I was not aware that David Torrence is an expert on EPO testing.
The A sample of Bernard Lagat was tested after 3 days and was initially judged to be positive for synthetic EPO on the gel electrophoresis. The B sample was not refrigerated and was tested after 6 days. It did not match the A sample and showed EPO modifying enzymatic activity and glycoprotein modification.
After the B sample did not match the A sample, they looked at the A sample again, and saw that it also showed (to a lesser extent than the B sample since it had been refrigerated and tested after 3 days) subtle EPO modifying enzymatic activity and glycoprotein modification. The A sample also did not match the pattern for a positive EPO test on the the gel electrophoresis.
Both A and B samples showed EPO modifying enzymatic activity and glycoprotein modification. The enzymatic activity had also altered the controls rhEpo and Nesp.
The key point is that BOTH the A sample and B sample showed evidence of enzymatic activity and glycoprotein modification. Both the A sample and the B sample did not match the pattern for a positive EPO test match on the gel electrophoresis.
The controls were recombinant human erythropoietin and Aranesp (darbepoetin alfa), also developed by Amgen, and called Nesp in the article, which means 'novel erythropoiesis stimulating protein'. It is a synthetic EPO which differs from endogenous EPO by containing two more N-linked oligosaccharide chains with the 166-amino acid protein.
It would also of been more difficult in this case for the evil Dr. Martial 'Plan B' Saugy to get the other 4 experts to all conspire with him in his (usually) evil activities. All 5 experts unanimously agreed that that there was no synthetic EPO in either the A sample or the B sample of Bernard Lagat in 2003.
1) There was not a positive A sample test result or a positive B sample test result for EPO for Bernard Lagat in 2003.
2) The initial false positive A sample test result should never have been made public. No doping test results should be made public until confirmed by a positive B test.
3) There is no basis to use the 2003 test as evidence for doping by Bernard Lagat.
4) David Torrence does not know what he is talking about in reference to the 2003 test of Bernard Lagat.
His evidence consists of..."I have heard multiple rumors".