Unless there was some other data linked at a later stage, the data presented in the other thread showed the specificity of the A sample was 100%
That is zero false positives.
The positive predictive value is therefore 1 or 100%.
In other words, based on the data, you can assume an athlete is a doper based on the A sample.
If this were a medical diagnostic test you would have certainly diagnosed the disease based on the A sample alone.
In fact from a medical perspective, presented with both the positive A and negative B, (based on the performance of the test according to the data), it would still confirm a positive diagnosis.
Good points. On top of that, the B sample in this case is not even negative - is "atypical finding" the same as "borderline positive" ? No idea why your post has so many downvotes.
The statement is based on their belief he was guilty and they now have a focus on them instead of Bol.
How can this be, they say?
They should ndver have announced a positive until both samples were tested. That used to be the case.
This cost him Australian of The Year. He has lost significantly from this false result. And its not good enough to call it atypical. If it were atypical on his A sample he never would have been suspended.
I’m an MD and deal with diagnostic testing all of the time. This outcome is not surprising. Data presented on the prior main thread on this topic documented that the specificity of the A sample test alone (negative in non dopers) and therefore the positive predictive value (that a positive A sample is a predictor of true doping) is low enough for the epo assay that NOBODY should assume an athlete is a doper based on the A sample result alone.
That explains nothing and does not sound very scientific although you certainly write like a doctor!
Do you actually carry out tests or just interpret results?
A and B Sample should be identical. Testing on A and B sample should be identical. Therefor the result should be the same unless there were difference in storage.
Produce the readings or typical reading you would expect from such a test, rather than your unscientific waffle which even the laymen can see through.
More likely both were borderline positive and his lawyers got on the case.
Normally an atypical test result would mean the sample need re-testing or a further test needed but his system will be fully flushed out by now.
Good points. On top of that, the B sample in this case is not even negative - is "atypical finding" the same as "borderline positive" ? No idea why your post has so many downvotes.
The statement is based on their belief he was guilty and they now have a focus on them instead of Bol.
How can this be, they say?
They should ndver have announced a positive until both samples were tested. That used to be the case.
This cost him Australian of The Year. He has lost significantly from this false result. And its not good enough to call it atypical. If it were atypical on his A sample he never would have been suspended.
That explains nothing and does not sound very scientific although you certainly write like a doctor!
Do you actually carry out tests or just interpret results?
A and B Sample should be identical. Testing on A and B sample should be identical. Therefor the result should be the same unless there were difference in storage.
Produce the readings or typical reading you would expect from such a test, rather than your unscientific waffle which even the laymen can see through.
More likely both were borderline positive and his lawyers got on the case.
Normally an atypical test result would mean the sample need re-testing or a further test needed but his system will be fully flushed out by now.
Did you read the paper? What’s clear is that the direct tests for exogenous epo sort of stink as diagnostic tests. Some assays are easy and the results very straightforward to interpret and read out as a binary yes or no. It seems the epo assays are cumbersome, difficult to interpret and seem subject to different outcomes with only minor changes in the testing conditions. It seems that the biological passport is a far more reliable way to accurately identify dopers. Did Bol show aberrations with respect to his passport parameters?
I think his samples were tested by two different labs?? If so, it could be different instruments with different methodologies. One might be more sensitive. The other less with something in his urine interfering with the testing, masking the EPO, thus indicating a negative result. Thats why the atypical results on the B sample.
This post was edited 51 seconds after it was posted.
I think his samples were tested by two different labs?? If so, it could be different instruments with different methodologies. One might be more sensitive. The other less with something in his urine interfering with the testing, masking the EPO, thus indicating a negative result. Thats why the atypical results on the B sample.
Once again, are people just making stuff up just to post?
No. There are two common tests to detect EPO. They did one of them on the A sample. Bol's representation requested they perform both types of tests on the B. We don't know the details, but there is an expectation that that request would be granted. We also know from his side that they thought the A sample determination was borderline and anything but an ironclad assessment (one close band out of five). We now know with the atypical finding, that something remains fuzzy in the labs' assessment of his sample, but they can't conclude it is from exogenous EPO use. We'll see as more information comes out, but clearly the second analysis is inconclusive, whereas the first was considered just conclusive enough.
I think his samples were tested by two different labs?? If so, it could be different instruments with different methodologies. One might be more sensitive. The other less with something in his urine interfering with the testing, masking the EPO, thus indicating a negative result. Thats why the atypical results on the B sample.
Once again, are people just making stuff up just to post?
No. There are two common tests to detect EPO. They did one of them on the A sample. Bol's representation requested they perform both types of tests on the B. We don't know the details, but there is an expectation that that request would be granted. We also know from his side that they thought the A sample determination was borderline and anything but an ironclad assessment (one close band out of five). We now know with the atypical finding, that something remains fuzzy in the labs' assessment of his sample, but they can't conclude it is from exogenous EPO use. We'll see as more information comes out, but clearly the second analysis is inconclusive, whereas the first was considered just conclusive enough.
Now watch how crappy of a year Bol will have now that he knows he will be under scrutiny and will have to be off the juice. I bet he doesn’t break 1:45.
I am not sure they can make his year more crappy than they already have
Four professors of biochemistry and molecular biology from Norway are worried by the Peter Bol doping case, saying analysis of EPO test results is subjective.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
