Since the A and B samples are the same, testing the B sample would not change the probability of a false positive.
IF the "r" (or whatever) EPO tests were conclusive then the results would be absolute.
The IAAF would have approved the test to stand on it's own.
But such results are NOT conclusive and the urine test is NOT a stand alone test.
Even the way it is used now has many problems, as should be obvious to anyone.
>>Since the A and B samples are the same, testing the B sample would not change the probability of a false positive.
So,you now admit that Yegorova must have test positive for EPO in French test again,even if the B sample was not sabotaged or whatfever.
>>IF the "r" (or whatever) EPO tests were conclusive then the results would be absolute.The IAAF would have approved the test to stand on it's own.But such results are NOT conclusive and the urine test is NOT a stand alone test.
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.
And IAAF again and again said it was backup.
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.
>>Even the way it is used now has many problems, as should be obvious to anyone.
Ah,it's not ovbious to me,please enlighten me.
"African runners & runners of African descent are superior to American and European athletes not of African descent."
How does this in any way counter the notion that these folks might also use performance enhancing drugs. I agree that those of West African decent are more likley to have the tools trainable for sprints and E. African's the tools more trainable for distance running. However, I think the E. Africans as a GROUP would be "being the best" with an occasional time under 13:00 rather than with times well under 13:00 and that on an INDIVIDUAL level, a few non-Africans in the sprints and distances would break into the top ranks.
Remember, they are competing with each other and not just us.
E. Africans will always have a disproportion of individuals in the distance events owing to a larger talent pool, but this in no way indicates that a single INDIVIDUAL from anywhere can be every bit as talented as an E. African.
Men, in general, are better runners and weight lifters than women, but there are obviously some women who have more talent in either sport than many men (Any of you guys think you could get as strong as Cheryl Hayworth - the HS Olympic powerlifting chick from Texas?). Group trends don't neccessarily indicate anything for individuals.
It's difficult for me.
But
>>"African runners & runners of African descent are superior to American and European athletes not of African descent."How does this in any way counter the notion that these folks might also use performance enhancing drugs.
Aren't these just about groups?
Some people talk africans are great ,so they are commonly on drugs.And the sentence above is just a counterargument to that argument?
Syringe, are you for real? There is no difference in the IAAF's protocol of testing Africans, Americans , Europeans or anybody else for that matter. A test refusal is immediately penalised with a two year ban, as the John Ngugi case demonstrated. There is no way that any of the top athletes are avoiding tests. as for dr Rosa he is very vocal in his criticism of drug use, not to mention Altitude tents, which he feels give an unfair advantage. The fact is the technology available to the Europeans and Americans is way ahead of that in Africa, a group of Oxford PHD students are currently testing a form of EPO which clears the system incredibly quickly and has a very high EPO resonse.
Syringe your argument falls down completely in the incidence of kenyan Championship results. We regualrly see ~kenyan athleets who come out of teh countryside and beat the world stars, what are these guys doing, developing new forms of EPO in their farms? You just have to face facts that the Africans are far more gifted than us, they have more of a work ethic, and there are a far higher percentage of them who have the required physique/ability. The Africans have caught up in Atheltics initially but in time they will probably go on to dominate other endurance evnts when the infastructure is put in place. We will probably have Africans competing drebily in Cross Country Skiing, Cycling, etc.. within our lifetimes.
molfin wrote:
>>Since the A and B samples are the same, testing the B sample would not change the probability of a false positive.
So,you now admit that Yegorova must have test positive for EPO in French test again,even if the B sample was not sabotaged or whatfever.
Yegorova did not test positive on the A sample. Her results were in the range for normal If the B sample was the same then the results would have been the same. Normal. Not positive.
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.
You need to read your own quotations.
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.
That information is not accurate. If you have the actual studies and protocol then that would be more relevant. And current quotations after the method has been tested.
Again there have been and are serious and obvious problems with the protocol. The urine test has still not been approved as a stand alone test -- because it is not sufficient to determine positive from normal results.
[/quote]
>>Even the way it is used now has many problems, as should be obvious to anyone.
Ah,it's not ovbious to me,please enlighten me.
I just did.
However it is up to you to see the enlightenment.
"Culpepper, McNair, McNabb, Vick ..."
Sharpton, I think the guy was making a point about good NFL QB's, not guys the media tells us are good when their stats say they are mediocre to fair.
Krummenacker is good. And judging by the "waxy fruit" appearance his musculature has taken on (read Charlie Francis' book, or materials from D. Duchaine, etc.) he's probably hittin' the roids to mix it up with the more talented big boys.
Anyway, you're altering your stance by saying it's habits not necessarily the genes. Which is it? Or is changing your stance genetically based? Maybe Dr. MacDonald can answer that, eh? That transparency is catching up with you guys.
>>Yegorova did not test positive on the A sample. Her results were in the range for normal If the B sample was the same then the results would have been the same. Normal. Not positive.
Ah,I got it.So according to your post,all the articles which said Yegorova had tested positive for EPO are wrong,and IIAAF overturned its opinion and said Yegorova hadn't tested positive for EPO.right?And I read all the IAAF 'pressrelease ' which were something to do with Yegorova doping case.But none of them said such things.So where did you learn that?I have serched for a long time.But I couldn't find.Pleaee show me.
>>You need to read your own quotations.
I read .So?what do you mean?I agree Even though the whole world knew Yego tested positive for EPO .IAAF couldn'd to anything.Yeah,normal test should have been carried out .Absorutely right.
>>Again there have been and are serious and obvious problems with the protocol. The urine test has still not been approved as a stand alone test -- because it is not sufficient to determine positive from normal results.
As I said ,it was not ovbious to me at all.Why did you get to that conclusion?
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.
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.
prefer blood and urine tests.But because it is just more of a confiramation and for law suit problems.
>>I just did.
What you showed me was countless wrong information,twisted facts ,mind boggling speculation,unrational accusations,.What you didn't show any of the proof or article or whatever the link to confirm what you said while you ask me to show it.It's impossible for you to ask me to believe what you said if you are doing such things.
The IAAF never banned Yegorova for a positive test.
They had a temporary ban to give them time to verify the newspaper story which had said it was a positive test.
But that story turned out to be false.
As is well known, when the IAAF checked the results it was found to not be a positive test.
And Yegorova was cleared.
You have posted some of this very same information yourself.
Besides this, you are still posting news articles. I asked for the original studies and the protocol.
News stories are not objective or relevant.
This is RIDICULOUS.
Yegorova tested positive for the synthetic form of EPO. That does not occur naturally (at any level) in our bodies. It is man-made, synthetic. The French lab did not follow IAAF testing procedures and therefore, Yegorova was not suspended. To reiterate: She did, in fact, test positive for the synthetic form of EPO (rEPO).
I'm finished here.
You contradict yourself by saying it was positive but that they didn't follow the correct "procedures".
Obviously, it could not have been positive unless they followed the correct procedures.
Therefore, it was not positive.
Also the misinformation you gave did not come from the IAAF test results.
If you think it did then provide those results here from the IAAF so everyone can see it.
But you won't be able to do that.
Waz, just because E. Africans may be gifted in the running dept. doesn't mean they would automatically dominate in other endurance sports. Swimming? No. The bone density levels between blacks and whites are different, although no one likes to talk about it. Blacks have much denser bone structure, good for boxing, explosive type sports such as sprinting, but not good for swimming. (People always bring up Tony Nesty, but he's half white, and that guy in Sydney had a black grandfather, and besides looking white, his physiological make up was no doubt "white" as well - he couldn't "pass" with a Hollywood make up job) Kenyans probably wouldn't dominate cross country skiiing, as the upper body strength component comes into play, and the same tests that show blacks have more ability in speed and jumping ability, show whites have more upper body/torso strength. Also factor in that blacks use more energy in colder weather - they get dehydrated faster as their physiology is geared more toward hot/humid weather. I saw this first hand in the service in Okinawa, when the black marines were told to drink extra fluids when we were out in the snow, etc. and many of those that didn't follow the advice, passed out from dehydration. Not exactly p.c., but there are physiological differences between the races. It just seems to bother people when areas where whites are better suited/superior are pointed out.
There is no doubt a higher percentage of East Africans with the physiology to be good distance runners than there are in the white population. It doesn't mean there aren't whites that can compete, it just means that a higher percentage of top runners will be East Africans. Just like swimming. While there probably are some blacks capable of top line competition, the majority of top swimmers will be white (or Asian). Could be the same for cycling. It's quite possible Kenyans aren't built for it. Maybe, maybe not. We'll see someday.
BTW, there aren't really a lot of examples of guys coming out of the sticks and being world class all of a sudden. It makes for a good story, but generally they have been coached, directed for a while. No doubt some of the Kenyans (and Ethiopians and North Africans) have and are using drugs. I would have to side with those that mention Rosa and Hermens, because they (Rosa positively, he ran for his life when the big investigation hit cycling) have been shown to be dirty. Many of the drugs are developed in Europe, and Rosa et al are Europeans, and likely have access to many ergogenic aids.
Very few Americans and Europeans turn out for track as it is, compared to the North and East Africans. There are far too many things competing for youngster's attention in the developed world, even compared to just 15 years ago. Couple that with a higher percentage of talented individuals, and the immediate prospects for Americans to make a big mark on the world scene are not all that bright. Sure, a Jim Ryun, Lasse Viren, Seb Coe type could come along and dominate for awhile, but he the overwhelming majority of their top competition would come Africa.
In this case I am using 'test positive for EPO' as 'rEPO was detected from her urine sample in a dictionary sense.'But it's confusing.So I will use 'test positive for EPO on urine test'in a dictionary and accepted by the whole world sense.
>>The IAAF never banned Yegorova for a positive test.They had a temporary ban to give them time to verify the newspaper story which had said it was a positive test.
Where did you get that information?
IAAF is and was not able to do such things.
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.
So apparently your argument above is wrong,O.K?
>>As is well known, when the IAAF checked the results it was found to not be a positive test.And Yegorova was cleared.
What it found was French lab hadn't done blood test.And what it didn't find was Yegorova's urine sample hadn't test positive for EPO on urine test.Do you agree?If not ,why?
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.
>>I asked for the original studies and the protocol.
What I want to ascertain is you don't have such things,and you are not able to post them,all right?
Read this: 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.
dunes runner,
Yegorova's "first test" tested positive for synthetic EPO. The French lab did not conduct a second test (blood or urine). That was a mistake. However, the urine test that they conducted is accepted in cycling as enough "proof" to penalize the offender. Therefore, although she did not get suspended and is technically "not guilty", she did in fact test POSITIVE.
If you ask me for some IAAF protocol or something which you know I cannot produce, that doesn't change the facts that Yegorova tested positive for rEPO. If she were a cyclist, she would have been found "guilty"... track has a different testing protocol and the French lab did not follow it.
I know you won't change your mind, but I couldn't let your mindless drivel go unchallenged.
Sorry for the unrelated link....
Mad Marine wrote:
Many of the drugs are developed in Europe, and Rosa et al are Europeans, and likely have access to many ergogenic aids.
Most of the drugs are developed in the US. And marines are US. Therefore marines are dopeheads? Where do you get your reasoning.
the overwhelming majority of their top competition would come [from] Africa.
That's right.
DougC wrote:
Read this: 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.
Doug -
You are repeating what I already said. They suspended her based on the newspaper report saying it was a positive test.
Then they checked the test and found it was not positive so they reinstated her.
Yegorova's "first test" tested positive for synthetic EPO.
If you have the test results from the IAAF that show otherwise then publish them here and also show them to the IAAF because evidently they don't know as much as you do.
the urine test that they conducted is accepted in cycling as enough "proof" to penalize the offender.
Cycling is not running. The test protocol as used then has still not been approved because it did not give conclusive results. If the results had been conclusive then it would have been a positive result. But the results were not conclusive. And it was not a positive result.
Therefore, although she did not get suspended and is technically "not guilty", she did in fact test POSITIVE.
The test was not conclusive. The test was not positive. The athlete was reinstated.
If you ask me for some IAAF protocol or something which you know I cannot produce, that doesn't change the facts that Yegorova tested positive for rEPO.
The IAAF knew what it was doing. You are not the IAAF. The protocol was not conclusive. The test was not positive. The athlete was reinstated.
If she were a cyclist, she would have been found "guilty"... track has a different testing protocol and the French lab did not follow it.
That's right. The French lab did not follow the protocol. The newspaper report was incorrect. And cycling is not running. Because cycling uses some bogus test doesn't mean anyone else should. They have plenty of problems of their own and their "testing" doesn't seem to be working all that well.