Yep, Olga Yegorova was screwed

Kurdt/Martin/DougC/Wejo/Radcliffe -

You are a dope, therefore you make no sense. This proves/disproves everything.

Wrong again. I live in California, have never been to Russia, don't speak Russian, don't know anyone who is Russian, and don't intend to go there. I also don't intend to visit the UK. Sounds like no one can think for themselves over there.

You've just proved that I am sane and that OY is innocent. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Did you dig deep into your intellect for that one.

The reason I talk about OY being innocent is because she is. Anyone with reasonable intelligence and who takes the time to look at the facts can see this.

A good test of intelligence would be - do you understand that 8:33 to 8:23 in 2 years is 5 seconds a year... or do you still think it is 30 seconds a year. I suppose the admission it is 5 seconds a year would be like agreeing that OY is innocent.

There lies the whole cruz of the matter. If you can add 2 + 2, or in this case 5 + 5, she is innocent. If you can't, then you will/won't believe anything.

Both of which prove what I have been saying from the start. That Olga Yegorova is innocent.

hmmm ... if it walks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, let's make some gumbo.

from what i read in the article, this is what happened:

1) she failed a blood test;

2) she failed an "A" urine test;

3) the "B" urine test was untestable due to a problem (a Russian official was present);

4) without the Russian official present, her "B" sample was tested and failed, but couldn't be used since the official wasn't there.

to be DQ'd and banned, she has to fail both the blood and urine tests (both A & B).

that certainly doesn't make her INNOCENT. doesn't make her NOT GUILTY either. it makes her NOT CAUGHT.

earlier, someone posted her pr's from year to year. looked to me like there WAS a big jump, but it seemed to be in 2000, i think (went from 15:22 to 14:48) ... are you naive enough to think she's only used it ONE TIME ?? looks like she may have started over 2 years ago, and she's been smart/lucky enough to not get caught. looks like this time she was lucky again ...

This entire discussion of courts and the legal criterion for guilt or "non-guilt" is a red herring. The real issue is scientific certainty, whether the test provided adequate specificity and sensitivity to be considered reliable on its own. It did not. And everyone now knows that, or should.

I don't know how to put this more clearly than I already have, but I'm a soldier, so I'll try: The testing method was not valid. It had not been determined to be sufficiently reliable to stand on its own. Thus, the A sample result was meaningless. It was anything but an "undisputed positive."

See my comments above. Protocol and circumstance are important. If a test is not performed according to protocol, the results are unreliable. And that's what happened in OY's case. I'll say it again: OY's suspension was based on the results of single sample -- when two samples were required -- from a test that had not been determined to be reliable enough to stand on its own. And because the test was not by itself sufficiently reliable, a blood test also was to have been performed. It was not.

Since the test was absolutely unreliable, the question of her guilt or innocence should never even have arisen.

Poetic license.

Kurdt wrote:

u one crazy Russian bastard! GET HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I'm a crazy Japanese. Omae, nani kangaeteiru no!? Yappari, Amerika-jin tte bakka-na yatsu ga oi, ne.

Seriously, though, the main reason I persist in this is that ignorance scares me, and wilful ignorance terrifies me. Maybe the same goes for Dunes Runner.

So you're saying OY is a duck, and the french made gumbo with her test?

I don't know what article you are talking about [but anyone can write an article and an article is not a test] but OY did not fail a blood test. The french did not even give her a blood test. Amazing she should fail one when she didn't even have one... hmmm... the intrigue expands. Who made this gumbo anyway?

Wrong again. She did not fail the A test. The results were within the range for normal, and needed an additional test to see if the values were in the range for positive. That additional test was never completed. So the only thing that was "proven" is that the A test was within the range for normal

The B sample was tested twice. When he was "and" when he wasn't present. The official was just an observer and had nothing to do with the testing or results. And as you said there were problems with both tests.

WRONG AGAIN. Are you just making these things up? The "results" of the B sample were the same regardless.

She, or anyone, only needed to "fail" one of them. However, she didn't fail either of them.

No, it makes her innocent.

She went from 14:42 (and a few other times close to that) to 14:29.

What I think is that there are a lot of people out there who are not capable of doing their own independent thinking.

drewp wrote:

Actually, I'm a crazy Japanese. Omae, nani kangaeteiru no!? Yappari, Amerika-jin tte bakka-na yatsu ga oi, ne.

hmmmm....... ? ..... : )

Seriously, though, the main reason I persist in this is that ignorance scares me, and wilful ignorance terrifies me. Maybe the same goes for Dunes Runner.

Yes that is the reason. And because I feel it is important to stand up for people.

Drewp:

You're still trying to frame the debate in the manner which you see fit. It was you who introduced the concept of guilt or innocence as it related to the court system.

"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." " Drewp - 10/9/2002

You can't introduce a form of argument and then tell me it's a red herring ? at least not if you want to be taken seriously.

I'm not going to get into a "he said, she said" discussion about the specifics of the testing procedure. The reason I won't is that your sources - as yet unidentified apart from a single RW piece - are no more reliable than those I would produce to refute them (L'Equipe, which broke the story, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph and virtually every other reputable media outlet in the world). You can sound as officiously scientific as you like, but that doesn?t make what you say fact.

The only facts we have are this: an A sample positive, and a B sample which was never tested to its conclusion.

Again, I'll restate what I've been saying from the outset: OY might not be guilty, but that doesn't make her innocent.

Martin

Martin wrote:

Again, I'll restate what I've been saying from the outset: OY might not be guilty, but that doesn't make her innocent.

Martin

I seriously can't believe why dunes runner can't admit that simple fact. How do you know that she is innocent? You are not her. Ask yourself this question: is it possible that OY has been using EPO and has not been caught? Yes, so you cannot state with 100% certainty that she is innocent.

Coming here for Chicago marathon and I found Yego topic and her boyfriend defending eagerly Yegorova.no new information at all just well well known since last year,and yet this topic is hot.And contents? almost same as one I saw a year ago(you can get your all your information in Runners's world a year ago).haha...Sorry I don't have much time now and will to discuss this lame subject or explain simple facts again and again for a long long time.I just said really all the things I wanted to say about this in previous thread,

I just have to wonder that what some people who are talking about her 2001 were doing then.To me some of their comments seem written by some one who ddid not exist in 2001 in this world.or of course ones who tell well known information for a year as if they won novel prize yesterday.

one advice for ones who battle with her boyfriend.

1,do not believe whatever he says,he says every false information to defend Yego and accuse one who he dislikes.if he says something you don't know ,please ascertain it by yourself.if you cannot ,don't believe that.I can count at least 10 his lies,maybe more than 20 if I count carefully.

2,he's not consistent and change again and again if you say something.So never expect him to be logical or to be someone who can discuss something with you.

3, never expect him to change his mind.he is the one who can change the his world for what he believes.if he says 1+1=3,it's three.even if you show all the things indicating otherwise,it's actually 3 in his mind.

Martin wrote:

your sources ... are no more reliable than those I would produce to refute them (L'Equipe, which broke the story, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph

Martin's plethora of reliable scientic journals.

The only facts we have are this: an A sample positive, and a B sample which was never tested to its conclusion.

The A sample was not positive. It was within the range for normal.

Again, I'll restate what I've been saying from the outset: OY might not be guilty, but that doesn't make her innocent.

Since OY was not guilty, she is innocent.

Agreed wrote:

I seriously can't believe why dunes runner can't admit that simple fact. How do you know that she is innocent? You are not her. Ask yourself this question: is it possible that OY has been using EPO and has not been caught? Yes, so you cannot state with 100% certainty that she is innocent.

It is more likely that all of you are using EPO and haven't been caught.

Since OY has been tested MANY times and every time found to be within the range for normal, this means that yes she is innocent.

But she is not only innocent, it has been proven many times that she is innocent.

I tried to warn you. You are arguing with a child. Save yourself the aggravation. Smile, pat him on the head, and move on.

Why don't we all agree that Yegorova was screwed and then this idiot will move on to something more important like why Borzo has wasted so much time focusing on the 400m.

Chaps

I think you might be right -- I've been all upside down on this OY thing. Dunes and his alter ego are correct: OY was framed, and is in fact more innocent than that Pope who got poisoned.

It was their superior intellect and elegant prose that finally broke my will.

I admit defeat ...

Martin

The real question is -

what if Boulami's B sample came up negative, how many here would believe him and how many would still call him a cheater.

1 in 89 chance of getting a false positive for urine test. Which means that among 7 "innocent" people each tested 12 times during the season at least one is bound to test positive once.

Which is why we need B sample to confirm the finding of A sample. The probability of both samples getting false positive is 1 in 89 squared or roughly 1 in 8000. If A and B disagree, then the test itself is at fault. For a test to be called reliable you have to be sure that if you do the same test on the same sample 100 times, you get the same result at least 99 times. If you do a test 3 times and you come up with "positive, negative, negative" what good is it?

Martin, old boy, I do believe your memory is failing you. I strayed from the point when I responded to the following gem from you:

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

Anyway, arguing about the rules of the debate is just a waste of time. It won't help you find the truth. The truth hinges on the facts. And the central fact in this case is that the test that was used to condemn OY was invalid. That's why she was reinstated, and that's why the head of the IOC said that she did NOT fail the test the other day. If anything I have said is untrue, tell me what and why. But, please, spare me the extraneous whining over who's "framing the debate."

Yes, yes, and these are the same journalists who insist -- to this day -- on writing that OY was reinstated due to a "technicality," implying that she somehow wriggled through a loophole in the testing, somehow worked the system to evade justice. Rubbish. THE TEST WAS INVALID. That is not a mere technicality. The vast majority of journalists simply don't have the interest or technical background to approach such matters with an appropriate level of informed skepticism. If you are really interested in learning more about the technical aspects of this issue from a truly reliable source, have a look at the link below.

Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black, wasn't it you who denounced the childish name-calling that many can't seem to resist when discussing this topic? Assuming you were sincere, "officiously scientific" would seem beneath you, Martin. True, I worked in clinical research for 10 years. Maybe that's why I'm not as ready as some to place complete faith in unvalidated tests.

What a ripoff, I thought this was a movie review.