Im sorry, but I have to take Molfin's side on this one.
Dunes - Unless you can show outside sources to support your claims, you cannot expect us to just "take your word for it."
My own personal opinion: Even if OY was wronged by the Paris testers, PR is not the blood-seeking, malicious athlete you claim her to be. I think PR is mostly working to clean up the sport as much as possible, and if there is legit reason to believe that someone is doping (ie a drug test that is reported as positive), only then does she target that person and all other drug cheats.
As far as the IAAF's stance, this was the only thing I could find in their news archive about it:
********
IAAF lifts suspension of Olga Yegorova
IAAF Release
4 September 2001 - Edmonton, Canada - The IAAF has lifted the suspension of the Russian athlete Olga Yegorova, after receiving further information this morning regarding the validation of the testing system which led to the athlete?s positive finding for EPO at the Paris Golden League meeting on 6 July.
Testing for EPO was first conducted at a major Championships last year at the Olympics where athletes were asked to provide samples of both blood and urine. The Sydney protocol involved a screening of the blood sample to provide an indication of whether EPO was present in the athlete?s body, and this was then confirmed by a follow up urine analysis.
At this time, it remains the only means of testing for EPO that has been scientifically validated. Since Sydney, further extensive scientific research has been undertaken to finalise a single urine only test. The research is believed to be complete, but the IAAF has been informed that the test still awaits final validation. The IAAF believes that, in the circumstances, the test conducted by the French authorities on Ms Yegorova in Paris should not have been carried out.
Ms Yegorova is currently in Edmonton and has been tested as part of the IAAF?s own EPO testing programme. This programme uses the Sydney protocol of taking both blood and urine samples and the result of this test will be accepted by the IAAF.
******
The key phrase seems to be "...regarding the validation of the testing system which led to the athlete?s positive finding for EPO at the Paris Golden League meeting on 6 July."
From this it seems as though she did in fact test positive on the Paris promoters test for EPO. However, the IAAF overruled them on this because of the "validation of the testing system." Whether this means the IAAF didnt think the test was conducted properly, thereby leading to a false positive, OR the IAAF would not accept their findings because a second sample was not tested, OR any other various reasons, it is too ambiguous to tell from this article.
If anyone else can find other articles from the IAAF on this, it might help clear up the debate some (although I doubt dunes would be convinced if the IAAF wrote him a letter themselves...)