Can Lagat file a lawsuit against Torrence for slander? Honestly, if I were in Lagat's shoes I would be livid. Torrence should have been competing in the US trials, and it wasn't a good projection of his character to be taking shots at everyone he could think of. What do they all have in common? They can all kick Torrence's a*%.
kys
Lawsuit available? wrote:
Can Lagat file a lawsuit against Torrence for slander? Honestly, if I were in Lagat's shoes I would be livid. Torrence should have been competing in the US trials, and it wasn't a good projection of his character to be taking shots at everyone he could think of. What do they all have in common? They can all kick Torrence's a*%.
kys
Mark my words, being an Olympian for Peru and flapping his yap would help his cause. He'll be cut by Hoka by the end of his contract. Enjoy flagstaff and Malibu while you can Torrence!
mucho respecto wrote:
Closing in 52 at age 41? No, that's not suspicious. I'm sure that's legit.
I don't anything is suspicious about all that. Regina Jacobs did the same thing at the trials at about the same age and that lady was a saint.
Hey Rojo, shall I dig up all the things that you have said about NOP without evidence?And....there are certainly expert / well researched articles on the Lagat samples. You don't have to do a Jerry Springer type investigation.
rojo wrote:
Wow. I guess he did say that.. A few thoughts.
1) I can't believe he said that without evidence.
2) Despite #1, I've always thought we should do an article on the Lagat A positive/B negative.I think there are a lot of people who think like Torrence so a well researched article on the matter would be a worthy addition.
3) I did ask a highly respect author a few years ago about it (A positive for EPO B negative) and I recall correctly he said that it's quite possible that someone can have an A be positive and B negative for EPO. While not an expert of EPO, he certainly didn't think it meant Lagat was an EPO cheat and gave me the names of some experts who would be able to explain it in full.
4) We'll look into doing a story with experts on it as it's wrong to have mud slung on a highly technical issue without expert opinions.
Can almost guarantee Torrence isn't sleeping easy tonight. Sometimes it is just better to, like he said, say nothing.
I have my own opinions to lagat, my beef has to do with Torrence and if he's going to dish criticism he better be able to able to accept that there be criticism his way too. So no I won't be wacking off to lagat, you perverted mind of yours can go to continue support Torrence and his cowardly representing peru while basking in all the USA has to offer to him.
kyskykskyks wrote:
kys
Lawsuit available? wrote:Can Lagat file a lawsuit against Torrence for slander? Honestly, if I were in Lagat's shoes I would be livid. Torrence should have been competing in the US trials, and it wasn't a good projection of his character to be taking shots at everyone he could think of. What do they all have in common? They can all kick Torrence's a*%.
kys
+1
Abdi was another one that would just magically transform his fitness levels to Olympic caiber on cue.
Maybe you should look stuff up before you post totally inaccurate information...oh wait, I forgot this is letsrun.
So has no one thought that maybe Torrence is a little clever and figured he would cover for himself by throwing accusations at everyone else? What is the best way to protect yourself? Be outspoken, and call out everyone that is faster than you. How does everyone know he didn't fully buy into Aden's formula? He deserves scrutiny too.
smile wrote:
Neither did Lagat wrote:Neither did Lagat. A positive requires positive A plus positive B.
Guess that means Marion Jones is clean by virtue of her negative B sample for EPO, just like Lagat.
http://espn.go.com/olympics/trackandfield/news/story?id=2576909
No, Lagat produced a negative B sample and the A sample was mis-handled. That's different from Marion Jones' situation.
smile wrote:
Neither did Lagat wrote:Neither did Lagat. A positive requires positive A plus positive B.
Guess that means Marion Jones is clean by virtue of her negative B sample for EPO, just like Lagat.
http://espn.go.com/olympics/trackandfield/news/story?id=2576909
Try thinking some time.
What it means is that Marion and Lagat had similar test results vis-a-vis negative Bs. What it does NOT mean is that they either both used PEDs or are both clean.
Seriously, do you have any legitimate thought processes at all? Any?
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:
8. Wednesday morning the final incubations and washings and the ECL-reagent treatments were performed. Dr. Saugy and Prof. Schänzer came to watch the exposure and the emerging first result of the test. Surprisingly, the B-sample showed an IEF pattern different from that in the A-sample. The results also revealed that, without any doubt, there was obvious enzyme activity in this urine sample which had also altered the controls, rhEpo and Nesp. In summary, no bands were missing, e.g. due to insufficient amounts of Epo, but rather the total band pattern had shifted toward the neutral side of the gel and appeared clearly above the rhEpo region and even further away from “normal serum†Epo and from Nesp.
9. Dr. Saugy, Prof. Schänzer, Mrs. Majer, Mrs. Schänzer and I discussed possible reasons of this kind of result that had never seen before in this lab.
With respect to the B-sample result we suspected that the sample handling might be partly responsible for the result obtained. Obviously, some enzyme activity in Mr. Lagat´s urine was responsible for the results observed. When adding pepstatin to the sample of one tube for protease inhibition, no major effect on this enzyme activity was recognized. The nature of the enzyme was not clear. It could be a glycosidase, a sulfatase, a kinase, a deamidation activity, of human origin or caused by bacterial contamination. As already mentioned (point 3 of this report) the sample had been underway a long time at elevated temperature (ï¾40° C), without any cooling. As already mentioned upon arrival in the lab the B-sample had not been frozen directly, but stored at 4° C for more than 6 days, i.e. before the results of the A-sample were seen. Only then (!) the B-sample was finally frozen and kept at –20°C until the official opening. Therefore, it is likely than not that glycoprotein-modifying activities have artificially contributed to the results of both the A- and the B-sample. Several reports in the literature have stated that in specific cases the urine samples contained only insufficient amounts of Epo. This, however, raises the basic question whether the Epo originally present might have been rendered undetectable (“lostâ€) as it had been modified in the urine (see also ref. 7 and the “Evaluation report of the urine Epo test†by G. Peltre and W. Thormann 2003, written for the council of the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA. Within this report Mrs. Gro Nissen-Lie from the Hormone Laboratory in Oslo has also reported on unusually basic bands).
In the case of Mr. Lagat´s urine, the A-sample and the B-sample obviously contained some Epo-modifying activity. Assuming the enzyme activity of the A-sample and the B-sample would indeed have been inactivated by immediate deep-freezing, presumably the B-sample would have come up with the same result as the A-sample. That would have meant: A-sample positive (false-positive) according to the rules and B-sample positive (false-positive) according to the rules. However this urine had demonstrably disturbing enzyme activity!!! As the minor pI-derivations of the bands seen in direct comparison with rhEpo in a parallel lane might have been ignored the suspected “rHEpo area†would have been taken as an all-in-all “positive†case! A tragic mistake for the athlete involved!
...
B) While the test of Mr. Lagat´s B-sample did not reveal any reactive components in positions taken as indication of a positive test, the original A-sample showed bands in this region which, however, were not fully identical with those of the reference recombinant Epo and might well be due to glycoprotein modifications.
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..
sdsfsadf wrote:
It was the A sample that was found to be mishandled with Lagat, not the B sample. The B sample was properly stored and found no traces of anything.
That is correct. Lagat kicked well today, just like a thousand times before. Ranting about rumors is way out of line. Just as I welcome the WCAP guys to our team, I welcome Torrence to head on down and do commentary on his, rather than dumping message board BS on the guys who showed up and ran.
Torrence , you are representing PERU.You are not an american in my book, shut the F up your a coward!
Clicked Bait wrote:
rojo wrote:4) We'll look into doing a story with experts on it as it's wrong to have mud slung on a highly technical issue without expert opinions.
Really? Because mud slinging by non-experts in regards to highly technical issues is pretty much the only thing that happens on these message boards.
Exactly, two f'ing losers (one a complete sellout connecting with his Peruvian roots, I'm sure and loving the lack of anything resembling competition) talking out of their a-holes - but it's perfect for this dump of a site.
Lagat is a beautiful runner. Smooth. If you don't have proof of cheating, you have nothing. Jealousy is a strange bedfellow.
Igy
What does Torrence have to gain by calling out Lagat? Nothing. Plenty to lose. He's just speaking his mind. He thinks Lagat is dirty. So do most distance running fans who understand how weird it is for a 41 year old man to close in 52. A guy who was mediocre in college.
