Adam Nelson To Get Long Sought After Olympic Gold After all (and after retirement)? 2004 Shot Put Champ May Be DQd!!!

rojo wrote:

The re-testing of old samples is a key aspect of any credible anti-doping movement. It's a shame all of the old samples weren't re-tested.

I'm really disappointed that more of them weren't. There were many suspiscious athletes and performances during those games. Seeing how many of the 110 returned positive results should be even more of a reason to test a higher percentage.

Unfortunately, anti-doping efforts are going to have to do a lot of retroactive testing and punishment, as it seems like theyre always a few steps behind the cheaters. If these efforts are to be taken seriously they should be testing a much larger amount of past samples

retest El Guerrouj, Lagat, Bekele, Geb, Gatlin

2004 100m champ Justin Gatlin's samples for some unexplainable reason in my mind - were not re-tested.

Perhaps because they know that if that sample came back clean that his later positive would look even more suspicious.

How did Adam get under the radar though ?

Transparency ? NOT wrote:

Unless they adopt full transparency and publicize the test results, we won't know how many positives they Jewed down to negatives for publicity's sake. The same for the 2012 Olympics, 2011 Daegu WCs, Major League Baseball, Hantional Hockey League, NCAA D-I Football, etc.

If you believe they're manipulating the results, why would it matter to you if they released the numbers, you anti-semitic fool?

why is letsrun not leading the crusade to force IOC to retest samples? this is the kind of thing letsrun's journalists could be doing, then maybe they'd have tested more of the samples.

8 years is a long time. How good are we at storing samples?

The main thing I remember vividly from the 2004 Olympics was Adam Nelson's reaction to fouling his final throw, which if he had not stepped on the line, he would have secured his gold medal as he was in a tiebreaker situation.

I hope he does get this gold, even though it is not under the best of circumstances (aka via DQ, not by straight in-competition merit).

As for the re-testing, while I can understand how they only retested a few due to storing/shelf-life concerns in terms of the validity of the samples, why can't they continue to test more (at least all of the medalists) now that they know that it is possible to analyze them after 8 years. OR is there still some degree of doubt in the validity of the recent sample results?

C/M Runner wrote:

As for the re-testing, while I can understand how they only retested a few due to storing/shelf-life concerns in terms of the validity of the samples, why can't they continue to test more (at least all of the medalists) now that they know that it is possible to analyze them after 8 years. OR is there still some degree of doubt in the validity of the recent sample results?

Did you read this somewhere, or is this an assumption? I would be surprised if the samples were not stored consistently, but if they were from different events there could be differences in location and storage conditions.

They were likely stored at -80C, if the organizations are competent at all. The bulk of urine samples would likely make it impractical to store by the best method, liquid nitrogen. It's been awhile since I worked in the lab, so I don't remember what protein stability was like in -80C samples. -20C samples was 2 years, IIRC. So you might get 8 out of -80.

Where are the charts that show the distribution of lab test data between those that test positive, those that test negative, and the regular non-competing public ?

I doubt that the PGA, MLB, IOC, WWE, MMA, NCAA, etc. would want the public to see that ;-)

Congratulations to one of the best guys in the sport.

A true amateur receives the deepest joy.

The one thing they can't give him is standing on the podium with the gold medal and having the national anthem playing.

too bad.

I got the interpretation from the following quote from the Washington Post article. As the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if someone does question how valid the results are (particularly in the defense of the accused athletes):

"Ljungqvist defended the IOC’s procedures.

“It’s easier said than done,” he told the AP. “These were the first samples ever stored for eight years. We had to identify risk factors. There were issues with the quality and quantity of the samples and the chain of custody. It’s easy to criticize, but we were the first to retest and we have found some positive results.”"

Not so fast. I want to see the test results for Adam and the other competitors for 10 years before 2004 and compare that data. Just because the IOC labels one guy dirty doesn't mean the others weren't too. The IOC could be doing that just to give the impression that the rest of the competitors were clean and that may not be the case. The IOC must release all of the data to the public.

Is the IOC crafting this ? wrote:

The IOC could be doing that just to give the impression that the rest of the competitors were clean and that may not be the case.

You're giving them too much credit.

Maybe he wouldn't have had to wear that "Space for Rent" t-shirt to attract sponsors. Nice to see he may receive the medal, but you can't get back that lost income.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-miyDfQfH67Y/TqT_-DzlbNI/AAAAAAAAAxc/SmaF4dI9nKA/s640/a+nelson.jpg

Congrats Adam Nelson for being the best shot putter not to get caught.

stick with eharmony wrote:

The one thing they can't give him is standing on the podium with the gold medal and having the national anthem playing.

too bad.

If I was given an olympic/wc gold after the guy in front of me was disqualified, it would feel empty because of this reason. However, I'm not an elite athlete so what do I know.