VCB: B-sample is Positive!!!

Of course it is. It's from the same sample as the a-sample.

The only time it's not is when the authorities have a vested interest in making sure that particular athlete isn't sanctioned.

The only time it's not is when the authorities have a vested interest in making sure that particular athlete isn't sanctioned.

ok.............like

we all heard the bernie lagat story by now

Dr. Know wrote:

VCB: B-sample is Positive!!!

Thanks, Dr. Know! I also heard that Michael Jackson died. I'm devastated!

just sayin wrote:

The only time it's not is when the authorities have a vested interest in making sure that particular athlete isn't sanctioned.

ok.............like

we all heard the bernie lagat story by now

My point is that people seem to hold out hope that the B-sample might come back negative and save the day.

That's not what the B-sample is for. It's a formality they use so that the athlete has the option of seeing the process for themselves and closing a few legal loopholes that the testing process could bring about.

Or, it's a way for the IAAF to pick and choose which athletes get busted and which smiley happy ones don't.

this sounds like a conspiracy.

[quote]trollism wrote:

My point is that people seem to hold out hope that the B-sample might come back negative and save the day.

That's not what the B-sample is for. It's a formality they use so that the athlete has the option of seeing the process for themselves and closing a few legal loopholes that the testing process could bring about.

[/quote

No, it's because no test is infallible. False positive rate is low but non-zero.

trollism wrote:

Of course it is. It's from the same sample as the a-sample.

The only time it's not is when the authorities have a vested interest in making sure that particular athlete isn't sanctioned.

You mean like the Lagat/Nike connection?

Nutella1 wrote:

trollism wrote:

Of course it is. It's from the same sample as the a-sample.

The only time it's not is when the authorities have a vested interest in making sure that particular athlete isn't sanctioned.

You mean like the Lagat/Nike connection?

But not the Gatlin/Nike connection.

Ho Hum wrote:

No, it's because no test is infallible. False positive rate is low but non-zero.

I would imagine they could just test the a-sample again.

'False positive' generally means 'we don't want this person to be positive'.

No. Athlete/representatives need to be there to see an un-adulterated sample go through testing. If the sample's already been opened then athletes could argue it might've been tampered with.

You say "generally" like you have some actual knowledge beyond cynicism. What are some real examples of this not named Bernard Lagat?

Lots of top athletes on twitter seem to be shocked by this news.. Really? Not surprising at all.

Also the test is from the same meet that Bolt pulled out of with a conveniently frivolous hamstring injury.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/04/30/usain-bolt-injury-withdraws-jamaican-meet/2123961/

Ho Hum wrote:

No. Athlete/representatives need to be there to see an un-adulterated sample go through testing. If the sample's already been opened then athletes could argue it might've been tampered with.

You say "generally" like you have some actual knowledge beyond cynicism. What are some real examples of this not named Bernard Lagat?

Missed my point. Your first paragraph agrees with what I was saying 100%.

My comment about testing the A-sample again was in reply to someone suggesting that an error might cause an adverse finding. They would always make sure they were 100% that the a-sample was positive before declaring a positive test. It doesn't just mean that they do one quick test and then it's all down to the b-sample.

As you said, and as I said earlier (if scrolling up a few posts isn't too taxing) the b-sample is merely a legal formality so the athlete can see the process and not be able to claim tampering or mismanagement. It's not just in case of mistake with the a-sample.

B sample testing gives an advantage to the runner because they can stall the process as long as possible and let the designer drug do what it was intended to do - eliminate any trace of the drug as soon as the half-life is surpassed.

Burkett wrote:

B sample testing gives an advantage to the runner because they can stall the process as long as possible and let the designer drug do what it was intended to do - eliminate any trace of the drug as soon as the half-life is surpassed.

Sucks for VCB as she decided to use an easily detectable diuretic to flush herself out.

Lasix is allowed in US Horse Racing though isn't it?

Maybe that's an avenue for her and her fraudulently enhanced muscles.

Burkett wrote:

B sample testing gives an advantage to the runner because they can stall the process as long as possible and let the designer drug do what it was intended to do - eliminate any trace of the drug as soon as the half-life is surpassed.

Your assumption is that the A sample is absolutely pure. And, a test lab couldn't possible "accidentally" contaminate the sample.

No, it doesn't work that way. Labs are not immune to making errors. That is why there is a B sample. To give a second opinion.

Can someone with a science background give me a 5 sentence overview of how diuretics work?

And is this a 2 year ban drug or 6 months?

This is likely a short ban, but it really depends on the substance and subsequent usage. Could be longer, but at this point in the season her season is over. Even a full year ban will still give her almost all of next year like it never even happened.

Steve Mullings got a life ban for a weaker diuretic (his second offense). Anything less than 2 years is criminal.

It is used to cover up PED use.

Diuretics create more urine, which leads to faster removal of water and other substances from the body. People take them for several reasons. The main one is that self-conscious individuals want to lose weight and take these to reduce water weight to look and feel less bloated or fat. In athletics, taking them can help other banned substances to pass the body more quickly. Certain types of diuretics can increase or decrease the amount of a certain substance in the urine, so it is possible to relatively selectively pinpoint a certain type of substance for removal from the body in a quicker manner.

wejo wrote:

Can someone with a science background give me a 5 sentence overview of how diuretics work?

And is this a 2 year ban drug or 6 months?