Lagat's B sample negative

Stater of the Obvious wrote:

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.

Good. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, shithead.

Why do the Lagat advocates have to resort to personal attacks to make their point?

I KNOW the samples were taken at the same time, but isn't it possible that one test had him just over the 80% threshold and another just under?

All I know is that they found EPO in Bernard Lagat's urine one time and another time they did not. I will draw from that any conclusions that I choose to and you are free to do the same.

Stater of the Obvious wrote:

All I know is that they found EPO in Bernard Lagat's urine one time and another time they did not. I will draw from that any conclusions that I choose to and you are free to do the same.

I don't know if I'm a supporter or a detractor. I have my suspicions, but if his "B" was negative, that's as far as it goes for me.

But just to be clear: We are actually aware that we are free to draw our own conclusions. Really. We figured that part out already. We appreciate your permission to do so, but it is unnecessary.

First to the poster that said that they take the second sample after the first one comes back positive you are wrong. They take it at the same time. And it is urine so no it doesn't hurt the athletes performance. Next they "found" EPO just like they would in anyone else body because EPO is naturally occuring in humans. So to the poster saying that there are traces of EPO there are traces of EPO in you too. The only problem was that there was an elevated level in the A sample but since this test isn't 100% accurate they run two tests to make sure. If you believe that the first test is true, then you cannot argue that the second one is fake because it is the same urine being run through the same test. So you either believe both or believe neither..which is hard to say that the athlete is not clean or dirty...

I think Dr. Obvious is obviously confused. First, in track and field no blood testing is done. That eliminates the "Doctor's" argument against taking two samples at once. Second, it is well known, some would say obvious, that one single urine sample is taken, (at the same time) and divided into two: an A sample and a B sample. The A sample is tested. If it is positive, the B sample is later tested (thus avoiding wasting time and money by testing both at once). Although there may be legal concerns, the Legat situation demonstrates that, obviously, the results of the A sample are announced before the results of the B sample are known.

I will refrain from saying "DUUUUUUHHHH!".

You are wrong. They collect A samples and B samples AT THE SAME TIME!

They do not test B sample unless A turns out positive.

As to arguments of the type "you either have EPO in your blood or you do not", you guys are morons. Everyone has EPO in their blood, the question is whether it is natural EPO or synthetic EPO.

And the EPO test has a pretty high false positive rate. Considering a large number of tests administered every year, sooner or later someone innocent is bound to test positive. Go read the technical documentation about the test at IAAF website. There's a very good reason they require both A and B samples to test positive.

Olga Yegorova and now Bernard Lagat are absolutely innocent, for a very simple reason - the testing protocol says so.

oh, and they do take blooooood for testing at worlds.

Just wanted to make very clear what Mr. Obvious mentioned: If someone tests positive for EPO, it isn't because there are elevated levels of natural human EPO, but because there is artificial, or synthetic EPO present. Therefore, a positve EPO test can't occur because the person is a genetic freak. It can only occur if synthetic EPO has been injected. And urine is the preferred test. Blood testing only shows abnormal blood profiles, but it does not identify human vs. synthetic EPO. Typically, blood tests are done and then urine tests are performed on those showing abnormal profiles.

Although A is the primary sample of 45mls and 15 mls are poured off into sample B, the cutoff levels are different. Confirmation is completed/confirmed by GCMS and if the confirmation levls is below the cutoff level, the specimen is negative..UNLESS the sample is retested using much more sensitive detection levels, but unless this is completed the same with ALL TESTS FOR ALL ATHLETES, then you are looking at discrimination and subect to legal recourse.

No. Just as with Olga Yegorova, they wait until an A sample tests positive to take a B sample; otherwise, it is a waste of their time (and money) and is harmful to the athletes' performances (you won't run well within 2 days of losing blood - and they take the tests at championship meets). Also, they would not release the results of an A sample test if they had both A and B and could confirm by testing B first. If they released A without B to confirm A, they would be running the risk of being f***ed by lawyers. DUUUUUUHHHH!

Dr. Obvious wrote:

No. Just as with Olga Yegorova, they wait until an A sample tests positive to take a B sample; otherwise, it is a waste of their time (and money) and is harmful to the athletes' performances (you won't run well within 2 days of losing blood - and they take the tests at championship meets). Also, they would not release the results of an A sample test if they had both A and B and could confirm by testing B first. If they released A without B to confirm A, they would be running the risk of being f***ed by lawyers. DUUUUUUHHHH!

Learn the testing procedures dipshit.

We got a lot of f***ing geniouses on this message board. What the f*** do all you losers do for a living? From the way you f***ers talk, you all have PhD.'s in Human Anatomy and Physiology as well has BioChemistry. You are all experts on running, coaching, recruiting, EPO and other blood testing proceedures as well.

You must all make a f***ing million dollars a year with those kinds of credentials.

Get A Life..while you are filling happy meal orders and advancing your career with your next McJob, perhaps you might have a clue that a great majority of posters on this message board have advanced degrees or they read and comprehend...something you obviously do not understadn the meaning of. I for one have a Masters in Physiology while y employed for one of the top healthcare systems in the country, in Occupational and Enviromental Medicine. I am a certified trainer in DOT, FAA and Maritme Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Substance Abuse Education and have fifteen years of experience in this field. Unless the IAAf and USTFA are so f***ed up, they better follow the same testing protocol and use the same cutoff levels or even with greater sensitivity, designated by the Department of Health and Human Services of the Federal Government. Hope this spells it out for you, smart ass.

Bullshit.

Fuck you Mr. High Horse. You are full of shit. If you have all these credentials then post your name so we can all suck your dick.

Until then, you are the f***ing burger flipping geek that thinks he f***ing knows it all. I gaurantee you that I have done more in track and field as an athlete and as a coach than you ever will behind your computer whacking off because you f***ing think you know it all.

You can take your degrees, if you really do have them, and roll them into a big fat duubie and smoke them for all the weight that they carry around here or at the IAAF or USATF.

Like I said...all you f***ing dorks behind your computers are f***ing geniouses. Sure...you have a Master's Degree in Physiology. My ass. Even if you did, I saw the same magazine you got it from; right next to the Sea Monekeys.

Loser.