Yep, Olga Yegorova was screwed

Mr Dunes,

If you can somehow avoid using the classic \"did not\" - \"did so\" form of argumentation, could you please explain to me how a lack of a B sample positive leads to OY\'s innocence, as opposed to her lack of guilt?

I would be most interested in reading your opinion.

Martin

You are wasting your time.

Look, do a search on the name "dunes runner" and you will find this diatribe posted time after time. Facts do not matter. Evidence does not matter. The word "obtuse" comes to mind.

Never mud-wrestle with a pig

Martin is correct.

"OJ wasn't legally (found) innocent, he was legallly not-guilty, and there's a huge difference."

And OJ did lose the civil case.

re: scientific publication of methods.

Most biochemical testing for court is old news scientifically, primarily because of the time lag between when the scientific community generally accepts something and the time when the courts will accept something. Case in point is the DNA fingerprinting we all hear about. The current science community is using far better and more sophisticated DNA analyses for research purposes, but are hesitant to suggest changes to the criminal investigation approaches because the present approach is sufficient to answer the question (is it the same individual) and it took a long time to gain the status of a reliable form of evidence in the eyes of the courts and the public.

Don't know what the status of the urine tests is as I'm a biologist working with DNA, but wouldn't be surprised if there were similar situations in drug testing.

akrunner wrote:

Most biochemical testing for court is old news scientifically, primarily because of the time lag between when the scientific community generally accepts something and the time when the courts will accept something. Case in point is the DNA fingerprinting we all hear about. The current science community is using far better and more sophisticated DNA analyses for research purposes, but are hesitant to suggest changes to the criminal investigation approaches because the present approach is sufficient to answer the question (is it the same individual) and it took a long time to gain the status of a reliable form of evidence in the eyes of the courts and the public. . .

I'm not sure how this is pertinent to my point, but maybe I'm misinterpreting your comments.

My point was simply this: Any test must be validated scientifically before it can be considered reliable. The validation process must include publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer-review is important, because it subjects the method to scrutiny by experts who have no ties to those who developed the method, i.e., people who can evaluate the method rigorously and in an unbiased manner.

As far as I know, only validation of the Australian blood test for rhEPO has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This test attempts to detect rhEPO use indirectly, by looking at various blood parameters that would be affected by rhEPO. Validation of the French urine test, which is designed to directly detect rhEPO, has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. If someone can prove me wrong by citing a reference, I would be very pleased.

Dunes Runner and DrewP HAVE to be the same person. There is only one person on this board who feels so passionately about Yegorova having been framed and unfairly picked on. And it is Dunes Runner. Dune man, what is YOUR DEAL??? Why are so passionate about this?? It CLEARLY is NOT because there is overwhelming evidence to support your beliefs of her innocence. It MUST be because you are either A) Russian or B) actually are friends/family of Yegorova. Those are the ONLY logical explanations why a sane person would be so biased in favor of this tainted athlete. Well, there is the 3rd explanation: you are insane and have for not particular reason fixated on this issue. Some sort of unexplained monomania.

On the other hand, I have yet to read an unintelligent post by Martin, even when he has disagreed with me.

Martin wrote: If you can somehow avoid using the classic "did not" - "did so" form of argumentation, could you please explain to me how a lack of a B sample positive leads to OY's innocence, as opposed to her lack of guilt?

OY was not tried in a court of law, so the "reasonable doubt" criterion is not applicable. Only if a jury had found her guilty by applying this criterion would the "lack of guilt" notion make any sense. There was no trial and no jury, only a very flawed test. Once the test was found to be flawed, she was indeed "innocent."

OY WAS condemned in the court of public opinion, based on only this: a positive result for a single sample, in a test that had not been scientifically validated. And this untested test was not even performed properly.

And I think we've already established the "inexplicable improvement" argument is nonsense. She improved 10 sec in the 3000 and 19 sec in the 5000. A lot of people do that.

This really isn't that hard to grasp:

1) OY has a good year and runs well.

2) Running well means she wins or places high more often

and is therefore tested more often (only top 3 finishers are generally tested in competition due to expense).

3) She has the bad luck of being tested by an overzealous French federation that wants to show off the new French urine test, even though it has not been adequately validated for use by itself.

4) Stupidly -- and very unfortunately for OY -- the French announce that she is positive, even though only the results for a single sample were interpretable.

5) French lab follies discovered, and OY allowed to compete after being suspended.

6) OY becomes easy target of well-meaning but gullible crusaders, like Paula Radcliffe.

And so it goes . . .

Kurdt wrote:It CLEARLY is NOT because there is overwhelming evidence to support your beliefs of her innocence.

Are you actually reading any of this stuff!? Ok, here's the gist:

Unvalidated test ... test not performed properly . . . French lab found at fault . . . IAAF reinstaes OY . . IOC chief says OY did not fail test . . .

Or would the comic-book version make more sense to you?

I don't have a dog to argue with, so I'm going to add my .02 here. OY tested POSITIVE for EPO on her A test. The blood test protocol has a near-zero false positive rate. The IAAF in its infinite wisdom decided that both a positive blood test and positive urine test are required for an EPO DQ. OY wasn't screwed, she cheated and skated because she got lucky/had help from the Russian "observer" in having her B sample test come out unreadable on both tries.

Can't help myself wrote:

I don't have a dog to argue with, so I'm going to add my .02 here. OY tested POSITIVE for EPO on her A test. The blood test protocol has a near-zero false positive rate. The IAAF in its infinite wisdom decided that both a positive blood test and positive urine test are required for an EPO DQ. OY wasn't screwed, she cheated and skated because she got lucky/had help from the Russian "observer" in having her B sample test come out unreadable on both tries.

So many factual mistakes here I don't even know where to begin. There was NO blood test, only urine. The protocol used has a pretty high non-zero false positive rate, which is why the second test is required. Observer was present during only one of the two sample B tests. Etc. etc.

Have you read anything at all about the case? Or do you get info from your dog?

Can't help myself wrote:I don't have a dog to argue with, so I'm going to add my .02 here. OY tested POSITIVE for EPO on her A test. The blood test protocol has a near-zero false positive rate. The IAAF in its infinite wisdom decided that both a positive blood test and positive urine test are required for an EPO DQ. OY wasn't screwed, she cheated and skated because she got lucky/had help from the Russian "observer" in having her B sample test come out unreadable on both tries.

Here it is in nice, short, declarative sentences:

The blood test does indeed have a very low false-positive rate when performed properly.

But the French did NOT run the blood test on OY's samples. They ran only the urine test.

The urine test had not been validated.

And the Russian scientist wasn't even around for the second run of the B sample, so he couldn't have tampered with the apparatus for that run. (And yesterday's RW story said the problem was with the apparatus (gel), not with the B sample itself.) So why do you persist in believing the tampering story? Isn't it at least as plausible that the French were simply trying to cover their butts after bungling both the test and the announcement of the results?

I have thrown away the rest of the bad crack I was smoking that I bought from my dog.

Martin wrote:

OJ wasn't legally innocent, he was legallly not-guilty, and there's a huge difference.

The same can be said for OY - whilst it's true that the lack of a B sample positive means that she's not guilty of doping, it certainly doesn't mean she's innocent, as you rightly suggest.

There are a lot of comparisions between you and O.J. He enjoys victimizing innocent women, even to their death. Perhaps "some" of you would not carry it "that" far, but you do go far beyond belief and abuse.

OY is a innocent woman. She has not attacked or abused anyone. Her only crime was to be a victim. A victim of people just like O.J. Meaning people like you, Martin. Who continually misrepresent the facts for some ignorant macho idealism that doesn't exist.

I am not drewp and don't know who s/he is. But her/his facts and statements are right on.

The only one I don't agree with is that PR has been well meaning. PR has had plenty of chances to apologize and make reparations to OY and has not.

Wait, a 14:48 is equal to a 14:31? I said when she starts running those times again, I'll believe that she might have been clean. 17 seconds is not even close. Also, a 13-second improvement doesn't usually warrant a lynch mob. That is usually because the person goes from say a 16:00 to a 15:47. When a person is already as fast as she was, that kind of improvement just doesn't happen like that. Please don't use Geb as an example to refute my claim, because comparing Geb to Olga is an insult to Haile.

XCpotential wrote: Also, a 13-second improvement doesn't usually warrant a lynch mob. That is usually because the person goes from say a 16:00 to a 15:47. When a person is already as fast as she was, that kind of improvement just doesn't happen like that. Please don't use Geb as an example to refute my claim, because comparing Geb to Olga is an insult to Haile.

Alright, since your bias won't allow Geb and Olga in the same sentence (oh, damn, there I go), how about Meb? Or Goucher? If they went from,say, 13:13 to 13:00 (I forget what their PRs are), would you be breaking out the rope and rounding up the mob? As a percentage, that would be a much bigger improvement than OY's. Even so, I think it's fair to say that most reasonable people would acknowledge that improvement like that is well within the realm of possibility for a clean athlete. Anybody remember what Moorcroft's 5,000 PR was before he ran 13:00?

No, Olga's only fault was that she ran into a bad test administered by people of questionable character. And the mob, lusting for justice, took over from there.

Mr. Dunes;

It would appear that you have a career in politics ahead of you, using as you do the time honoured technique of deflecting my question whilst responding with self-righteous accusations of your own.

I'm not sure if you're confusing me with someone else, but I can't remember where or how I've "misrepresented the facts" in this discussion. I simply said - and I've yet to see this refuted - that, like Mr. Simpson et al, being found not guilty (or, in OY's case, having 'passed' a drugs test through the lack of a B sample confirmation) is not to be confused with the state of innocence.

Also, you might wish to be reminded of this: while you say that OY "hasn't attacked or abused anyone", she has threatened, on several occasions, to sue both Szabo and Radcliffe for suggesting that she's dirty. Now, given the current structure of libel laws here in the UK (the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, unlike in the US), why has she not pursued this threat? If she was as ?innocent? as you - and your alter ego - claim, it would seem to me that pursing Radcliffe and the bulk of the English speaking media in the UK courts would be a no-brainer - even if it meant an out-of-court settlement for a great deal of cash.

Ask yourself why she's not done this.

Martin

Drewp;

You can't have it both ways: you can't tell me that the criteria for guilty or not guilty doesn't apply, and then tell me that, because it doesn't, OY must be considered innocent.

To begin, as someone alluded to earlier, civil cases ( I doubt OY would be tried in a criminal court) in the US aren't based on the 'reasonable doubt' principle, or burden of proof. They are based on a standard called the 'preponderance of the evidence', or, the ability of the presenter of the case to prove that pieces of evidence are more likely to be true than not true. Under this standard, the factfinder (i.e. judge/jury) need only be 51% certain of the truth of the fact to find a defendant guilty.

To my way of thinking, that makes OY's A sample - an undisputed positive - a piece of evidence that carries enough weight for me to think that she's guilty.

The remaining aspects of the test - most importantly the LACK of a B sample positive - do not, in my mind, tilt my view of the weight of the first piece of evidence. The issues you raise are of protocol, circumstance and conjecture. What's undisputed is the fact that, of the tests concluded and completed, OY was found to have traces of EPO - to date still unexplained - in her urine.

Now, this might not make her guilty, but it certainly doesn?t make her innocent.

Martin

PS ? The French don?t use Francs any more, they use Euros.

Kind of like O.J's victim saying, "please don't hit me any more", or "please don't slit my throat, O.J."... right, Martin?

Why don't you ask her, Martin? But since you are asking me, if it was me I would keep focusing on my running and MY LIFE, which apparently is what she is doing with hers. Good for her.

I think she should sue PR in the Russian court system. Don't you?

Maybe she has better things to do. I would certainly not waste my time in a UK court system. It is quite silly of you to even suggest such a thing.

She is a runner, and has a LIFE, Martin.

Martin wrote:

To my way of thinking, that makes OY's A sample - an undisputed positive - a piece of evidence that carries enough weight for me to think that she's guilty.

But, Marin, you keep forgetting, that it doesn't matter what you think.

What's undisputed is the fact that, of the tests concluded and completed, OY was found to have traces of EPO - to date still unexplained - in her urine.

Now, this might not make her guilty, but it certainly doesn?t make her innocent.

It most certainly does make her innocent, Martin.

Because she is not guilty. Therefore, she is innocent.