t-and-f: Lgat's B sample... now equal chance of being clean or dirty...
For all those who will love to write this off as if Lagat is a saint and he never did anything wrong... isn't it just as likely the negative result is wrong as the positive result is wrong? In the eyes of our sport, he is free. In my eyes, he either tested positive for something and then got off on a bad B' test, or, he was unjustly accused after a bad 'A' test and was vindicated with the 'B' test. In no way, in my mind, is he clean based on the B sample. He's just not guilty. Unless someone has more to offer on things done differently with the B, I will actually believe the B sample falsely read a negative. I actually think it would be better for the sport had Lagat been busted. Of course if he truly is clean, I'm glad he's back, but I will hold my judgement. Life aint fair... and I never said it was. Michael _ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy patented spam protection and more. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa
Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B sample... now equal chance of being clean or dirty...
The key will be how vigorously he pursues his claim for damages. I was thinking the same thing. He is not guilty. He isn't necessarily innocent. If he pursues some people civilly where the burden of proof is less, that will be an indication that he in actual fact thinks he is innocent not just not guilty. If he doesn't... Michael Contopoulos wrote: > For all those who will love to write this off as if Lagat is a saint and he > never did anything wrong... isn't it just as likely the negative result is > wrong as the positive result is wrong? In the eyes of our sport, he is > free. In my eyes, he either tested positive for something and then got off > on a bad B' test, or, he was unjustly accused after a bad 'A' test and was > vindicated with the 'B' test. In no way, in my mind, is he clean based on > the B sample. He's just not guilty. Unless someone has more to offer on > things done differently with the B, I will actually believe the B sample > falsely read a negative. I actually think it would be better for the sport > had Lagat been busted. Of course if he truly is clean, I'm glad he's back, > but I will hold my judgement. Life aint fair... and I never said it was. > > Michael > > _ > Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy > patented spam protection and more. Sign up now! > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa
Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B sample... now equal chance of being clean or dirty...
How many other A samples have been positive that we don't know about because the B was negative, because the rules were followed by not releasing the results of the A positive before the B test? The rule says: A positive + B positive = Positive A Positive + B negative = Negative If we did not know the A results, we would not be discussing this now, nor would we have to take sides or form opinions. Lagat does not deserve to have this cloud of suspicion following him around. Michael Contopoulos wrote: > For all those who will love to write this off as if Lagat is a saint and he > never did anything wrong... isn't it just as likely the negative result is > wrong as the positive result is wrong? In the eyes of our sport, he is > free. In my eyes, he either tested positive for something and then got off > on a bad B' test, or, he was unjustly accused after a bad 'A' test and was > vindicated with the 'B' test. In no way, in my mind, is he clean based on > the B sample. He's just not guilty. Unless someone has more to offer on > things done differently with the B, I will actually believe the B sample > falsely read a negative. I actually think it would be better for the sport > had Lagat been busted. Of course if he truly is clean, I'm glad he's back, > but I will hold my judgement. Life aint fair... and I never said it was. > > Michael > > _ > Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy > patented spam protection and more. Sign up now! > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa
Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B sample... now equal chance of being clean or dirty...
--- Mike Prizy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How many other A samples have been positive that we > don't know about because the B was negative, > because the rules were followed by not releasing the > results of the A positive before the B test? In addition, how many A and B positives have been overturned due to technicality, arbitration, etc? I wonder if the Jerome Young situation falls under this category. > If we did not know the A results, we would not be > discussing this now, nor would we have to take > sides or form opinions. This is how the USADA's procedure is set up. Nothing is made public until all avenues are exhausted (A test, B test, review board and then arbitration). __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B sample... now equal chance of being clean or dirty...
>Michael Contopoulos wrote: >>I actually think it would be better for the sport had Lagat been busted. Just unbelievable. Glad you have your priorities right. >>Of course if he truly is clean, I'm glad he's back, Really? Its pretty evident that you want to believe hes guilty. But Im sure Lagat appreciates your support! Talk about waffling on a subject. > > but I will hold my judgement. Oh goody. But the truth is you havent. >>Life aint fair... and I never said it was. Yeah, especially if its not YOUR life, right? bob Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy patented spam protection and more. Sign up now!
Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B sample... now equal chance of being clean or dirty...
Michael Contopoulos wrote: >> For all those who will love to write this off as if Lagat is a saint and he >> never did anything wrong... isn't it just as likely the negative result is >> wrong as the positive result is wrong? In the eyes of our sport, he is >> free. In my eyes, he either tested positive for something and then got off >> on a bad B' test, or, he was unjustly accused after a bad 'A' test and was >> vindicated with the 'B' test. In no way, in my mind, is he clean based on >> the B sample. "Martin J. Dixon" chimed in: >The key will be how vigorously he pursues his claim for damages. I was thinking >the same thing. He is not guilty. He isn't necessarily innocent. If he pursues >some people civilly where the burden of proof is less, that will be an >indication that he in actual fact thinks he is innocent not just not guilty. If >he doesn't... OK, while I was on the "Lagat shows the Kenyans aren't pure" bandwagon, this way lies insanity. A negative test on a B is the same as a negative test on an A. If you had a positive B, but a negative A, you'd never hear about it, because the B would never be analyzed. In essence, the dual samples is to ensure that an innocent athlete isn't sanctioned. If the B comes up negative - you can have all the opinions you want, but they're no more valid than any opinion you may have about any athlete without any proof. These methods - and especially the method for EPO - can really push analytical boundaries. Placing Lagat in some "not guilty not innocent" limbo is now no more valid than watching a guy run fast and concluding "he must be juiced". A negative B means innocent. Phil
Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B sample... now equal chance of being clean or dirty...
That doesn't change my point and it doesn't change the reality of the situation. If this gets into a court of law and all of a sudden the burden of proof changes and this is explained to him, he may decide not to pursue it. I hope he does pursue it. It will be interesting to see how this sort of thing can happen. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Michael Contopoulos wrote: > > >> For all those who will love to write this off as if Lagat is a saint and > he > >> never did anything wrong... isn't it just as likely the negative result > is > >> wrong as the positive result is wrong? In the eyes of our sport, he is > >> free. In my eyes, he either tested positive for something and then got > off > >> on a bad B' test, or, he was unjustly accused after a bad 'A' test and > was > >> vindicated with the 'B' test. In no way, in my mind, is he clean based > on > >> the B sample. > > "Martin J. Dixon" chimed in: > >The key will be how vigorously he pursues his claim for damages. I was > thinking > >the same thing. He is not guilty. He isn't necessarily innocent. If he > pursues > >some people civilly where the burden of proof is less, that will be an > >indication that he in actual fact thinks he is innocent not just not > guilty. If > >he doesn't... > > OK, while I was on the "Lagat shows the Kenyans aren't pure" bandwagon, > this way lies insanity. > > A negative test on a B is the same as a negative test on an A. If you had > a positive B, but a negative A, you'd never hear about it, because the B > would never be analyzed. > > In essence, the dual samples is to ensure that an innocent athlete isn't > sanctioned. If the B comes up negative - you can have all the opinions you > want, but they're no more valid than any opinion you may have about any > athlete without any proof. These methods - and especially the method for > EPO - can really push analytical boundaries. Placing Lagat in some "not > guilty not innocent" limbo is now no more valid than watching a guy run > fast and concluding "he must be juiced". A negative B means innocent. > > Phil
Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B sample... now equal chance of being clean or dirty...
> A negative B means innocent. Just like 'overturned on appeal' means innocent, right? The IOC commission "looking into" the Young case (with the already-decided verdict, if you listen to Pound and Rogge, merely awaiting some supporting facts) is like the Spanish Inquisition- "Bring on the Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada, for the dunking test. If he doesn't drown, he's guilty and must be burned at the stake! If he drowns, he will be declared innocent posthumously!" RT
