Marion Jones

Common Sense

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081800926.html

If this is true, combined with Gatlin and Landis, my hopes are raised that the war on drugs is being won and the sport is being cleaned. If athletes of the calibre and wealth of Gatlin and Jones can't avoid detection what chance for the rest. Maybe, just maybe, a lot of the performances we're seeing lately, Powell, Dibaba, Wariner etc, are clean as they must be subjected to the same testing regimes as caught up with Gatlin and, now possibly, Jones. On a personal level, I have always given an athlete the benefit of the doubt unlessa nd until caught. Maybe now this policy will not appear to be too naive.

thirtyfoot

Part of me is disappointed that there is another high profile drug story in the sport and the damaging effect it is having on the sport but then in the long term its good if it means drugs will be rooted out of the sport. As Michael Johnson says the athletes you mentioned are part of this new generation of super stars at the moment, so hopefully they can rescue the sport.

Linford

Does anyone know what benefits EPO would have for a sprinter - I thought it was just a drug used by distance runners and cyclists.

thirtyfoot

It increases red blood cells and I suppose having a lot of red bloods cells will help you train harder, which ultimately means you will be able to perform better in races, other than that I don't know.

Common Sense

EPO is mainly associated with endurance athletes. Cyclists caught cheating have used it quite a lot and also long distance runners. I'm truthfully at a loss to know what benefits it would bring to a top sprinter.

quozl

The explanation I keep seeing is that it increases the athletes ability to train for longer and harder. So they get gains through increased training.

Common Sense

Shows how much I know about doping. I suppose that's to my credit (I am a sprint coach).

Amz

In sprinters, it allows them to recover quicker, thus enabling them to do more in training.

Pherekydes

B sample clear!

Good old Marion.

Now can we get Gatlin off the hook?

thirtyfoot

The 'B' sample is negative so she is cleared and not guilty of doping

thirtyfoot

Slow coach wrote:

Now can we get Gatlin off the hook?

I presume you're joking but if not I'll join your gang. Lets not stop with Gatlin, lets get Ben Johnson off too and maybe we could champion the case of that German bloke back in the 30's who was harshly banned when it was discovered he was competing as 'Dora' in the womens races and we could do our damndest to get Victor Conte inducted into the Track and Field Hall of Fame and Kieran Fallon and sure Michelle De Bruin was only hitting the JD hard the night before and they never landed on the moon and Frank Sinatra shot JFK.

Sugar_Ray

Whatever about Ben Johnson being possibly reinstated, I believe Michelle was stitched up and she is innocent in my opinion of doping or tampering as she was found!!!!

thirtyfoot

Whats your theory Sugar_Ray, I reckon the one about the whiskey flavoured contraceptives really stands up, it makes so much sense when you think about it.

Pherekydes

Tingle wrote:

Lets not stop with Gatlin, lets get Ben Johnson off too...

How do you put Gatlin and Johnson together? Johnson admitted doping; Gatlin did not. Johnson tested positive for, and admitted using, steroids; Gatlin tested positive for testosterone. If Gatlin admits it, I'll take it all back, but I think he's innocent of doping charges.

thirtyfoot

Slow coach wrote:

How do you put Gatlin and Johnson together? .

Its kind of easy. They both failed drug tests, sorry, they both failed two drug tests.

Are you proposing we introduce an "Honour System" in relation to drug testing? Should we stop taking urine samples and simply ask the athlete have they taken any prohibited substances that will give them an unfair advantage over their opponents, kind of like checking your bags in at the airport, and if the athlete says they are clean we should believe them. How do you think we should conduct doping? I might be better able to understand your viewpoint if you put it down in black and white how you think it should be done.

Slowcoach, I'm interested as to whats your involvement in track and field as I've never met anyone involved in the sport with such strange views on doping? On a positive note, Tyson Gay is well on his way to replacing Gatlin and putting it up to Powell over the next few years.

Common Sense

It all goes to prove though, that drug testing isn't infallible and no results should be published or leaked until the B sample confirms the A result. Lagat and Jones have now suffered because of these leaks and both will find it very difficult to rid themselves of suspicion. On the other hand, it reinforces my confidence in the drug testing system as the guilty get caught and the innocent are cleared - if only eventually.

Domer

Worth asking the question... "How can the B sample be clear and the A be positive". My understanding is that a sample is taken and then split in 2. One is labeled A and sent off for analysis, and then the other, labelled B is kept secure until it is needed for a retest...correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.

If this is the case, how can the results on a test carried out on A be different to one carried out on B unless one was different from the other, in which case, it had been tampered with.

Am I missing something here???

quozl

From what I've read in news articles about it, the epo test isn't an exact science. The results have to be interpreted and apparently her A sample was borderline for being reported as positive.

So perhaps given the same borderline situation in the second sample the interpretation of the results went the other way. Also, and this is complete specualation on my part, what they're testing for may degrade slowly over time, so a borderline positive could become a borderline negative.

I agree they shouldn't leak the results of A samples until the B is tested. I don't think this has added much suspicion to Jones, may have even helped her. She was already a pariah beforehand!

Linford

Domer wrote:

Worth asking the question... "How can the B sample be clear and the A be positive". My understanding is that a sample is taken and then split in 2. One is labeled A and sent off for analysis, and then the other, labelled B is kept secure until it is needed for a retest...correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.

If this is the case, how can the results on a test carried out on A be different to one carried out on B unless one was different from the other, in which case, it had been tampered with.

Am I missing something here???

It has happend before - to Bernard Lagat - apperently the EPO test is flawed. Also I think that the 2nd sample might be tested in a different lab to the 1st test.

Domer

I still ask the same question as before...why?

If an athlete is positive then surely it should not matter where the test is performed, and surely it should not be down to interpretation. If the A sample is bad, then so should to B sample, similarly if it is good.

I know this is not going to be answered on this board, and I guess my question is a bit rhetorical, but still worth thinking about.

Perhaps I am being nieve in oversimplifying a complex situation...

I will do some research over the weekend, as see if I can find out more.

Pherekydes

Tingle wrote:

Slowcoach, I'm interested as to whats your involvement in track and field as I've never met anyone involved in the sport with such strange views on doping? On a positive note, Tyson Gay is well on his way to replacing Gatlin and putting it up to Powell over the next few years.

I'd like to know what my involvement in Athletics has to do with these questions? Also, what are these strange views you speak of?

The principle of absolute liability wouldn't last a split second in a regular court of law, but not only is it used to prevent people from competing (which is fair enough - them's the rules), but people also make the logical jump and accuse these "positives" of being cheats. A positive test proves that a substance is present. But to accuse someone of being a cheat, you have to know how it got there. The test does not, and cannot, prove this, so I never jump on the "cheater" bandwagon.

Dwain Chambers is a cheat; he admitted so himself. The case against Gatlin is unproven. And spare me the stuff about two positives. He was taking Adderall since age 9, and tested positive at age 19. He was using adderall all through his teens, legally, with a TUE, but because he forgot the TUE this one time he's a cheat? Gimme a break, will ya?

If Paula Radcliffe ran a race (as she did last Sunday) and didn't bother with her TUE because she's confused, upset or harrassed, then she suddenly becomes a cheat?

It's totally illogical.

Domer

Excuse my ignorance, but whats a TUE?

ecksor

I don't think many (any?) medical tests of that nature are 100% black and white in their results. This has been a problem with GPs and the interpretation of test results for a long time afaik.

See this for an example of how the mathematics works: http://www.kimberlyswygert.com/archives/001645.html

thirtyfoot

Slow coach wrote:

I'd like to know what my involvement in Athletics has to do with these questions? Also, what are these strange views you speak of?

I'm wondering because I've been involved in the sport for as long as I can remember as I'm sure many people here have (and probably yourself too), and my attitude or anyone I know within my athletic circle of friends are adamant about drugs and make no excuses for people who are caught. You seem to be hoping Gatlin gets off which to me is total horsesh*te and the only reason I can understand why you would think this is that you are just a casual observer of the sport with no real insight or you personally know gatlin or know something the rest of us don't in relation to the case. The strange thing is you do seem to have insight and a love of the sport so I just can't understand why you would want Gatlin to be cleared.

Can you outline how you would like doping in sport to be carried out, I might be better able to understand your point of view then.

Pherekydes

Tingle wrote:

...and the only reason I can understand why you would think this is that you are just a casual observer of the sport with no real insight...

Hah! I give up, Tingle.

For the record, I hope he gets off because I really think he's clean. Also, positive tests are bad news for our sport. They are all that is accentuated and reported about our sport and it gives a wrong impression. Other sports aren't deliberately committing suicide like this. Our sport is dying, and we are allowing idiots like Dick Pound to twist the knife at every opportunity. Who guards the guards, as Dan Brown would say? Or are the people administrating the tests purer than the driven snow, with no ulterior motives?

Do you really think cheating doesn't go on at the testing end? Ever?

Did you read ecksor's link?

ecksor

If Gatlin gets off because he's innocent, then good. But wanting him to get off because positives are bad news for the sport is bad. We need to try to manage people's perception of the sport, not gloss over any misbehaviour or rulebreaking that is going on.

Positive A sample results should not be leaked. Beyond that, the alternative to prevent the press from accentuating that aspect of the sport is to give up the testing processes as they stand now. This doesn't appear to be a popular alternative.

Recently in this country we had a minister for sport who was making a lot of useless noise about criminalising the taking of supplements and clamping down on drug abuse in this country while simultaneously the athletics federation was not adequately funded for testing at international meets. It is difficult to fight people's perceptions when they are confronted with that sort of nonsense.

You never clarified your position on this thread BTW: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054946064

Pherekydes

ecksor wrote:

You never clarified your position on this thread BTW: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054946064

That old nugget. Read the first post again. I made it. If it's not clear enough for you, I can do nothing else for you.

ecksor

Your first post could mean either (a) or (b) in the last post I made by my reckoning. Answering just one of the questions I made in that post clearly (rather than trying to make an obtuse point) would have cleared things up but you declined to do so. You have already dodged a similar question from Tingle on this thread (so I'm not the only one having trouble seeing what it is you're trying to say) and also quoted a sentence from his post out of context to his overall point. That doesn't help the discussion.

thirtyfoot

This is good news

http://www.european-athletics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4240&Itemid=78

quozl

Maybe, but considering that a bag of syringes and a banned in competition (but not illegal in sweden) drug was found outside a hotel housing athletes...

http://www.letsrun.com/2006/eurodrugs.php

Common Sense

This is worth a read.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/5325262.stm