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
