Torrence Speaks Out Against Lagat After 5k Final

ryan foreman wrote:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that Torrance all but directly accuses Jenkins of doping too.

Jenkins finished fourth. So it is obviously him who is the real victim of any alleged doping by Lagat. But Torrance skips any mention of Jenkins and instead goes on and on about feeling bad for True. In fact, when one of the others in the video confronts Torrance with the fact of Jenkins 4th place finish, Torrance just smiles a little and says he will not say anything about Jenkins.

Obviously Torrance has some ideas about how NOP operates.

LRC sleuths strke again!!

Dont be uneducated..... wrote:

No he isn't. There are no other Peruvians with the 5k Olympic standard.

Torrance is robbing a Peruvian of a spot as well.

[/quote]

Well thats the system set in place where athletes can switch nationalities in sports. Not perfect by any means. Is it a moral/ethical issue?

Just like questioning the anti-doping system, nothing wrong with questioning the system of globalization in sport.

Thunder Dave, from the hallways of Loyola Catholic, to the streets of Berkeley ( after academic issues at CAL ), on to Peru Thunder Dave, resent the homeland of your family tree.What a guy, role !model for all.

rojo wrote:

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.

People who think there can't be false positives are idiots. No assay is foolproof, and there are bound to be false positives given the thousands upon thousands of times the tests are ran.

Question for other scientists or people familiar with the doping testing protocol out there: are the A and B sample the same biological sample? (ie is blood from the same single draw put into 2 tubes labeled "A" and "B")? If so, that means running the A sample test is essentially running an experiment with a biological replicate n=1, and a technical replicate n=1 (with the B sample being technical replicate number 2 I guess)....thus there are bound to be false positives as that is horrible experimental setup (but what the testers are forced to work).

Thank you for posting Clerk.

Clerk wrote:

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..

He used to close in 50

Nothing like the trials to bring the mean girls of running out of the bushes.

Urine samples are separated from a single collection cup into A and B containers. Passport Blood samples get a separate tube. A and B samples for testing get drawn into separate tubes from the initial collection.

Yes, for urine, one biological replicate, and the A and B are the first and second technical replicate. I'm not sure if your asking about the accuracy of the machines involved, the specifications of protocols used by technicians, or the analyses performed, so I will leave this link here:

Your last sentence, "there are bound to be false positives" may be true, but it needs some qualification. The system is designed to avoid false positives at every point, to a fault. It would take me a while to put the evidence together showing reliability of it all, but presumably, WADA has that all somewhere, to a sufficient degree for national federations, athletes, coaches and governments to approve. You however have big burden to back up your statement that WADA's methods are not reliable in avoiding false positives.

LRC PHD wrote:

are the A and B sample the same biological sample? (ie is blood from the same single draw put into 2 tubes labeled "A" and "B")?

According to WADA's published test standards, yes. I am however, not medically qualified to know more than what I get out of WADA's docs on my limited medical knowledge.

To summarize Clerk's very important posts and reposts, the Lausanne lab appeared to mishandle the b-sample in order to get a failed test and shut the sanctions down.

It seems like since the Lagat days, the IAAF hasn't changed much beyond learning more creative ways to never test positive.

Clerk, why didn't you just link to the document?

Did you happen to get it from... letsrun?

www.letsrun.com/2003/lagatfull.doc

Summary

All experts present agreed that the urine of Mr. Bernard Lagat did not contain any recombinant erythropoietin (rhEpo) and he therefore had not committed Epo-doping.

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.

C) The test used involves many steps with many pitfalls. Only very experienced and critical “bench biochemists”, as those working in the Cologne lab, can responsibly handle the complicated and error-prone procedure. There are several problems with background staining, reproducibility, technical artifacts, losses of proteins during the enrichment steps and losses and changes as result of glycoprotein modifications etc.

D) The test takes too long and is not suitable for mass screening. It should be simplified and improved markedly, e.g. by using ready-made gels, avoiding the double blotting procedure, minimizing glycoprotein modifications etc.

E) Most importantly, the antibody used does not provide an unequivocal identification of rhEpo and specifically does not discriminate between natural and recombinant erythropoietin! A specific monoclonal antibody exclusively reacting with the recombinant glycoproteins is desirable and should be generated.

F) IEF as the only criterion is not sufficient to allow a clear decision, certainly not without a specific antibody. Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis, combined with specific mass spectrometric detection, should also be examined as a “second weapon”, notably in cases of “confirmation tests”.

G) There is currently no published epidemiological study available that deals with the various possible influences resulting in modifications of the Epo-molecule(s) (nutritional, ethnical, physiological, altitude etc.).

H) The recently introduced activity tests for enzymatic activities in certain urine samples places utmost importance to the need of a unified, carefully controlled handling and storing of the samples.

In the same line, the internal report for WADA also asks for necessary improvements and changes of the test. On page 15 of this report it is therefore stated: “The development of totally new urinary EPO tests should be encouraged and funded.”

Seems to me that a lot of the white American guys are the only clean runners according to many on this message board. Ben f-ing True can not hold Lagat's jock strap...and he is likely doping as well.mi image they all are.

Because I'm totally ignorant about PEDs, I wonder if anyone could tell me-

does EPO have a lasting effect the way steroids do? So if Lagat was doping in the past, would this allow him to perform well today?

Clerk wrote:

El Keniano, have you gotten a chance to see this thread?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7467873&page=1

I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

OMG! I've just seen it. I was watching a movie while it was unfolding so it passed me by. Catching up right now ... glad, at least, there have been arrests.

Thanks for for the link, btw.

Thanks for including the link, I didn't realize I missed it. I have posted that reply more or less the same in several different threads over the last many months, and must have missed it on one copy/paste or another.

(my previous post is in reply to That Good Good)

They should have set a faster pace & don't deserve to go

+100

Justthefacts wrote:

Everything Torrence said is well known. Is this not common knowledge? Are people not familiar with thus story?

Landroid wrote:

This ^.

He was good in college, not great. Two years later (give or take) and he's a 3:26 guy?

God I hate Lagat. He's my least favorite athlete, because he has robbed so many Americans of titles and spots on teams. Seriously, he's worse than Regina Jacobs. I mean, that kick at 40+ is Lance's seventh title. Just a complete slap in the face.

Also, even if he is and always clean: if you're can't run for president, you shouldn't be able to represent the country in sports. He is a Kenyan with us citizenship. His kid is American.

my feelings to...I hate this guy

Torrance is obviously a little inebriated in the video. Saying what he thinks, but likely wouldn't have said it if he wasn't drinking.