Biochemist Also Votes No On Jones's A-Sample


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Biochemist Also Votes No On Jones's A-Sample

Postby gh » Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:36 am

Hate to start yet another thread, but this is a new development. Biochemist who was part of the testing--apparently part of Jones's team--says Jones's A-sample shouldn't have been considered valid in the first place.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ch ... &cset=true

probably requires registration.

[edited to reflect a re-reading/interpretation of language in the original article]
Last edited by gh on Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:45 am

We touched on this earlier...

WADA scientific director Olivier Rabin, who has not seen Jones' test data, said the difference in the results could owe to sample degradation during the time between collection and analysis.


"As far as WADA is concerned, the test is entirely reliable on a scientific basis, but there has to be some experience involved in interpreting them, especially in borderline cases," World Anti-Doping Agency Chairman Richard Pound said in an e-mail.


"The EPO test is fine," Catlin said.


What i find odd is that he sends some sort of evidence to the paper purported to demonstrate a clear, night-and-day difference between the test results. This, after he had likely been in contact with Jones team regarding the authenticity of the "A"-sample and "B"-sample tests, to which Jones attorneys stated were "borderline" and open to interpretation. One newspaper has Jones attorney quoted as saying the test showed just over the allowable. Who should we believe from that camp?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby TrakFan » Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:26 am

EPelle wrote:
What i find odd is that he sends some sort of evidence to the paper purported to demonstrate a clear, night-and-day difference between the test results. This, after he had likely been in contact with Jones team regarding the authenticity of the "A"-sample and "B"-sample tests, to which Jones attorneys stated were "borderline" and open to interpretation.


Do you feel his scientific interpretation is being influenced by comments from MJ's lawyers?
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Postby EPelle » Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:30 am

No. What I found odd was that Marion Jones lawyers don:t seem to be exactly on the same page statement-wise as is the scientist. I:m trusting in the system there to keep him non-biased (though he had a vested interest in EPO testing, as he tried to no avail to get funding for an EPO test he:d designed).
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:31 am

A read of this article would indicate that there still is a decided lack of unanimity as to the validity of EPO tests in general.

Also, this from Dick Pound: "If the results (of the A test) remain as announced, it is a sign the system works to give athletes the benefit of the doubt." I wonder how much he is actually doing to ensure that positive A results are kept quiet until the B results are in. At least two very high profile A results were leaked this year (Landis and Jones). I'd guess that someone in the French testing system leaked the Landis results (they being a bit tired of Americans winning their little race). And it seems all of the alphabet boys want to take Jones down, so plenty of suspects there.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:38 am

It is so interesting (to me) to read comments from one side that is completely diametrically opposed to this test, and wants it striken from the face of the earth (allow for the hyperbole), while the other side says that this is the best thing since iced tea, and everyone should be glad this particular test exists to catch the cheats.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:38 am

EPelle wrote:No. What I found odd was that Marion Jones lawyers don:t seem to be exactly on the same page statement-wise as is the scientist. I:m trusting in the system there to keep him non-biased (though he had a vested interest in EPO testing, as he tried to no avail to get funding for an EPO test he:d designed).


Huh?! The questioning statements are from biochemist Allen Murray, who actually worked on the sampling. The "he" who has any vested interest and has funding issues is Don Catlin, head of the lab, who said 'no comment."
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:43 am

Yes, I know. This is stated in more detail on another thread earlier today which referenced this very article.

Murray - who lives in San Diego - has created an EPO test. He has not goten funding for it. He stated he had a vested interest in this case. Whatever.

What is being stated here is that he sent the Chicago Tribune an evidence clearly demonstrating night-and-day activity readings between the two tests. What Jones attorney is stated as saying is that 1) the initial test was borderline, and 2) the initial test revealed levels just over the limit.

Either the 2:nd reading shows little-to-no EPO usage at all, or it can:t hold the argument of being night-and-day, when Jones team says the first one was suspect, and dependent on interpretation.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby TrakFan » Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:46 am

Rodney King or OJ....

The "system" works or doesn't work...depending on what outcome you want.
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Postby EPelle » Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:57 am

gh wrote:Huh?! The questioning statements are from biochemist Allen Murray, who actually worked on the sampling. The "he" who has any vested interest and has funding issues is Don Catlin, head of the lab, who said 'no comment."

Check your devil:s advocate post, and the immediate post following that one. Who introduced this person to the board?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Snation » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:02 am

It makes no sense to me.


Murray provided the Tribune with evidence he said showed "night and day differences" in the data produced by "A" and "B" analyses of Jones' sample done by the Olympic-accredited laboratory at UCLA...

In all cases, no matter the substance, an athlete cannot be charged with doping unless the "B" confirms the "A" or the athlete declines the "B" analysis. In Jones' case, Murray contends, the "A" analysis should have been thrown out because of unanswerable questions about the data it contained.

then
Murray said Jones' "A" sample showed "obvious loss of [analyzable] EPO material" when compared to the "B." Because it was impossible to know whether the EPO lost was natural or synthetic, he said, the results were invalid.


Why would loss of EPO contribute to a positive test.? The lab is looking for markers on the rhEPO.

Catlin is not commenting (which is the best course). The other remarks are all over the map!. Pound says it is a good test. The Montreal lab director isn't commenting. The ' conflict of interest biochemist' from San Diego is confusing the issue even more. Gary Wadler is trying to explain things.
---
I find this frustrating. The agencies are not open about all this. Someone needs to explain to a very confused public why the tests were inconsistent.
---
This is something all wrong about this. Something political or legal....
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:18 am

Snation wrote:It makes no sense to me.


Murray provided the Tribune with evidence he said showed "night and day differences" in the data produced by "A" and "B" analyses of Jones' sample done by the Olympic-accredited laboratory at UCLA...

In all cases, no matter the substance, an athlete cannot be charged with doping unless the "B" confirms the "A" or the athlete declines the "B" analysis. In Jones' case, Murray contends, the "A" analysis should have been thrown out because of unanswerable questions about the data it contained.

then
Murray said Jones' "A" sample showed "obvious loss of [analyzable] EPO material" when compared to the "B." Because it was impossible to know whether the EPO lost was natural or synthetic, he said, the results were invalid.


Why would loss of EPO contribute to a positive test.? The lab is looking for markers on the rhEPO.

Catlin is not commenting (which is the best course). The other remarks are all over the map!. Pound says it is a good test. The Montreal lab director isn't commenting. The ' conflict of interest biochemist' from San Diego is confusing the issue even more. Gary Wadler is trying to explain things.
---
I find this frustrating. The agencies are not open about all this. Someone needs to explain to a very confused public why the tests were inconsistent.
---
This is something all wrong about this. Something political or legal....


The EPO material that is lacking in quantity is the sum of the (natural or endogenous) EPO and the (exogenous) rhEPO. I presume that the quantity of the total EPO 'stuff' makes it difficult to break it into the two types, which differ in the sugars that attach to a base (protein?) substanace. Further, if the test relies on the relative proportions in any way, then if one type is lost (degraded) more than the other it would bias the test result (I am not sure that this is a correct interpretation of the statement "Because it was impossible to know whether the EPO lost was natural or synthetic, he said, the results were invalid.")

As for the "night and day" difference, I think that you get a physical output that could differ for a number of reasons, some possibly having to do with components. Differences call into question the two samples being from the same original source. (I do not have access tot he article here at work).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby tafnut » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:31 am

I guess I'm really slow on all this, but as I understand what happened, could this have been the scenario?

A-sample correctly pops positive.

B-sample, done much later, pops negative BECAUSE the sample's EPOic properties have simply diminished over time?

That's what I thought I read and so the B-sample really sorta doesn't PROVE anything except that later tests can be negative because the 'potency' of the EPO has abated.

(I may be competely misinformed here, so feel free to ridicule my ignorance)
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:47 am

tafnut wrote:I guess I'm really slow on all this, but as I understand what happened, could this have been the scenario?

A-sample correctly pops positive.

B-sample, done much later, pops negative BECAUSE the sample's EPOic properties have simply diminished over time?

That's what I thought I read and so the B-sample really sorta doesn't PROVE anything except that later tests can be negative because the 'potency' of the EPO has abated.

(I may be competely misinformed here, so feel free to ridicule my ignorance)


As I understand it in this case, that is not what the information so far revealed points to. It was the "A" sample that had the inadequate quantity of EPO material to provide a test result that was a reliable indicator of the athlete's "situation". If handled correctly (frozen at -20C until tested), as Catlin's lab is reputed to do) I do not think that there is an issue testing the "B" sample later. Remember that in 2005 the French lab was testing "B" samples from the 1999 Tour that had tested negative with the "A" sample (and sence the "B"s were still available) for the items tested for, which did not include EPO.

Also, I continue to think that the testing of the "B" sample is better than the testing of the "A" sample. gh gave some reasons; two key ones for me are that the process is done more "strictly" and with less likelihood of error; and that the test might only involve one element, eg EPO, and not a whole range that require different treatments (EPO, steriods, marjhana, ...).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby SQUACKEE » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:52 am

Tafnut said- "so feel free to ridicule my ignorance"

Nobody has ever hesitated before so your invitation is most likely unneccessary but thanx anyway! Tafnut, your ignorant slut!
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby dsrunner » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:56 am

gh: Of course Jones' biochemist has a vested interest.

It seems that if the A sample was viewed as borderline +
then degradation might be a very reasonable explanation for
the contrary B finding. I thought it funny that Jones' side
wanted to expediate the testing when the delays had
already been extensive. Perhaps the lab should take into
account time between initial and final testing. If synthetic EPO
degrades exponentially , then it should be fairly straight forward
to project the "highest" level.

Also, Epelle, wasnt Lagat's EPO test different from Jones'?
Not really a comparison there is it?

As much as I'd like to see the drugs out of the sport, I think the money
might be better spent on drug prevention education, and building the US club system.
dsrunner
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: California, US

Postby EPelle » Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:00 am

dsrunner wrote:Also, Epelle, wasnt Lagat's EPO test different from Jones'?
Not really a comparison there is it?

No, there is no comparision there, and I have not alluded to one being there. The Lagat info you may have read was in concert with another post by gh. Otherwise, you:ve got plenty good to say.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Snation » Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am

I still don't understand.

The A sample showed the banding of the rhEPO. There should be no banding like that in anyone's urine.

The B test apparently didn't show as much, if any, rhEPO banding.
While a non-confirming "B" test is rare in doping cases, it occurs more frequently in those involving EPO, because the reading of the results leaves significant room for interpretation. According to Jacobs, the decision to report Jones "A" sample as positive was a "close call."


It seems that Jones' representative, the biochemist, is talking in circles. 'Degredation' may be his way to say the A test should not have been intrepreted as positive, because of technical difficulties.

1. There is too much time between A and B testing. This allows for leaks and possibly errors in handling.

2. Will there be a lawsuit from Jones?
--
I also wonder what the rest of the story is?
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa

Postby EPelle » Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:21 am

The "technical difficulties" argument is shot out of the water when Jones attorneys agree that the scientific procedures were followed, but the results, themselves, were incorrectly read. One hand is not agreeing with the other there, and it is beginning to look silly.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:30 am

Yikes! Once again, the vaguaries of the English language make for problems. Here's the section which led me to post the link

<<"This story isn't about Marion Jones but about laboratory determinations of EPO positives," said Allen Murray, the Irvine, Calif., biochemist who witnessed the Aug. 30 analysis of the "B" sample for Jones.>>

What does the preposition "for" at the very end mean? I took it it as a synonym for "of"; in other words that he was part of the testing team.

I'm now gathering that what was meant is using "for" as a synonym for "on behalf of."

In which case, of course he's just another hired gun and has major conflict-of-interest baggage.


[edited to note that I changed the title of the thread slightly and modified the original copy to include this new understanding]
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Snation » Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:21 am

In the world of sport now, the athlete and her representatives, and legal team stand shoulder to shoulder, ready to scale the heights of competition.

The biochemist was the representative of Jones at the test. The anti-doping team was represented by the head of the Montreal lab.

He was a hired gun.

Interesting that the results of a test seem to be different when a lawyer and an outside biochemist attend the session. Can you image that group looking at the photographic image of the protein electrophoresis.

'Yes sir, that is a positive test'
'No it's not, I only see the outline of the San Diego skyline, no rhEPO'
'It's in front of your nose idiot'
'That isn't my nose, sir, please remove your hands..'
'When is the pizza delivered'?
'I need a six pack...'
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa

Postby dsrunner » Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:51 am

Epelle
No I was asking you because you follow all of this closely and I wasnt sure if I was remembering correctly. I noticed a few others on the board were lumping Lagat's and Jones' case together, as if the identical EPO test was used for both.

I always thought it unfair that Lagat was accused of cheating because he actually improved after college! Both Lagat and Stember were overraced in their college careers, but Lagat was a real workhorse. Did he ever race fresh in college?? Lagat improved his training/racing schedule after graduation, and Stember shot himself in the foot running those Farm Team miles. On the other hand, Lanana had painted him into a corner... he was likely gonna be toast whatever he did. He wouldve been better off taking the long bike trip w/ Jennings.
dsrunner
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: California, US

Re: Biochemist Also Votes No On Jones's A-Sample

Postby CookyMonzta » Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:51 pm

gh wrote:Hate to start yet another thread, but this is a new development. Biochemist who was part of the testing--apparently part of Jones's team--says Jones's A-sample shouldn't have been considered valid in the first place.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ch ... &cset=true

probably requires registration.

[edited to reflect a re-reading/interpretation of language in the original article]

Indeed. To say nothing of the guy who leaked the result of the A-test before it was confirmed by the lab itself. Now he has as much egg on his face as do a lot of others. QED. Once again, I rest my case.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:59 pm

EPelle wrote:The "technical difficulties" argument is shot out of the water when Jones attorneys agree that the scientific procedures were followed, but the results, themselves, were incorrectly read. One hand is not agreeing with the other there, and it is beginning to look silly.

If you are scraping the bottom of the sand for a reversal of fortune, you are more likely to find lead than gold. I've seen two reports that say the USADA themselves informed Marion of the negative B-sample.

Until she comes up dirty again, and for steroids, I stand with the outcome of this test, as I did with Lagat's.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:49 pm

CookyMonzta wrote:If you are scraping the bottom of the sand for a reversal of fortune, you are more likely to find lead than gold. I've seen two reports that say the USADA themselves informed Marion of the negative B-sample.

Until she comes up dirty again, and for steroids, I stand with the outcome of this test, as I did with Lagat's.

You HONESTLY don:t get it, do you? The outcome of Marion Jones test - or any reversal of it - has nothing to do with what I am writing about. The quote from which this is in reference was as follows:

It seems that Jones' representative, the biochemist, is talking in circles. 'Degredation' may be his way to say the A test should not have been intrepreted as positive, because of technical difficulties.


Jones attorneys agreed with the scientific procedures, therefore eliminating the opportunity to state that there were "technical difficulties". They can claim whatever they so choose, but they:ll have to be consistent with what they are stating.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:13 pm

EPelle wrote:
CookyMonzta wrote:If you are scraping the bottom of the sand for a reversal of fortune, you are more likely to find lead than gold. I've seen two reports that say the USADA themselves informed Marion of the negative B-sample.

Until she comes up dirty again, and for steroids, I stand with the outcome of this test, as I did with Lagat's.

You HONESTLY don:t get it, do you? The outcome of Marion Jones test - or any reversal of it - has nothing to do with what I am writing about. The quote from which this is in reference was as follows:

It seems that Jones' representative, the biochemist, is talking in circles. 'Degredation' may be his way to say the A test should not have been intrepreted as positive, because of technical difficulties.


Jones attorneys agreed with the scientific procedures, therefore eliminating the opportunity to state that there were "technical difficulties". They can claim whatever they so choose, but they:ll have to be consistent with what they are stating.

So you accuse the lawyers of taking both sides of the issue. That's all good and well for you; but at this point, I don't think it matters which side they take, at any point in the issue. You're taking issue with what the lawyers said at one point, and what they said at another; but the lawyers aren't the ones administering the test. Your beef should be with the lab!

The fact remains; both tests were inconsistent with one another. In any case, whatever the lawyers say at one point or another is irrelevant, because their hands are clean on this issue; and for this test result alone, so are Marion's. Until she trips up again (if that happens), and for steroids, I will stand by the end result of this test. We've got one lab expert (one on the scene, and I don't care if he is part of Marion's team) insinuating that the A-test shouldn't have been confirmed. I think the lawyers are in their right to voice some suspicion, after the fact.

Are you insinuating that they're in on a fix or something?? I wonder; what is this really all about?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:36 pm

CookyMonzta wrote:Your beef should be with the lab!

What beef? You are still quoting something not attributed to me. I have no beef. What I stated was that the lawyers and the scientist - you know, the persons defending Jones and the one present at the test - are not in complete concert with one another in their media statements, and also stated that they can say spew out whatever rhetoric they want as long as none of their internal-to-external statements conflict one another. That:s it.

Where you derive some semblance of a beef with Jones lawyers or anything that leads toward me holding a belief that there is a fix on something is completely, and astonishingly out in left field.

This test has not now, nor ever, increased (nor decreased) my previously stated opinions on Jones. That:s it. Can:t be more clear than that.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby OJ » Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:25 pm

Snation wrote:I still don't understand.
1. There is too much time between A and B testing. This allows for leaks and possibly errors in handling.


That's impossible, and the whole point behind the tamper-proof containers and coded seals. Marion's representatives get to be present during the testing of the B sample. Since no one is present at the time of the A sample test, Marion's experts cannot possibly have an opinion on the procedural conformity of the A test.

With the B test they agreed that the procedure was done properly. Had the result been posiitve, they would not be able to contest the results.
OJ
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:32 pm

OJ wrote:That's impossible, and the whole point behind the tamper-proof containers and coded seals.


but there are also transport considerations - samples degrade if not kept cool during transport ( & apparently cool-boxes are very expensive ) - giving spurious results
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:47 pm

EPelle wrote:What I stated was that the lawyers and the scientist - you know, the persons defending Jones and the one present at the test - are not in complete concert with one another in their media statements, and also stated that they can say spew out whatever rhetoric they want as long as none of their internal-to-external statements conflict one another. That:s it


scientist tells the lawyers the scientific bottom line

lawyers after talkin to marion ( the employer of all of them ) decide to give out a powerful statement, accentuating/exaggerating/bullshitting their scientist's view

are you too naive to believe this doesn't happen in the "real" world ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:29 pm

eldrick, do you have sometimers disease - meaning that sometimes you remember what we discuss and sometimes you don:t?

Her defense team/attorneys/law dudes - after discussing with Murray, the scientist - stated that the results of the first test were marginal/borderline/just over the line of being positive, and that the 2:nd test was inconclusive. The scientist, in his own words apart from the Jones camp, did not issue such a statement, rather that the first test should never have been used, and the 2:nd one revealed stark night-and-day readings from the first one.

If Jones camp wants to make a powerful statement, her law dudes don:t mention words like "borderline", "barely over the limit [for what should be regarded as positive], "inconclusive". That jury in the real world wants to be pursuaded beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first test had no reason to give them suspicion of performance-enhancing drugs usage at all.

Do the words "borderline", "barely over the limit" and "inconclusive" tend to leave 11 people speculative or absolutely sure?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:58 pm

eldrick wrote:
EPelle wrote:What I stated was that the lawyers and the scientist - you know, the persons defending Jones and the one present at the test - are not in complete concert with one another in their media statements, and also stated that they can say spew out whatever rhetoric they want as long as none of their internal-to-external statements conflict one another. That:s it


scientist tells the lawyers the scientific bottom line

lawyers after talkin to marion ( the employer of all of them ) decide to give out a powerful statement, accentuating/exaggerating/bullshitting their scientist's view**

are you too naive to believe this doesn't happen in the "real" world ?


**Indeed. The same quite probably applies with whomever leaked the result of the A-test; accentuation, exaggeration, bullshit. From what I have read and/or heard, I sense that the procedure on the A-test was not complete, and whoever sprung that leak did it before USADA could certify the result. That is, if that is the proper procedure. According to the Dick Pound article from Yahoo U.K./Ireland, USADA never did; it was Marion who laid confirmation herself...

What just happened, I believe, is contrary to what took place in the Justin Gatlin case. No one but USADA, the athlete and his representatives are supposed to know the result of the A-test. When the B-test comes up, then the report is open to the public. Again, that is if that is the rule. Unfortunately, Marion's fame, reputation and/or notoriety (take your pick) has prompted a network of spies, swarming around the labs like paparazzi, sniffing for any details on not only this test, but quite probably every one of her tests since the raid on the BALCO headquarters. After all, she is the big fish (that just got away)...

...Naturally, the minute someone informed his superior that they had a problem with a sample, and that sample turned out to be Marion's, whoever was on the scene leaked the information and the drug involved, as if it were a genuine positive. I'm thinking that the concept of exaggeration went both ways in this department!

If what some people are saying is true, that the procedure for testing the A-sample contained flaws, it makes me wonder, once again, the obvious: Was the A-sample really dirty?

Even if it wasn't, I don't think it matters. So far, I haven't read anything that suggests that the testing for the B-sample was flawed. Since it came up clean, that pretty much ends the argument for me. Dick Pound can't change that if he wanted to, because instead of a A+/B- situation that should end the whole thing, he'll create something similar to another Olga Yegorova situation that will still clear her.

It seems you have a much better insight into this whole mess. Care to restate your opinion on the outcome, or of Marion herself? The 'I-told-you-so's' of this bunch are now scratching tooth and nail for something to salvage any argument they can make to give themselves some measure of satisfaction. Unless she pulls a Katrin Krabbe and comes up dirty again, or the inquiry into Trevor Graham doesn't leave her with major scars and mud that could cost her a lot more than she could imagine, they can only use her associations with the BALCO bunch to justify their arguments. But now there's a difference: The negative B-sample just #^@%ed up half of those arguments!

As for me, except for the question of whether she can hang on until 2008 (because in 2009, she's going to the WNBA, case closed on that), I don't give a #^@%! She should have moved up to the 400/800 after Sydney. Better yet, when the shit hit the fan at BALCO, she should have moved up right there and then. If she were dirty back then, maybe she'd have realized that the same shit would not have helped her as much in the longer events. I just hope Jem, Sanya, LaShawn, X, Allyson and Tyson don't #^@% up before Beijing, because with Justin out of the picture, shit is really hurtin' now.

Which reminds me: I assume creatine is legal. Is nitric oxide legal?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
Last edited by CookyMonzta on Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:09 pm

EPelle wrote:Do the words "borderline", "barely over the limit" and "inconclusive" tend to leave 11 people speculative or absolutely sure?

I think I said this before (in a different way); but I'll say it again: Those words used by the lawyers (and I assume not one of them is a doctor or a scientist) are irrelevant. They need only to defend their client, and even that is irrelevant now, because she's in the clear for this particular test.. The burden of proof is now on the lab and the testing procedure itself. The lawyers can pretty much say what they want; they're not the ones on trial here! Furthermore, they're not the ones conducting the test. The problem here, once again, lies with the lab and the people who conducted the test, not the lawyers.

And once again, the fact that her B-test came up negative pretty much makes the issue of what the lawyers said totally irrelevant, and the case closed. Marion need only to avoid walking into the same trap that Katrin Krabbe walked in.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:14 pm

You:ve made my point: anything - and everything - one can state from her team is irrelevant. So why state anything at all other than that the "B"-sample test negated the first one, and Marion Jones is going on with her life and career?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:46 pm

EPelle wrote:You:ve made my point: anything - and everything - one can state from her team is irrelevant. So why state anything at all other than that the "B"-sample test negated the first one, and Marion Jones is going on with her life and career?

Because they have the privilege of not being the ones on trial here. Once more, they are not in a courtroom. Nor are they doctors or scientists. They can afford the errors in their restatement of what their lab representative said.

And if you really agree, that what they have been saying is irrelevant here, why have you been so quite concerned about their so-called inconsistencies, as to bring them up, more than once I might add? If you weren't so concerned, why post anything related to what they said?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:54 pm

They could have remained silent. They opted to speak. They opened themselves up to scrutiny at that point. All I am stating - now on several occasions - is that one is downgrading the effect of the others statement. It may have been best for the scientist to speak and the attorneys to back up that statement, not open up the door to further discussion by stating differing viewpoints of the "A"-test vs "B"-test; the attorneys could have kept their mouths closed about the testing procedures and left that up to the expert.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:20 am

EPelle wrote:eldrick, do you have sometimers disease - meaning that sometimes you remember what we discuss and sometimes you don:t?


you're rambling

Her defense team/attorneys/law dudes - after discussing with Murray, the scientist - stated that the results of the first test were marginal/borderline/just over the line of being positive, and that the 2:nd test was inconclusive. The scientist, in his own words apart from the Jones camp, did not issue such a statement, rather that the first test should never have been used, and the 2:nd one revealed stark night-and-day readings from the first one.

If Jones camp wants to make a powerful statement, her law dudes don:t mention words like "borderline", "barely over the limit [for what should be regarded as positive], "inconclusive". That jury in the real world wants to be pursuaded beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first test had no reason to give them suspicion of performance-enhancing drugs usage at all.


so you are naive enough to believe lawyers & scientists sing from the same hymn sheet

Do the words "borderline", "barely over the limit" and "inconclusive" tend to leave 11 people speculative or absolutely sure?


11 non-stupid people are only interested in what the conclusion is :

-ve b test
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:54 am

Ok, eldrick, I am stupid and naive. Got it. See you in round 10.

And a pre-congratulations on your next post - your milestone. :-)
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Snation » Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:32 am

How much has changed?

I was going to write a soliloquy on how the races are now an athlete pulling a cart with lawyers, doctors, PR guys etc. across the finish line. But I guess that’s not the point.

Seems like athletics has always been about more than winning or losing. Witness the Berlin Olympics when Hitler made the games about his agenda of conquest. Or the GDR, where systematic doping led to a small country attaining world recognition based on Olympic conquest.

In the 2000s races and games are about corporations, not political movements. It isn’t Marion Jones the athlete; it is Marion Jones the corporation out there.

I find it incredible that fans dislike an athlete like Jones so much. Fans usually love athletes, revel in their victories, and clamor for their autographs. Marion and her camp have been perceived as showing bad behavior for so long with doping, Marion Inc. is viewed like Microsoft Inc – they cheat.

The point is that what Marion’s lawyers say is important, just like it is important what Enron’s lawyers say. It it now Marion Inc. on trial. This is big money. Marion Inc. has to win races to take the race purse, which leads to the Marion Inc. endorsement purse. If there isn’t the proper spin on an event, Marion Inc. could take a large hit in endorsements, where the real money is.

We have big time organizations WADA, etc. employing huge labs, trying to catch the Athlete Inc trying to cheat on the competition. The Athlete Incs, meanwhile, are employing chemists, doctors, pharmacists, coaches, trainers, lawyers, accountants, and PR people in their corporation to win medals. If Athlete Inc. wins a medal, then the corporation will enrich itself with the endorsements from say Nike, who sells shoes endorsed by Athlete Inc (Rem, the 'scientist’ at test B is merely an employee of Marion Inc.). Everything Marion Inc. says is meant to apply the proper spin to the organization.

So, just like the Enron event, it is twisted and complex. I think every major athletic event now is twisted and complex. If we didn’t know that before the Summer of 2006, we know it now. Conte's 'Project World Record' is in full swing.
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest