Wondering in the West wrote:
Thank you. Worst term ever, "throwing shade" -- another reach to try a new term and it didn't work out.
Is Acosta even relevant anymore? UO athletes claiming cheating ... interesting since they have about 40 athletes on full rides there.
This term had been around for a long time grandpa.
BasicLogic wrote:
Real Logic wrote:[quote]BasicLogic wrote:
Then there should 100s of other positive samples. But there are none. The real answer is that sample was contaminated, most likely intentionally by someone much like yourself.
That makes no sense whatever.
Yes, I knew how ignorant you were before you provided more proof.
Still waiting, for all the other positive A with matching B tests to be discovered. It seems to be taking you a long time to create them using Photoshop. Speed it up, please.
Certainly Not Skuj wrote:
The "results" of the A never should have been announced as they were. It's a long story and it has many ugly parts to it. But we don't care about facts at LR, do we? AJ Acosta sure doesn't care. He should.
The results were released only because someone--white boy 'Merican--tainted the test and couldn't wait to show the world what they had done. Despite increased scrutiny by the testers, no more tainted tests. There should 100s, but there are none.
BasicLogic wrote:
The A sample and B sample are the same exact pee, just split into two different cups. It is very likely that his B sample was a simple cover up that was paid off.
Just look at his progression In.1997 he runs 3:41 for Washington state. The next summer while out of college he runs a 3:34, and then the next year while representing Kenya, he runs a 3:30! The progression is just very odd as soon as he starts running for Kenya again.
The person that determined that the 2003 B sample was negative was Dr. Martial 'Plan B' Saugy, who has also been involved with other tests where 'suspicious' tests sort of maybe went away. Some of these people include: Lance Armstrong, Paula Radcliffe, and soccer players from the FIFA world cup.
Martial Saugy is the director of the Lausanne lab which will be doing the retesting of samples from the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. Dr. Saugy runs the Lausanne lab in Switzerland where 67 Russian samples were destoyed which prevented any further analysis of the samples.
In 2003, Pamela Chepchumba from Kenya tested positive for EPO at the World Cross Cross Country Championships, along with 1 runner from Spain and 2 runners from Morocco.
You are a jibbering idiot and a mentally deficient conspiracy theorist.
OK?
Real Logic wrote:
[quote]BasicLogic wrote:
The A sample and B sample are the same exact pee, just split into two different cups. It is very likely that his B sample was a simple cover up that was paid off.
Just look at his progression In.1997 he runs 3:41 for Washington state. The next summer while out of college he runs a 3:34, and then the next year while representing Kenya, he runs a 3:30! The progression is just very odd as soon as he starts running for Kenya again.[uote]
Then there should 100s of other positive samples. But there are none. The real answer is that sample was contaminated, most likely intentionally by someone much like yourself.
That is not the case. Don't make up facts about contamination.
http://www.letsrun.com/2003/lagatfull.doc8. Wednesday morning the final incubations and washings and the ECL-reagent treatments were performed. Dr. Saugy and Prof. Schänzer came to watch the exposure and the emerging first result of the test. Surprisingly, the B-sample showed an IEF pattern different from that in the A-sample. The results also revealed that, without any doubt, there was obvious enzyme activity in this urine sample which had also altered the controls, rhEpo and Nesp. In summary, no bands were missing, e.g. due to insufficient amounts of Epo, but rather the total band pattern had shifted toward the neutral side of the gel and appeared clearly above the rhEpo region and even further away from “normal serum†Epo and from Nesp.
9. Dr. Saugy, Prof. Schänzer, Mrs. Majer, Mrs. Schänzer and I discussed possible reasons of this kind of result that had never seen before in this lab.
With respect to the B-sample result we suspected that the sample handling might be partly responsible for the result obtained. Obviously, some enzyme activity in Mr. Lagat´s urine was responsible for the results observed. When adding pepstatin to the sample of one tube for protease inhibition, no major effect on this enzyme activity was recognized. The nature of the enzyme was not clear. It could be a glycosidase, a sulfatase, a kinase, a deamidation activity, of human origin or caused by bacterial contamination. As already mentioned (point 3 of this report) the sample had been underway a long time at elevated temperature (ï¾40° C), without any cooling. As already mentioned upon arrival in the lab the B-sample had not been frozen directly, but stored at 4° C for more than 6 days, i.e. before the results of the A-sample were seen. Only then (!) the B-sample was finally frozen and kept at –20°C until the official opening. Therefore, it is likely than not that glycoprotein-modifying activities have artificially contributed to the results of both the A- and the B-sample. Several reports in the literature have stated that in specific cases the urine samples contained only insufficient amounts of Epo. This, however, raises the basic question whether the Epo originally present might have been rendered undetectable (“lostâ€) as it had been modified in the urine (see also ref. 7 and the “Evaluation report of the urine Epo test†by G. Peltre and W. Thormann 2003, written for the council of the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA. Within this report Mrs. Gro Nissen-Lie from the Hormone Laboratory in Oslo has also reported on unusually basic bands).
In the case of Mr. Lagat´s urine, the A-sample and the B-sample obviously contained some Epo-modifying activity. Assuming the enzyme activity of the A-sample and the B-sample would indeed have been inactivated by immediate deep-freezing, presumably the B-sample would have come up with the same result as the A-sample. That would have meant: A-sample positive (false-positive) according to the rules and B-sample positive (false-positive) according to the rules. However this urine had demonstrably disturbing enzyme activity!!! As the minor pI-derivations of the bands seen in direct comparison with rhEpo in a parallel lane might have been ignored the suspected “rHEpo area†would have been taken as an all-in-all “positive†case! A tragic mistake for the athlete involved!
...
B) While the test of Mr. Lagat´s B-sample did not reveal any reactive components in positions taken as indication of a positive test, the original A-sample showed bands in this region which, however, were not fully identical with those of the reference recombinant Epo and might well be due to glycoprotein modifications.
Lots of gobbly-gook language, but here is the run down:
A and B sample collected and handled as best as circumstances can dictate. A sample frozen, B sample not. A sample tested after three days, and the B sample tested after 6 days (not frozen).
A-sample looked like recombinant epo (doping), but not quite. IT fit the pattern, but didn't line up in the right shape. This is an important piece: the EPO test is evaluated by human judgement.
Here is an example:
http://www.doping.chuv.ch/en/lad-gel-screening-epo-eng.jpgfrom
http://www.doping.chuv.ch/en/lad_home/lad-prestations-laboratoire/lad-prestations-laboratoire-liste-methodes/lad-prestations-laboratoire-liste-methodes-epo.htmIt is not a CSI lab with a computer that goes "PING" if there is EPO.
The B sample was analyzed, and only sort of matched the pattern of the A-sample, but in a different place (lower on the picture, as indicated by "negative samples").
Section B says that there was no positive for a masking agent that would have been responsible for the enzyme activity changing the A sample result to the B sample result over the 6, unfrozen days.
Finally, because I know this is important to a lot of posters, is the role of Dr. Marital Saugy, overseeing these tests. He was the man responsible for telling Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruynel how to beat the EPO test. His Lausanne lab is most recently responsible for destroying 63 Russian samples related to their state-sponsored doping cover up.
Clerk wrote:
That is not the case. Don't make up facts about contamination.
The one making up facts is you.
Lol drunk tweeting
Real Logic wrote:
Clerk wrote:That is not the case. Don't make up facts about contamination.
The one making up facts is you.
What of everything I've said is made up? It's all there, look at the document.
Clerk wrote:
Real Logic wrote:The one making up facts is you.
What of everything I've said is made up? It's all there, look at the document.
It wouldn't be made up if you could provide real positive test result. So far, you have failed to do so. Amazing that you can't. One of T&F's longest time competitors running at the top level, and you can't find anything else.
You said the sample was contaminated. It was not contaminated.
The B-sample was not frozen, resulting in activity that changed the contents of that sample. The B-Sample was negative.
I provided the relevant facts showing that it was not contaminated. The governing body agreed it was not handled properly, as explained in my post.
Do you disagree?
I thought AJ Acosta was done being ratchet. Back when he was an elite, he posted more stupid stuff on his twitter. I thought he was done with that. YOLO
Clerk wrote:
You said the sample was contaminated. It was not contaminated.
The B-sample was not frozen, resulting in activity that changed the contents of that sample.
Sigh. Contaminated by being intentionally unfrozen, and left to cook in a hot car truck (gets to 140F).
Try this experiment if you dare. Take a half filled container of orange juice. Put in a cooler. Put in the trunk of a car for on a hot day all day long. Be amazed at the result inside. My MS chemist wife did this, unintentionally.
Real Logic wrote:
Clerk wrote:You said the sample was contaminated. It was not contaminated.
The B-sample was not frozen, resulting in activity that changed the contents of that sample.
Sigh. Contaminated by being intentionally unfrozen, and left to cook in a hot car truck (gets to 140F).
Try this experiment if you dare. Take a half filled container of orange juice. Put in a cooler. Put in the trunk of a car for on a hot day all day long. Be amazed at the result inside. My MS chemist wife did this, unintentionally.
Ask your MS chemist wife what contamination means.
Hey Clerko.
So what if the reference to 'Plan B' is from an email from IAAF media person Nick Davies, who became the former right hand man to IAAF President Lord Sebastian Coe…before he had to step down from his position because of an 'ethics' investigation.
So what that it turns out that in his email to Papa Massata Diack (son of Lamine Diack) there is reference to using the Lausanne lab as a "Plan B" in case of problems coming up with the Moscow lab test results. The email also states that Gabriel Dolle, the head of anti-doping at the IAAF at the time, had confirmed the 'Plan B' to Nick Davies.
In conclusion Clerko:
Your mumbo jumbo science stuffo is egregious drivel.
Ridiculo!
It is just a coincidenceio.
Ridiculo Clerko!
Clerk wrote:
Ask your MS chemist wife what contamination means.
Already know. Why don't you go study some chemistry and figure out how solid plastic contaminates fluids with temperature and pressure increase.
Real Logic wrote:
BasicLogic wrote:The A sample and B sample are the same exact pee, just split into two different cups. It is very likely that his B sample was a simple cover up that was paid off.
Just look at his progression In.1997 he runs 3:41 for Washington state. The next summer while out of college he runs a 3:34, and then the next year while representing Kenya, he runs a 3:30! The progression is just very odd as soon as he starts running for Kenya again.
Then there should 100s of other positive samples. But there are none. The real answer is that sample was contaminated, most likely intentionally by someone much like yourself.
Was Marion Jones's A sample contaminated too?
http://espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=2576909smile wrote:
Was Marion Jones's A sample contaminated too?
http://espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=2576909
Yup. That one for EPO was. Later she got caught for steroid use and BALCO and check-fraud.
AJ ACOSTA GOT TO BERNARD LAGAT,MENTALLY!!!
Forced Lagat to drop out. Word on the track is Bernard is "STRESSED"!!
Real Logic wrote:
Clerk wrote:Ask your MS chemist wife what contamination means.
Already know. Why don't you go study some chemistry and figure out how solid plastic contaminates fluids with temperature and pressure increase.
I'm not going to argue this, because it is inconsequential. The only difference between the A- and B- samples were how they were stored once they arrived in the lab. Any difference between the two happened during that time. Not during the plane flight, or car ride, but sitting on the shelf/freezer for the B and A samples.
The technicians make it clear that some enzyme action in the urine was slowed in the frozen A sample, and active in the unfrozen B sample.
Read the paper, and stop making up your own facts.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
