Will we treat him like Lagat?
Will we treat him like Lagat?
A positive A with a negative B means the A sample test was an error. The authorities would have to wait until the next testing period to determine if they can get two positive results from a newer sample. This is the way it works.
I still feel he would be crucified like Salazar and this DQ debacle.
Hopefully, we treat him like Maggie Vessey.
Copw;l wrote:
Will we treat him like Lagat?
Damage control more already?
Fanboys have already accepted that the rumor is true, and are now trying to spin it?
Of Course Knot wrote:
A positive A with a negative B means the A sample test was an error. The authorities would have to wait until the next testing period to determine if they can get two positive results from a newer sample. This is the way it works.
For drug testing the samples are split into "A" and "B". The "A" sample is tested and if it shows a positive result, then the athlete is notified and offered the opportunity to have the "B" sample tested (I don't think it is automatic - it could happen that the athlete says ok, you got me). It isn't a newer sample, just part of the original sample, but not tested. The is to help reduce lab error.
not quite right wrote:
Of Course Knot wrote:A positive A with a negative B means the A sample test was an error. The authorities would have to wait until the next testing period to determine if they can get two positive results from a newer sample. This is the way it works.
For drug testing the samples are split into "A" and "B". The "A" sample is tested and if it shows a positive result, then the athlete is notified and offered the opportunity to have the "B" sample tested (I don't think it is automatic - it could happen that the athlete says ok, you got me). It isn't a newer sample, just part of the original sample, but not tested. The is to help reduce lab error.
Yes, also, the protocol of testing the "B" portion (while it's not the common parlance, I prefer the term "'B' portion" myself, because the testing, as you note, is done on the second half, as it were, of the same urine (or blood) sample) is meant to offer the athlete (and/or his legal advocate) the opportunity -- which, by definition, the athlete doesn't have with the "A" portion testing -- to observe the testing itself.
That is to say, the A/B testing protocol is meant to offer the athlete a measure of due process. Being able to witness, literally, the testing being done on the B portion affords the athlete a better opportunity to put forth a defense afterwards based on objections to how that testing was actually performed.
As you indicate, too, the athlete can "waive" testing of the "B" portion and simply say, "okay, you got me . . . ," although that rarely happens, of course. But what that does mean is that, contrary to what some believe, an "adverse analytical finding" -- i.e., a "positive" result -- can be made on the basis of the "A" portion alone.
Copw;l wrote:
Hopefully, we treat him like Maggie Vessey.
post pictures of him and talk about how we want to sleep with him?