14 positive cases for Russia in 2008 re-tests

Can someone explain to me the difference between an 'A' sample and a 'B' sample?

Are they taken at different times?

If not, then why would the same samples give different results?

The 1% estimate is, of course, your made up number -- do you expect me to google research the evidence to back up your imagination?The Newsweek link talks about false positives for the ABP. This hardly applies here to a targeted 2008 sample retesting, likely looking for direct evidence of doping, rather than the indirect measures used by the ABP.Catlin's interview is very informative, but hardly helps either in determining a reasonable estimate. It's hard for me to quantify "highly highly unlikely". Though I find this qualifier topically relevant: "if proper procedures are carried out". As we learned after that interview, Lagat's samples were cooked for 40 hours in the summer in a car -- hardly part of any proper transportation procedure. Similarly, the IAAF's definition of "proper procedures" concerning collection, transportation, storage and analysis, evolved between 2001-2009, based on many studies and field errors, in order to achieve "highly highly unlikely" false positive rates -- something you and rjm33 and others seem to want to downplay as inapplicable. Before 2009, Catlin might have chosen to describe the ABP false positive rate as "probably unlikely".I haven't changed a bit, because I think it is just as important now, as I did in 2011, and probably as far back as 1981, to support claims with substance. In 2011, as today, a popular myth is that EPO or blood transfusions can be a likely explanation for East African dominance for decades, over the rest of the world. Nothing has changed in the last 5 years to bring this myth closer to reality. And books like "The Sports Gene" argue, with evidence, for non-doping factors that determine specialists in their events.How does today's IAAF/Russian corruption change anything compared to 2011?First, I have no shame changing my opinions in light of new evidence. In fact, this is basically the only thing I ever ask, for new evidence. (Contrast that to your generous offer that I Google find the evidence myself for your imaginary estimates).Second, was everything "much worse than alleged"? If I recall the ARD documentaries, and the Sunday Times articles, most of what they alleged did not hold up to scrutiny. It was confirmed that the anti-doping part of the IAAF, everyone under Dolle, the researchers, scientists, lab technicians, etc., was in fact everything that the IAAF and Coe said they were, the day after the ARD documentary was shown. The delays in sanctions were not "worse than alleged". It was alleged that 800 athletes doped over the decade and got away with it because of complacency on the part of the IAAF. But the delays in sanctions were found to be limited to the case of the Russians, and a couple of Turkish athletes, not because of complacency of the IAAF anti-doping department, who did their job, but because of the decisions of a small number of individuals at the top, outside of the formal IAAF structure.And finally, nothing about the IAAF/Russian corruption has shed any light on the effectiveness of EPO in distance running, a topic of long term interest for me. If anything, the breakdown of data per event published by the Sunday Times clearly shows a diminishing effectiveness (or a diminishing faith on the part of the participants/coaches), as the running distance gets longer, with 54% of medalists in the 1500 being "suspect", while only 11% of medalists in the marathon were "suspect" (keeping in mind that altitude training alone could make you "suspect"). This looks to be expected, as a drug purported to increase oxygen delivery should impact events running at speeds limited by oxygen delivery. Note, race-walking (20K and 50K) is in its own category, because the physiology of walking and running are not comparable.If you want to come back in 5-10 years and show me I'm wrong now, you are playing the wrong game. I make my opinions based on the knowledge I have now, not on some faith based projected notion of knowledge we might have in 5-10 years. The reason I ask for evidence is to increase my knowledge. When you can't provide it, it makes it easy for me to dismiss you. There is no shortage of opinions from non-experts ranging from anonymous forum contributors, to pseudo-investigative tabloid journalists. This gossip fodder doesn't interest me.But go ahead if you feel you must. Go away and give it some real thought and research, and come back to me in 5-10 years with an answer to the question -- who does anti-doping better than the IAAF? Or come back with a real example of corruption actually committed by Coe or Saugy -- preferably an act that was committed before today, to be fair.

Have you ever seen identical twins? They were the same once.The A and B samples are taken at the same time, and stored in separate containers. The differences can be what happens after:- contamination in one container- differences in how they are handled, transported, stored, analysed- contamination or error during testing- calibration errors of equipment- malicious swapping of samplesThere can be 100 reasons, since the real world is not perfect. Every phase that involves a human, can involve human error.

cleans wrote:

Can someone explain to me the difference between an 'A' sample and a 'B' sample?

Are they taken at different times?

If not, then why would the same samples give different results?

Lol, no, I didn't expect you to look for information - I am not new here. I fully expected you to argue against all information, spend weeks to months calling everything irrelevant, blaming a typo, extreme heat, extreme plasma shift, extreme response to altitude, or a misunderstanding between WADA and WADA IC, or between Nike and the journalist, or a statistical outlier etc. Then in the end you'll claim that you see "only gossip" or "a lot of nothing", and that "all suspicion has been eliminated".

You don't ask for evidence; you pretend that the abundant circumstantial ("corroborative") evidence does not exist. And if people show you more circumstantial evidence, you call that coincidental. You have been doing that for years, literally, for example in 2011. Thankfully it was proven last year that the "IAAF corruption was 'embedded in the organisation' ".

Last year then you even pretended that pre-2009 ABP violations can't be used as evidence, for weeks in the Paula thread, although we kept showing you that even the IAAF disagreed with you there. Similar with the ludicrous 30 C excuse.

Who ever said that any organization is better in anti-doping than the IAAF? Maybe WADA is, but I doubt it. That's the point here: these organizations, e.g. IAAF, FIFA, UCI etc., are interested in their power/influence/money. The corruption examples in these organizations are also abundant of course. As long as an impressive sport is more advantageous for them as a clean sport, they will continue to sabotage real anti-doping efforts.

And the NADAs will continue to aid their own athletes for the better of the nation. Here also I have listed several examples, but naturally from the past not the future.

History has shown that my skepticism is justified. It is you who naively pretends that those things will change now. How? Well, just promote the old VP to the new P, voila, fresh faces. That will bring a lot of changes. Let him put his selected British buddies into various Chair positions, and more change will come. Ha ha.

"a real example of corruption"? Moving goalposts much? How about their repeated lies? Helping Armstrong? Aiding the Russians? Downplaying of the facts? The "war" comment? The declaration of Paula's innocence before the beginning of the investigation? Oh right, you called them irrelevant/misunderstandings.

P.S. Oh, and from the context you could have deduced that my "much worse than alleged" was meant as "much worse than alleged in 2011", not "much worse than alleged by Seppelt", but I am tired now.

When I offer these arguments there are often papers, or expert opinions, or detailed investigation results behind them.If not, you are welcome to dismiss my unsupported baseless opinions -- I often try to highlight these with phrases like "for me", or "in my opinion".I never needed extreme effects to help explain marginal scores.I not only ask for concrete evidence, I usually insist on it. Curiously, this is viewed by those who don't have it as naive, and not being naive means combining science with faith, or worse, going on faith alone.Of course, your circumstantial evidence exists in abundance -- it is just often ambiguous and insubstantial.By definition, circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence inherently requiring a step of inference. At least one piece of evidence should be direct, to close the gap and make the link.Circumstantial evidence cannot be corroborative unless some initial evidence exists.The WADA IC found that a "lack of governance checks" was embedded in the organization, not the corruption. From their report, the WADA IC found that "President LD ... created a close inner circle, ... ultimately functioning as an informal illegitimate governance structure outside the formal IAAF governance structure." (See how providing evidence should work?) That circle is gone now, and the challenge for Coe is to make structural changes to prevent this kind of unchecked creation of an illegitimate inner circle from repeating.I don't see how "even the IAAF disagreed with" me, as I mostly echoed their arguments in their detalied response, supported with the papers behind. Largely because it is scientifically sound, while your rebuttals are not. I'm not sure what you understood here. The IAAF used the pre-2009 samples as evidence in a proper way, drawing collective conclusions, where individual errors can cancel or average out, in a 2011 prevalence study, rather than drawing individual conclusions from data which can be influenced by many well known sources of error, and not relying on them as primary evidence of doping, but using them to extend a sanction that otherwise can stand on its own. You didn't show me this, but I read it for myself in the detailed IAAF responses.The papers also say 23 C and just 6 minutes of 90% VO2max intensity is enough to trigger an 11% plasma shift, supporting the IAAF hemoconcentration argument. The papers don't say that 90 minutes is long enough to dismiss them, even partially. And it's not just about dehydration.Things in the IAAF have already changed. All of the corrupt players were gone before the investigation finished, and structural changes are proposed to prevent this kind of corruption again. Of course, everyone is human, and this can succeed, or it can fail. But it's hard to imagine failure in the short term, given the close public scrutiny.Even in 2011, Ashenden alleged the same things in response to the 2011 IAAF prevelance -- that the IAAF knew about a decade of athletes doping, and did nothing. I don't see how Ashenden can know so much about the IAAF anti-doping efforts, yet know so little.

My god. Anyone who doesn't see massive corruption all the way up the chain by now has to be complicit.

Thank you, but I don't agree with "it is just often ambiguous and insubstantial". However, that one could discuss (for example yesterday, you discredited the eyewitness in Saugy's case as evidence), but when you call this abundance "no evidence" or "a lot of nothing", I see that as trolling.

You know very well that the "corroborative evidence" is IAAF's wording, and refers to the pre-2009 ABP anomalies - I've linked to that very sentence often enough. And yes, Paula's 2012 ABP violation would then be the "initial evidence" (but yeah I know, hung jury (Saugy I bet), which by IAAF's design leads to a dismissed case, while even Supreme Court decisions are valid with a slim 5 : 4 majority).

Seriously, do you really think you just demonstrated how providing evidence should work? What evidence? I only see an alleged statement from WADA's handpicked committee led by WADA's former president, no evidence that that committee made that statement, and no evidence that that statement, if made, was correct. And I see no evidence that the WADA committee found that the corruption was not embedded in the IAAF (although they might have said that, but you didn't prove it). See how you don't follow your own rules?

As a matter of fact, such a large scale of corruption and cover up over years appears to be impossible to maintain without several higher-ups in the know.

It's not just the Telegraph, which you don't seem to appreciate for whatever reason...

How did the Guardian phrase WADA's findings (live)?

"IAAF council 'could not have been unaware' of doping in athletics – as it happened"

Or the Mirror?

"WADA report finds IAAF council 'cannot have been unaware of the extent of doping' - but chief backs Lord Coe

Coe was in attendance in Munich as the second report into corruption in athletics was released revealing damning findings for Coe and the IAAF"

Coincidences? Verbatim?

Or the Daily Mail?

"Dick Pound claims IAAF corruption was 'embedded in the organisation' in second report as Lord Coe suffers another blow

Dick Pound has released his second report into corruption and doping

Pound questioned how members of the IAAF did not know of the doping

That includes the governing body's new president Seb Coe

New report claims IAAF problems are not down to 'the odd renegade'

Pound says the IAAF needs to be restructured to eliminate corruption"

Who belonged to that circle? There is no evidence that Coe didn't belong to it, but several reports pointed out how close Coe and Diack were. As a matter of fact, the often cited "corruption was embedded" phrase-article also includes: " New report claims IAAF problems are not down to 'the odd renegade'" (see above for source and context).

You just said you like to ask for evidence. How come you didn't ask for evidence for the claim that said circle, the old renegade, is gone? See how you don't follow your own rules? Imho because you act here as Coe's lawyer or agent or fan, not as someone who is looking for the truth.

For the last time, the IAAF - see also Ashenden's response to IAAF's response - used the pre-2009 ABP "violations" to extend bans, while you kept arguing that those data were useless, and couldn't even be used to cast suspicion on an athlete because of the large errors associated with them.

I linked that several times. And I pointed out the above ("colloborative evidence") several times too.

And again, you are making a bold statement without any evidence whatsoever. See how you don't follow your own rules? Tsk tsk.

webby wrote:

My god. Anyone who doesn't see massive corruption all the way up the chain by now has to be complicit.

Sometimes I like how rekrunner wants to see reminders of all of that. Keeps the memory fresh, and, should letsrun matter a bit, the pressure on Lord Coe to not go too far too soon again.

rekrunner wrote:

Have you ever seen identical twins? They were the same once.

The A and B samples are taken at the same time, and stored in separate containers. The differences can be what happens after:

- contamination in one container

- differences in how they are handled, transported, stored, analysed

- contamination or error during testing

- calibration errors of equipment

- malicious swapping of samples

There can be 100 reasons, since the real world is not perfect. Every phase that involves a human, can involve human error.

Interesting.

Some thoughts - not particularly well thought through:

1) How many 'a' samples have tested negative, but the 'b' sample would have tested positive if tested (obviously we will never know the answer)

2) if one container can get contaminated, couldn't two? Leading to a false positive for the poor athlete concerned

3) ditto for contamination or error during testing

4) ditto for calibration errors of equipment - though admittedly pretty unlikely (surely?) for both equipments to be faulty

Not sure what conclusion the above would lead to, but numbers 2) or 3) are darn worrying.

I wonder how many athletes have been wrongly banned due to 2)?

Not wishing to pick on Rekrunner - enough people do - but it's an interesting world where people don't really suspect anyone of cheating, although there are clearly cheats out there who haven't been caught yet.

Take the case of Nesta Carter.

Who is shocked that a Jamaican sprinter tested positive?

If a person is not shocked, it means than an element of suspicion previously hung over the athlete, either by their behaviour or by association.

Again, not wanting to put Rekrunner on the spot, but I find it hard to believe that he was shocked at Nesta Carter testing positive. If there is no shock there, then it means that there is some level of suspicion.

By way of comparison, I think if Greg Rutherford or Jo Pavey tested positive, many of us would be shocked.

The last time I heard of an A sample testing positive and a B sample testing negative was Marion Jones's failed test for EPO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7184067.stm

There is some skullduggery going on here. Is Martial Saugy involved with the restesting of samples? The answer is YES!

"The anti-doping laboratory in Lausanne holds the stored urine and blood samples from the 2008 and 2012 Olympics... the lab director is Martial Saugy, a Swiss scientist with long hair and a soul patch above his chin that gives him the look of a jazz musician. "

"Links between Russia and the Lausanne lab were questioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency inquiry team that detailed state-sponsored cheating in a report last November. Panel chairman Dick Pound said the lab did not have a convincing explanation for destroying 67 samples that were sent from Moscow in 2013."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c228c6350ef34951a660770500ba2ff2/how-it-works-look-retests-olympic-drug-samples

"Marion Jones' latest comeback came in a laboratory, where her backup sample turned up clean -- a stunning twist that clears her to compete and could validate a long list of triumphs sullied by years of doping allegations."

"Marion Jones tested positive for the banned endurance enhancer EPO on June 23. The backup test, conducted at the same UCLA lab using the same sample, came back negative, however, meaning the sprinter has been cleared of any wrongdoing."

"Dr. Gary Wadler, a consultant to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), told ESPN.com's John Helyar "it's pretty rare" for "A" and "B" samples to produce conflicting results"

http://espn.go.com/olympics/trackandfield/news/story?id=2576909

The Marion Jones case was a fu@k up in Don Catlin's UCLA lab.

The two Russian cases is corruption at Martial Saugy's Lausanne lab, or the biggest fu@k up in a lab ever.

jkgkgfchkgkch45 wrote:

The last time I heard of an A sample testing positive and a B sample testing negative was Marion Jones's failed test for EPO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7184067.stm

Thanks for the reminder of another case demonstrating how our system "works". Even in 2006, a US lab got only "inconsistent" test results on our national heroine, what a surprise.

The linked article is great, looking back to "an abundance of circumstantial evidence/a lot of nothing" for 15 years (in addition to a suspicious vitae), until finally she was convicted by... exactly, not USADA/IAAF/WADA but in 2007:

"an emotional Jones pleaded guilty to lying about her steroid use to US investigators, admitting that she had taken steroids ahead of the Sydney Games."

This is exactly why I commend the governments that make doping a criminal offense. The more dopers commit (later proven) perjury, the better. Drug cheats out! Go to jail!

Why?

"Overnight she became athletics's golden girl, appearing on the cover of Vogue and piling up the cash to become one of the sport's first female millionaires."

Getting there via doping/cheating should be a criminal offense, but unfortunately it is not in the US (yet?).

Too bad Jones only spent 6 months in jail, and even got to keep her world championship medals from the late 90s. Sick.

Also fun to remember:

"Even back at her California high school in 1992, the 16-year-old Jones missed an out-of-competition drugs test but escaped punishment at a hearing.

Her mother had seen to that by hiring Johnnie Cochrane, who successfully defended OJ Simpson on a murder charge."

Nothing to see here!

Then Graham around 1997, then Conte around 2001, then Francis in 2004, then a positive A but negative B sample in 2006 for the US star from an US lab, and she kept pretending to be innocent. With some letsrun trolls still standing behind her. History keeps repeating itself.

On top of that, another parallel with certain others: suing for defamation, and winning! (Ok, so far P.R. only threatened to do so...)

"Bolt set to lose relay gold medal at Beijing 2008 after Carter's B-sample reportedly tests positive"

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1038273/bolt-set-to-lose-relay-gold-medal-at-beijing-2008-after-carters-b-sample-reportedly-tests-positive

"Russian sports minister Vitaly Mutko demands end to 'flawed' Olympic doping retests"

"All the samples that laboratory tested must be declared invalid,'' Mutko told Russia's Tass news agency.

"A laboratory which falsely declared a positive test result must be stripped of its accreditation."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/36488233

I'm serious -- are you? You said that it was "proven" that the IAAF corruption was embedded in the organisation. I'm not trying to prove anything, but showing that you are incorrectly stating what was proved. By providing a quote from the source, I give you the opportunity to see that the contradiction isn't coming from my own distorted interpretation, but from the WADA-IC. Unless someone else proved it (that's your burden), the WADA-IC (in the report you can find for yourself on the WADA website) only found corruption outside the official IAAF organisation.I consider the findings from a lengthy detailed investigation, with annotated sources, to carry more weight as evidence, than potentially biased indirect interpretations of reporters. Two detailed sources of findings after many months of detailed investigations are the WADA reports (split into two), and the IAAF Ethics Commission report. I don't ask for evidence if they have already provided it and made it public.Whether you agree or not, the accumulated sum of all your evidence is far from conclusive. Because the evidence is so weak, we can inject any finding we want by subjective interpretations, and adding new allegations. At best, they could be starting points for investigations that have not yet occurred.Did I discredit an eye-witness? I'm not sure that "eye-witness" is the right term for a committee making findings two years after the fact. The WADA-IC expressed their "disbelief", and I'm wondering why, as they offered no details. You see? Here I'm asking the WADA-IC for evidence of their finding, because this evidence is not in the report. I note again, that they were quick to say that their is no evidence that the lab did anything else culpable. It would be a mistake to read more into this without more evidence -- and the WADA IC is admitting they have no more evidence. They don't suspect Saugy or the lab of anything else.What about the "inner circle"? This term comes from the WADA-IC in their report. You can read for yourself the names of members in the WADA-IC report. The WADA-IC did not name Coe as one of the inner circle members. You can easily disprove this by providing the name of someone named under suspicion by the WADA IC or by the IAAF Ethics Commission, that still has a role of influence in the IAAF. Suspicion by a UK reporter or anonymous forum member doesn't count.The Telegraph, the Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Sunday Times all suffer from the same flaws. They are not direct sources of information. They select which information to show, and how to present it, giving the opportunity to distort, bias, or inflate the reality. I suspect their reports are biased to inflate the controversy, in order to increase the number of readers.What about this quote from the WADA-IC, that the "IAAF council could not have been unaware...", which can be found in their report. I don't doubt the quote, but your interpretation. If there was a concrete finding here, I think the WADA-IC, lawyers skilled at crafting words, would have chosen a stronger way to express it than using a double-negative that doesn't name names. They are basically expressing, that someone on the council must have known something wasn't right, yet they still did not act. This is a statement that someone, but they don't know who, could be found negligent. It's possible that council members like Coe were actually aware of Russian doping, aware of several delays, and yet thought the problem was being managed by a competent IAAF anti-doping department by putting pressure on the Russian ARAF charged with implementing the sanctions. If they had brought it up with Diack, they would have been reassured that the sanctions were coming soon, buying some more delay. Indeed this is what happened when IAAF members did discuss it with Diack.You suggest that WADA and Dick Pound could also be corrupt or not independent enough from the IAAF. It's an interesting allegation, also lacking any basis. If I had to guess about any WADA or Dick Pound bias, it would be to favor increasing WADA's funding and authority. It's hard to see how participating in doping cover-ups, or protecting certain council members of the IAAF would play into that.Regarding corruption, I would go further -- such a large scale of corruption and cover up over years appears to be impossible to maintain EVEN WITH several higher-ups in the know. The corruption was already unfolding BEFORE the ARD documentary was released, because of pressure coming within, from the IAAF's "legitimate" organisation.Regarding your corroborating evidence, I said your "initial evidence" doesn't exist. You seem to agree, since your best example, "a 2012 ABP violation" doesn't exist. You suggest again that maybe Saugy was hired to "make this go away". I'm not sure why you insist that 23 days at 2400m, significantly higher than Fort Romeau, doesn't qualify as altitude. We saw public information that this could increase the off-score by 8-14 points.Then for the last time, it IS valid to use pre-2009 blood values to make general conclusions, like the 2011 IAAF prevalence study, and to increase a post-2009 sanction able to stand on its own, as the IAAF succeeded in doing. It IS NOT VALID to perform an ABP ANALYSIS on any INDIVIDUAL, using the pre-2009 points. Ashenden/Parisotto understood they were doing something of a group nature, and not any individual analysis. Indeed, this was a negotiated condition of their analysis -- under no circumstance were the newspapers allowed to express any of Ashenden's or Parisotto's opinion of any individual athlete.Regarding what you pointed out, my point was that I already knew these things, and not from you. And I'm sure I responded to you at the time.