Where are all the naysayers now?
Right here...this doesn't look odd to you? Why did it take so long to have the B sample "come out".
I'm thinking some stories had to be put together like, Oh this is really what happened.
He was not "proven innocent" as he claims.
He failed a drug test, they found EPO in his blood. The back up test didn't find the EPO...which test is the true test?...you decide.
I already made my decision.
Stater of the Obvious wrote:
He was not "proven innocent" as he claims.
He failed a drug test, they found EPO in his blood. The back up test didn't find the EPO...which test is the true test?...you decide.
I already made my decision.
go read the rules. he was proven innocent. that's why there is an A and a B sample and not just one test. And they found EPO in his urine not blood.
I quote;
"And they found EPO in his urine not blood."
How can you say this in conjunction with your assertion that he was proven innocent?
If they found EPO in his urine or his blood he's GUILTY.
don't listen to stater of the obvious, he's a british brat.
Shuddup gabs.
What about my initial statement is incorrect?
One sample showed EPO another didn't.
Make your own decision.
go read the rules. A and B both must be positive for there to be a postive test.
Not correct. There WAS a positive test, the A test was positive. There must however be 2 positive tests for a runner to be banned.
One test was positive the other was negative. One showed EPO the other didn't. Was he using? You decide.
The B sample took so long cos that is the IAAF rule dickhead..... What really happened is he got screwed by a dodgy first test.
Know the rules and regs before pointing the figure slow man.
Was the first test dodgy or was the second?
Which scenario is more likely.
1. Lagat was using. He took EPO 3 days before he was tested and it was almost all out of his system when he pissed in the bottle.
Sample A showed traces of EPO sample B did not.
2. Lagat was not using. He pissed in a bottle and somehow, some way EPO got into one of his samples which tested positive.
You decide.
a dodgy first test? explain how they test for epo. It is a chemical that either is or is not present. Its not a very had test to do as it was explained to me. Its the quantity of it that is slightly more difficult to determine.
You have to understand that these tests are not completely conclusive. Sesame Seeds on a Big MAC can give a false positive for cocaine. There are a lot of things that can make it a false test. You also have to remember that the A and B samples are taken AT THE SAME TIME so the container the A sample is in can be contaminated as well. In addition, remember that EPO is a naturally occuring substance in the body.
Why do people believe that the A sample must have been right and the B sample was wrong? Is it because he is THAT good? Is it because he is black?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Yes its because he's black. You found me out. I'm a closet racist.
I will walk away now, my head hung low in shame.
Get A Life wrote:
You have to understand that these tests are not completely conclusive. Sesame Seeds on a Big MAC can give a false positive for cocaine. There are a lot of things that can make it a false test. You also have to remember that the A and B samples are taken AT THE SAME TIME so the container the A sample is in can be contaminated as well. In addition, remember that EPO is a naturally occuring substance in the body.
Why do people believe that the A sample must have been right and the B sample was wrong? Is it because he is THAT good? Is it because he is black?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Sure improper protocols may have been carried out but this EPO test is highly accurate. There is a safety margin built in. Take a look at the discussion of the Hamburger case in cycling in the other Lagat thread:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=227533&thread=227533Hamburger was just above the safety margin on one test and then right at 79.% for the 2nd (80% is the cutoff). Thus he got off since his "B" was "negative."
Yeah, the Kenyan federation probably had him not take any more epo and disappear for a while. Flush his system, take the test two weeks later and magically "test negative" and be innocent. Had the blood test been taken soon after the urine sample, the obvious would be exposed. Anyone who believes otherwise is retarded.
Dr. Obvious wrote:
Yeah, the Kenyan federation probably had him not take any more epo and disappear for a while. Flush his system, take the test two weeks later and magically "test negative" and be innocent. Had the blood test been taken soon after the urine sample, the obvious would be exposed. Anyone who believes otherwise is retarded.
I believe they take both the urine and blood samples at the same time, do they not?
moron- the A and B samples were taken at the same time. He wasn't retested.