On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Actually the Times DID explain the basis for the exoneration. > > Young was tested many times in that year, including something like 10 > days before and 10 days after the one test that turned up positive. > The Times article had the exact dates. All other tests were negative. > > At the USATF Appeals Board Hearing, an expert witness said that the > positive test was very closely "sandwiched" between negatives, ... he > felt that either the positive test was a laboratory error, or the > negative test ten days later was a laboratory error, because it was > IMPOSSIBLE for the nandro to get out of his system that fast- there > was no other explanation other than one lab error or the other. >
This is very interesting, because this is exactly what happened with Ben Johnson's second positive test in 1993 (which in that case was a T:E ratio, which has even vaguer thresholds). However, it seems that the point is moot, since Young has admitted to the infraction -- thus no laboratory error has occured (or rather, perhaps the error which occured was that the other tests came up negative).
