Defense of Bernard Lagat

The one argument I can see you making is that someone could be heterozygous for the polymorphism, resulting in both bands appearing. If this were to happen and I was the athlete however, I would have my parents tested. This would reveal the problem clearly.

AH wrote:

...how are innocent people going to be punished when a shift caused by polymorphism would cause the "normal" EPO band/s to be ABSENT?

When so-called "normal EPO bands" are absent, there are three possibilities to consider:

a) The polymorphism makes the bands to disappear from the selected narrow pH range. Nothing to detect - no punishment.

b) The polymorphism makes several bands to shift to the Darbepoetin side. Perhaps good (meaning the ratio of the densitometry scanning will be better for the assumed "good value"), but the shifts should not come too close to Darbepoetin - this could mean punishment for NESP doping.

c) The polymorphism makes some bands to shift to the Baby hamster rHuEPO side - this is very dangerous, the used ratio would probably increase above the threshold of 80% -

guilty, two year ban! Simply by own, natural erythropoietin.

phoenix supporter wrote:

c) The polymorphism makes some bands to shift to the Baby hamster rHuEPO side - this is very dangerous, the used ratio would probably increase above the threshold of 80% -

guilty, two year ban! Simply by own, natural erythropoietin.

However once again, you admit the bands would shift from their normal position, shown by the controls. IF THE NORMAL BAND ISN'T THERE, THE SIMPLE PRESENCE OF A BAND AT/NEAR THE RECOMBINANT AREA CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF GUILT. Both normal and recombinant should appear on the blot. There will be no "increase in the ratio", a polymorphism would shift ALL of the expressed EPO.

AH wrote:

There will be no "increase in the ratio", a polymorphism would shift ALL of the expressed EPO.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the "ratio". This value is build first by drawing a line at a certain height of control lanes using as standard rHuEPO. One takes the three/four major, strongest bands that run usually to the more neutral/basic side as one part and the rest, some fainter bands, as the counterpart. This constructed line is now extended at the same height through all the other lines of the gel, regardless if there are bands or not. Now one does the densitometry scan and calculates the ratio of the areas of the obtained bands of the lower part versus the upper part of each lane, respectively.

Perhaps we should go back to the WADA evaluation report and look exactly how this line and the ratio should be constructed exactly. Anyway, it is just thought as a cutoff line. Let it simplify for us: "good EPO" above and "bad EPO" below this line. Very simple, it works for many cases. But what if some persons, like a Peruvian Quechua of the "Alto Plano", has a natural shift of all his EPO bands by one charge due to the reported glycine / arginine exchange? He would have definitely more band area on the "bad EPO" side and the ratio value would be increased tremendously. Poor guy! Caught!

And there are not only the indios outside as natural exemptions....

phoenix supporter wrote:

This constructed line is now extended at the same height through all the other lines of the gel,

Sorry for this typing error, should be correctly written: ...through all the other LANES of the gel,

A bump for those who don't realize that Letsrun used to actually be interesting and insightful.

What I'd like to understand about the Bernard Lagat sample controversy is - how do his defenders explain the co-incidence of a 3:26 guy 'mistakenly' glowing for EPO? I mean, o.k. you think it was a mistake, but isn't a freaking co-incidence?

How many athletes have suffered from the same testing mistake (an A sample testing positive for EPO and then a b-sample negating it?)

Why didn't this happen to a 100m guy or a hammer thrower?

It didn't just happen to a mid-pack 1500 guy, it happened to one of only 3 men to run 3:26 (the other two almost certainly abusing EPO at the time).

*And who came from a country we now know for sure to have had a rampant EPO doping culture for decades, and with little or no testing (note that he was tested in the USA and as a runner competing for the USA).

read the effin document. If you have a problem with the science point out where specifically they did not convincingly show that Lagat' sample was indeed negative

Coevett wrote:

What I'd like to understand about the Bernard Lagat sample controversy is - how do his defenders explain the co-incidence of a 3:26 guy 'mistakenly' glowing for EPO? I mean, o.k. you think it was a mistake, but isn't a freaking co-incidence?

How many athletes have suffered from the same testing mistake (an A sample testing positive for EPO and then a b-sample negating it?)

Why didn't this happen to a 100m guy or a hammer thrower?

It didn't just happen to a mid-pack 1500 guy, it happened to one of only 3 men to run 3:26 (the other two almost certainly abusing EPO at the time).

The only reason you believe this is unlikely is because you have convinced yourself that it's impossible to run 3:26 clean, unless your name is Seb Coe or Jakob Ingebrigtsen.

3:29.77 =/= 3:26

Klinklehoffen wrote:

read the effin document. If you have a problem with the science point out where specifically they did not convincingly show that Lagat' sample was indeed negative

Exactly.

Klinklehoffen wrote:

read the effin document. If you have a problem with the science point out where specifically they did not convincingly show that Lagat' sample was indeed negative

The reports proves they DID NOT convincingly show the first sample was indeed POSITIVE. And the second sample did not match the first.

The thing is, the results of the A sample should not have been leaked to the public. Had protocol been followed correctly we would not have even been aware of what happened to Lagat.