 samples (2 per each test - A and B samples), and 1/189 of that number - more than 10 of them will test false-positive. B samples will not confirm A tests, but if we follow the logic of the press, 10 out of 100 posters here are guilty of using EPO, while getting off on a technicality.

I am absolutely confident that many more urine samples tested positive, but the results were never released (and rightfully so) because B samples didn't confirm A sample findings (false-positives) and blood tests didn't confirm EPO either.

The same people who lead witch-hunt against Yeg, later would argue that USATF has a right not to reveal the names of athletes who tested positive on both samples. The fact is, in case of Yeg, or Boulami (if B-sample will not confirm the findings of A-sample), their reputations and careers are basically over before the B sample is tested.

B-sample is often irrelevant, because even if it comes out to be a false positive, or a testing mistake of some sort - the press will call this a "technicality" to keep the scandal going. Nobody will ever apologize.

However, in case of CJ Hunter and many other athletes who will remain unknown - probably forever - they will be protected by US federation unless someone very close to the testing will leak the finding (like was done - likely to put more pressure on Marion - in the case of CJ Hunter).

Drewp and Yellow Press,

Thank you for your more detailed explanations.

Wejo, I wonder if you are reading this and have some comments.

As you can see this could happen to you or PR or anyone.

If it was you or Yegorova or PR the same results could be possible.

Yet wouldn't the reporting be different for you or PR or someone else close you?

But don't you think the reporting should be the same for everyone.

No witch hunts -- just the facts.

I would like to know if you can see at least part of this.

And if it might have some affect on your handling of such issues on your web site.

Dr.Graham Traut(I'm not sure about spelling) who is one of the members who invented EPO test of blood sample,said in 2000 when it was anounced that EPO testing protocol was invented and begun from Sydney,that it was about 1/10000 of probability to mistake in each blood test and urine sample(in each both A sample and B sample or only one sample?),but combination of them made it near 0.

And I might find the article about 1/189.but isn't it preliminary protocol which is not done at Tour de France because of that test result?is it only one test?or blood and urine? or only A sample?or both A and B sample?

Thank you very much for the information,but I want to know a bit more to conclude this matter.

And please wait for more...

Kipketer showed his symptoms after spending time in Kenya, as he DOES EVERY YEAR DURING THE OFF-SEASON. If you think that it is hard to come by ANY drug in Kenya, take a trip to Nairobi. More drugged out chuckleheads wandering the streets than you can find anywhere in America, or even Amsterdam. Second, the Kenyan and Ethiopian elite are trained by Europeans, mainly Rosa and Hermens, with their shady backgrounds known by most who pay attention to the sport. Maybe we should say you blacks should take your licks like men, y'know, stop having the media parade second rate NFL quarterbacks in front of us that can't call their own plays, take one look down field and run for their lives, unable to "look off" the open receivers, all the while the media tells us they are all pros, and deserving of all the accolades. It is only our eyes deceiving us. Or maybe swimming, weightlifting and no holds barred fighting are the sports we should concentrate on, since dense bone structure in the skull and body fat concentrated in the gluteal region don't lend any advantages ... man, sounds as bad as you, eh?

While I think a higher portion of the East and North African populations have the make up to be top flight distance runners, Sharpton is the one that needs to face facts: East African runners did not enjoy the success they now have until Gabriele Rosa started the train running in '87. The performance explosion corresponds exactly with his work with the Kenyans. And since his workouts aren't comprised of any major breakthroughs in training theory, one must consider the reality that since Rosa fled cycling when his riders were found to be using steroids and EPO, it is doubtful he has changed his ways. Oh, wait a minute. I forgot. In today's world, blacks are above criticism and scrutiny, right Sharpton?

Ah,more importantly,how false positive tests came ?Did they analyze?Weren't these from normal athletes from without technical errors or not?If they tested positive,didn't they test positive again which meaned it's normal for them and no matter how many time they were tested,they tested positive(and that test protoco not admitted now?)?

Maybe you don't know ,but please teach me as much as possible.

Hahahaha. Pretty funny Sharpton. But I can see through your posts. How much mileage do you and the other guys at the Hillel House put in?

Seems those discussions are not new.about their decline in 80,about Rosa matter.Who belong to them?Do you think they are all drugged?

http://www.kenyarunners.com/2.htm

How is the African in America doing?

Including runs to the bagel shop about 23 per week.

Culpepper, McNair, McNabb, Vick...to name a few. Man oh man..what would the NFL be without them?! I know "Sharpton is an idiot"...it's kind of hard for you to sit down on Sunday afternoon or Monday night and watch the brothers do it up, but hey, you still got the kicker and cheerleader positions covered...plus you got the "Jimmy the Greek" followups to put a somewhat palatable spin on things for you.

So I'm going to save my breath for cheering on the brothers and sisters as I watch sports on TV today (are you picking Venus or Serena?), but while I'm doing that, why don't you read the link my man so kindly posted below on kenyan runners...couple of words in there for all you haters who showed up been on the seen since Lasse-I didn't blood dope-Viren and Carlos Lopes took a backseat.

And while you're at it, why don't you ponder something else...of the 88 or so male runners who started races at 800 to 10,000m at the VanDamme meet the other night, why was only one of them an American (Krumm)? And please don't tell me it's because everyone else is on the Rosa train.

Which brings me back to my original point - American failure to make much of an impact on middle/distance running has much more to do with what Americans don't do (train hard in sufficient numbers) than with what Africans do - live & train like their lives depended on it, instead of trying to squeeze in an evening run out in the 'burbs after a day at the office.

And then they try and pass themselves off as pros deserving of accolades...

Now, you were saying something about

How about publishing a few unbiased articles about the studies and protocol that were used to set up the EPO testing procedures.

What are the actual estimated chances of a false positive.

Is there really any difference between an A and a B sample, or if the A sample gives a false positive would the B sample do the same.

How about publishing these studies and the protocol so people can know what is going on.

And stop it from being the clandestine operation that it is.

you're right .I'm serching for such kinda artcile.Please serch for it before you ask wall...And maybe even if published ,most people don't read.I think people who want to know that have ways to know that.

Dr.Graham Traut(I'm not sure about spelling) who is one of the members who invented EPO test of blood sample,said in 2000 when it was anounced that EPO testing protocol was invented and begun from Sydney,that it was about 1/10000 of probability to mistake in each blood test and urine sample(in each both A sample and B sample or only one sample?),but combination of them made it near 0.

I don't know what this doctor is saying in the strict sense.

And it seems 'Austrarian test ' is a blood test,and 'French test' is an urine test.

And there are no difference between A sample and B sample,they are same ,and testing procedures or negative limit aare also quite same as far as I know.

And EPO detected from her urine sample was rHnEPO ,sythesized one.So there's no chance that her rHnEPO was produced from high altitude training .