17 POSITIVE TESTS FROM ENDURANCE ATHLETES!!.(not released by the IAAF yet) Make your bets here!

dont think its worth 50k a year to put an athlete in prison. don't think a runner is worth 500k in tax payer money, not even close.

Burrito wrote:

Lifetime bans.

10 years in prison for cheaters and their coaches.

Forfeit all assets.

History Lesson number one

Bernard Lagat Tests Positive for EPO

September 3, 2003

LetsRun.com

The Daily Nation newspaper in Kenyan reported late yesterday that Bernard Lagat, the #2 fastest ever at 1500m tested positive for the performance enhancing drug EPO prior to the World Championships. Lagat pulled out of the World Championships with an unknown stomach ailment that apparently was a charade adopted by the Kenyan Federation in order not to diminish the morale of the rest of the Kenyan team. In the middle of the world champs, Lagat was ordered out of the Kenyan camp for unspecified reasons at the time. To read the full report on the positive test by the Daily Nation click here.

FULL article below

http://www.letsrun.com/2003/lagatepo.php

Proofinthepudding wrote:

History Lesson number one

Bernard Lagat Tests Positive for EPO

September 3, 2003

FULL article below

http://www.letsrun.com/2003/lagatepo.php

Fake test result. Quoting letsrun.com trolls. You cannot possibly be that dumb.

It was a real test result where the sample was improperly handled and stored (left in a trunk or something at high temperatures as I recall).

The result was thrown out as invalid and useless. Could happen to anybody.

if you know you are innocent, why do you fake a stomach ailment?

Could you explain what biochemical processes could lead to a false positive EPO test result in a sample that was inproperly handled and stored? From what I have read about the EPO test I would have thought that improper handling and storage would more likely lead to a false negative rather than a false positive but I am not an expert in this area so I would be interested in your insights.

trollism wrote:

Haha, if you think Tirunesh is clean you're deluded.

She's on the list, she's currently banned, we're not going to hear about it.

Genius.

I always enjoy conspiracy theories that hinge on forged or destroyed evidence. Any other brilliant claims? Did you encounter extraterrestrials only to have "the government" confiscate or destroy the evidence?

coach d wrote:

It was a real test result where the sample was improperly handled and stored (left in a trunk or something at high temperatures as I recall).

The result was thrown out as invalid and useless. Could happen to anybody.

Only if you're a famous athlete. The whole 'improperly handled' thing was fabricated between the failed filthy A-sample and the exoneration of the equally filthy B-sample.

Jeff - I would say believing in these dirty cheats is more ridiculous than knowing that they're cheating. I know you find her attractive and all that, and she's definitely smiley smiley, but she's a dirty cheat and you know it deep down.

Amateur scientist wrote:

Could you explain what biochemical processes could lead to a false positive EPO test result in a sample that was inproperly handled and stored? From what I have read about the EPO test I would have thought that improper handling and storage would more likely lead to a false negative rather than a false positive but I am not an expert in this area so I would be interested in your insights.

From a biochemist: ^^^^This^^^^

The false positive rates on these tests are also notoriously low. This is a conscious decision established by the testing agencies so that an absolutely unequivocal level of synthetic EPO to Natural EPO ratio constitutes a positive test, as determined by MALDI-TOF. As a result, the amount of false negatives is around 80% according to Don Caitlin, and false positives are in the low single digits. To offset the low single digits (even 1% isn't an OK number of FPs) they have the B sample. The chances that two tests come back falsely positive is 0.01^2, or 0.0001 (one in ten thousand) which is an acceptable number. However, this means that even if you test positive on your A (only ~1% chance its a mistake) the chances your B is also positive is very low, given the agreed upon cutoff ratio for a positive test. This is what happened to Lagat.

Also, consider that the t(1/2) of EPO is like 1-3 days and the effects are 3-4 months. So you could take it a month before and have new RBCs all in your blood stream without even the slightest trace of EPO. Hence the ideas of blood passports.

same with the BP isn't it?

the safety margin is so wide

it allows microdosing

I've been asking my congregration to pray for Lagat to test positive. God willing he will.

smoke weed

And I'm an actual person with a brain.

Lagat's B sample didn't 'test positive' because the IAAF felt that by busting a Kenyan superstar they would open up a can of worms as most dimwitted followers of the sport refused to believe that East Africans were genetically capable of cheating.

This whole story is a fabrication. He took EPO, he got caught, he was let off with this cover story in order to protect the sport. Get over it.

26mi235 wrote:

thus you have absolutely nothing to offer of any content.

Of course, you could/probably are one of those idiotic LetsRun trolls that think way too highly of themselves. Especially because you are hiding behind a one-time posting name, which by itself indicates that your post has nothing of value. You want a reputation, go earn it.

Nice naughty boy lecture, pity you didn't know what you were talking about dumbo.

It was the "A" that was mishandled; the "B" was handled correctly. I am not sure that the old story on the "B" samples is relevant (and if it ever was). Since they just nabbed bunches from 2004 and 2005 with an 8-year interval, clearly a few months is going to do nothing. If you have information on the waiting on the "B", other than athletes believed it, I would be interested. As I mentioned, if you are interested in the details go on the web and look. If I recall correctly, there was a thread on Track and Field News and that will provide you the links. I saved the material but that hard disk crashed and getting it from backup would not be so easy. From all that I read, I think Lagat did not test positive and have cited this in several threads here over time, if good information develops to the contrary I am willing to both listen and change my opinion.

drug insider wrote:

While I have long been a defender of Lagat's "positive" and the explanation you just gave it is worth noting that with epo testing the key has always been to have the b sample tested as long as possible after the test as it will have essentially deteriorated as such and no longer provide a positive. Athletes delay the actual testing until their window reaches the deadline and then have it tested and voila they are exonerated.

Again not saying this was the case or not for Lagat but he did wait as long as possible to have the b sample tested. Testing has also supposedly become more advanced but it is true many believe this is what happened in several postive A's that produced negative B samples including Marion Jones.

Think about what a 1% false positive rate means. One out of every 100 tests of non-epo using people will come back positive. Since thousands of these tests are run, false positive tests are going to be common. The need for two samples is real. I would agree that having 1/2 positive tests raises my degree of suspicion, but those siting it as some sort of iron clad evidence clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

trollism wrote:

Jeff - I would say believing in these dirty cheats is more ridiculous than knowing that they're cheating.

So you have no evidence for your claims, is that right?

trollism wrote:

but she's a dirty cheat and you know it deep down.

How much you want to bet?

[quote]trollism wrote:

Lagat's B sample didn't 'test positive' because the IAAF felt that by busting a Kenyan superstar they would open up a can of worms as most dimwitted followers of the sport refused to believe that East Africans were genetically capable of cheating.

/quote]

Like when the shit hit the fan when Ngugi was sanctioned? What a can of worms that was. It garnered a footnote at the end of an unrelated article in the Times.

This insane thinking that the IAAF has an interest in propping up East African distance runners, all the while American and European stars go down (stars from countries that actually put money into the IAAF's coffers) is just that: completely bonkers. Why the hell with the Kenyan federation announce the initial positive result?

26mi235 wrote:

It was the "A" that was mishandled; the "B" was handled correctly. I am not sure that the old story on the "B" samples is relevant (and if it ever was).

There is no proof that the "A" sample was mishandled. Even if it was it would be irrelevant. The result of the "B" sample is the only one that matters because the "B" sample testing is the only one that permits the athlete or his/her representative to witness the test in person.

The "A" sample results are only to serve notice of an irregularity. Once an athlete's result is flagged, then it leads utlimately to the testing of the "B" sample.