There is a lot of mistruths in here. From another thread:Clerk wrote:I'm going to copy a summary I wrote a while ago:A and B sample collected and handled as best as circumstances can dictate. A sample frozen, B sample not. A sample tested after three days, and the B sample tested after 6 days (not frozen).A-sample looked like recombinant epo (doping), but not quite. IT fit the pattern, but didn't line up in the right shape. This is an important piece: the EPO test is evaluated by human judgement.Here is an example: http://www.doping.chuv.ch/en/l...po-eng.jpgfrom http://www.doping.chuv.ch/en/l...es-epo.htmIt is not a CSI lab with a computer that goes "PING" if there is EPO.The B sample was analyzed, and only sort of matched the pattern of the A-sample, but in a different place (lower on the picture, as indicated by "negative samples").Section B says that there was no positive for a masking agent that would have been responsible for the enzyme activity changing the A sample result to the B sample result over the 6, unfrozen days.Finally, because I know this is important to a lot of posters, is the role of Dr. Marital Saugy, overseeing these tests. He was the man responsible for telling Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruynel how to beat the EPO test. His Lausanne lab is most recently responsible for destroying 63 Russian samples related to their state-sponsored doping cover up. The Lausanne lab is also referred to in emails among IAAF leadership during the doping/corruption scandal as "plan B" for sending samples, presumably if they were going to be troublesome for the IAAF.Quotes from the report:
This is what most message board posters miss. The explanation says that the frozen, well handled tested positive for EPO, and the unfrozen sample did not. They refer specifically to enzyme activity that occurred, due to not being frozen. The enzyme activity was allowed to take place because the sample was mis-stored; the b-sample was able to change its composition from the a-sample because it was mis-stored.
What I don't understand is how the argument was able to stand. The argument should follow that there was no opportunity for the b-sample to confirm or deny the a-sample, because it was obviously affected by not being frozen. Instead, the testifying doctors say that the affected sample somehow shows that the a-sample was a false positive.
And then I remember who the testifying doctor is, Marital Saugy..