The article wrote:the Bulgarian Athletics Federation ....... have cleared two athletes.........of doping rule violations.
Unbelieveable. Read it and weep. The Bulgarian Athletics Federation appears to be sanctioning drugs. What was their reasoning for letting these two off the hook?
The article also wrote:The IAAF would like to outline the following facts related to these two cases:
- Both athletes tested positive following IAAF no-advance-notice, out-of-competition (OOC) doping controls which were conducted in Budapest (HUN) on 24.01.07. [One athlete] provided a further positive sample from an IAAF OOC doping control conducted on 06.02.07 in Sofia (BUL).
- The analysis of the [all three] urine samples ....... conclusively established the administration of testosterone or its precursors.
- All B samples confirmed the initial A sample results.
Last edited by Daisy on Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
Even better question which we have raised time and again i Sverige -- we being fans, athletes and news reporters: has the Bulgarian Federation always reported all of their discovery findings? One competitor to one of the aforementioned athletes doesn:t believe so, and neither does her agent.
- När vi fick det positiva resultatet den 23 mars, bad vi om att även B-provet skulle testas. Resultat var på precis på gränsen och vi har bestämt att inte utfärda några sanktioner, sade Karamarinov enligt den bulgariska nyhetsbyrån Novonite.
"When we received the positive result the 23:rd of march, we asked them to even test the "B"-sample. The result was just on the border, and we have decided to not issue any sanctions," said Karamarinov according to the Bulgarian news bureau Novonite.
On the cycling front, T-Mobile rider Patrick Sinkewitz tested positive on June 8, and analysis that was just released. T-Mobile has come out hard against doping and have been providing ~250,000 Euros for testing. They carry out their own testing, but are doing blood values rather than specific drug tests. Ironically, Sinkewitz just crashed out of the Tour when he hit a pedestrian/fan on the way back from the finish to the hotel.
EPelle wrote:From Dagens Nyheter:"The result was just on the border, and we have decided to not issue any sanctions," said Karamarinov according to the Bulgarian news bureau Novonite.
Is that like being just a LITTLE bit pregnant?
It is a test with a statistical distribution on both the sample taken and the underlying quantities being measured, so there is a probability of both false negatives and false positives. Generally the tests should be set up with 'thresholds' set high enough for there to be few false positives. The quality of the test and the lab execution of the test affect the variation around the 'true' value. I believe that the standard on testosterone is now 4:1 but it used to be 6:1.
26mi235 wrote:No It is a test with a statistical distribution on both the sample taken and the underlying quantities being measured, so there is a probability of both false negatives and false positives. Generally the tests should be set up with 'thresholds' set high enough for there to be few false positives. The quality of the test and the lab execution of the test affect the variation around the 'true' value. I believe that the standard on testosterone is now 4:1 but it used to be 6:1.
I appreciate what you're saying, but isn't this a case where it DID meet the 'standard'? So where's the leeway to 'not accept' the sanction, and what precedent does that set for others who want to bend the rules? How does the Bulgarian federation supercede the World Governing Body? Can't the IAAF just suspend the Bulgarians and not let them participate in GP/GL/WC?
These were IAAF OOC tests as part of the IAAF testing programme. Under IAAF Rules once a positive result is returned it is the Member Federation who must hold the initial hearing - thus in this case you ask the bulgarian federation to suspend their star athletes. What a surprise it does not happen
Once the Federation takes a decision the IAAF can and from the sounds of the IAAF statement will appeal the decision to CAS.
EPelle wrote:You answered it... I should have re-phrased it to ask how many more random tests will they do, and if it will be targeted testing as these seem to have been.
I think you are right - they seem targetted as Veneva had two OOC tests within 2 weeks according to the IAAF information. I guess it would make sense to target others from the country and training groups
Swoosher wrote:Forgot to add - in relation to the "numbers"
the IAAF report says that the test was done with IRMS. Basically means it is not about the ratio - but proves that the steroid was from a source outside the body (rather than natural).
this needs to be cleared up :
iaaf saying it was the "artificial" testosterone test where numbers don't matter, whereas the bulgos are saying "debateable b ratio" which indicates that it was the 4:1 ratio test they are talking about
assuming iaaf sent b results back to bulgos & it was the "artiificial" testo +ve, no numbers shoud ever have come into it
26mi235 wrote:On the cycling front, T-Mobile rider Patrick Sinkewitz tested positive on June 8, and analysis that was just released.
And German national TV-stations ARD and ZDF took the opportunity to completely stop their coverage of this years Tour de France
It is not yet clear if this action is for today for for the duration of the Tour. The production people were sitting outside their trucks today. A complete withdrawal would likely have lead to packing up and going home, I would think. Thus, I am not sure a complete decision has been made.
26mi235 wrote:It is not yet clear if this action is for today for for the duration of the Tour.
As of today it's no coverage until Sinkewitz' B-sample is tested. If that comes back positive, no more coverage at all.
And the first news commentators are saying that the same standards should be applied to other sports .