Ah,I'm surprised thank you very much for very useful information.
>>A positive result on a single urine sample does not mean that her urine was positive. Positive results on 2 samples is required.
You may be right .I don't know how 'positive test'is defined,but as you see,all media(and I and other people here and people on the internet as far as I visited?) use the term to her positive result.And looking at the dictionaries' test positive,I don't think I'm wrong.But maybe in the strict meaning in the sports world ,you may be right.How IAAF is doing?
details of this case and test.
http://www.runnersworld.com/dailynew/archives/2001/August/010813.html
Is there a lesson to be learned here in Edmonton at the World Championships?
The Olga Yegorova EPO drug test debacle clearly points out an item likely to be near the top of new International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge's to-do list: A universal set of anti-doping rules.
How do you explain to an athlete that a drug test that would be considered positive for a cyclist can't be considered positive for a distance runner?
For the International Association of Athletics Federations, the answer is simple: Because cycling and track and field have different drug testing rules.
What happened in the Yegorova case certainly was embarrassing for the IAAF, but the responsibility really lies with French authorities who decided--without consulting the IAAF--to use a urine-only test for EPO on the 12 athletes who had already been selected for IAAF drug testing at the Grand Prix meet in Paris July 6. Given that the Paris lab is at the center of nearly completed work (with four other labs) to validate the urine-only test for use by the IAAF and the IOC, the mystery is who gave the go-ahead for a test that couldn't be accepted under current rules.
The IAAF first learned of Yegorova's positive from the press. Although unhappy that they had not been informed of the test beforehand, the IAAF incorrectly assumed the test was its accepted combined blood/urine test because the Paris lab knew the urine-only test had not yet been approved. Days passed before it was clear to the IAAF that there was no companion blood testing in Paris.
The French have been one of the most aggressive countries in the sports doping wars, often using police work to bolster the campaign. Were they trying to push the envelope with the urine-only test after seeing its successful use on the Tour de France? Or was it simply a regrettable oversight? And why does cycling stand nearly alone in its decision to go with the single test?
Arne Ljungqvist, the head of the IAAF's medical commission, took great pains to explain to the press the reasons why Yegorova's case had to be dismissed, despite the fact that EPO was discovered in her urine sample. He also conceded that it might be appropriate for him to meet with athletes such as Gabriela Szabo and Paula Radcliffe to give the same explanation and answer their questions.
He pointed out that 50 to 60 athletes (including Radcliffe and Yegorova) from "the traditional risk group--middle and long distance runners" had been given out-of-competition validated blood/urine tests in Edmonton before they competed. In addition, several athletes had been targeted by the IAAF for follow-up surprise EPO testing based on their blood tests from the Sydney Olympics. The current combined test uses blood samples to indicate that EPO has been used with confirmation coming from the more complicated urine test, which reveals the actual presence of EPO. The blood test can indicate use going back several weeks, the urine test only several days. Athletes whose urine tests do not confirm their suspicious blood samples are targeted for unannounced tests.
Ljungqvist went on to say that the decision of the cycling federation (UCI) to do urine-only EPO testing was "very different" from the IAAF's consideration of the test. The UCI decision came, "because there was a wish among cyclists to have it done." The cycling world obviously had plenty of hard information--not just rumors--to show what had to be done to try to restore credibility. Track and field hasn't reached the crisis level of the Tour de France. Instead, it's been floundering under the weight of doping accusations. Despite having her case dropped, Yegorova may well be the rallying cry needed to prod movement among sports federations to get their rules in line.
Then we can get back to enjoying races like last week's blood-and-guts marathon race to the wire.
And about her B sample...
Her B sasmple test result came to 'illegibe'.
But since it was not anything whatever the police or others was able to do anything.No one was able to do anything.And it was the end of the subject.