False Positive?

[proofs in the pudd'in]

Does anyone know if there are stats on A - samples being tested positive and then the B - sample coming back negative?

I ask because on some other thread some are trying to use the A - sample positive as proof of the persons guilt by questioning the B - sample procedure which came back negative.

How often does this occur per year? No need for names just the numbers.

[gh]

In theory (THEORY) the rule has been that the A is supposed to stay completely secret until B confirms it. So if that rule has been followed, we would never know about positive/negative results.

Given the innuendo and damage that follows such a scenario (see Lagat, for one), I have thought it was a pretty good rule.

[Kevin Richardson]

I, too, would prefer for things to stay as they are. The chances of a single false positive are much less than two false positives. Given the human factor involved, there is no need to rush to judgement. Doing so would only undermine any public credibility of the testing process.

[bad hammy]

This change to banning on an A positive is indicative of why athletes need a strong union. The IOC should not be able to unilaterally make such a change that exposes athletes to the censure and loss of opportunity they will get before all of the tests are in. Under this new system why even have a B test??

[proofs in the pudd'in]

Yes, I read the entire posts on the other thread and the persons "sources" are "in the know" about the A - sample and then they told him. The B - sample later came back negative because (this person was told and believes) that the said athlete had a say in the timing of when the B - sample was tested (later than earlier thereby allowing the sample to decay) all the while the US governing body was in the know to protect said athlete.

This is why I wanted to know about how often an A-sample is positive and a B-sample comes back negative - from the stats either by WADA or another body . I would like to post it on the site.

The person is going way out of his way to prove that this person is a cheat based on this hersey. His line of reasoning is basically - Oh an A-sample was positive, the B-sample came back negative, lets question the procedure and the timing of the B-sample, all based on the trust of some "insider to the process."

Interestingly this person threw around some of his sources and buddies as "Nike Athletes" or with Nike somehow. Go figure since the accussed is with Adidas. And of course since this "positive" the athlete has not tested "positive' again and yet this guy just babbles on about it.

Does WADA or the IAAF list such info on A and B samples?

[26mi235]

The person should not be banned; maybe they should be suspended briefly, where briefly allows a very modest time for testing the B sample. After that time (a week?) the person is free to compete again. This puts the onus on the testing authority to do it rapidly because it will look bad if the athlete contests some events because of their failure to be timely. A kicker is that maybe the results would stand. There is the issue that the athlete will likely be persona non gratia except in venues were they must be allowed to compete, such as nationals, NCAAs etc. Certainly not a great solution, but neither is the suspending when the A is +.