The quickness with which Yegorova was reinstated by IAAF may be partially
due to the fact that as IAAF admitted before, 10 (or was it 11?) athletes
tested positive for EPO in Sydney (but failed only one of the two required
urine/blood test combo, therefore not considered "guilty"). Russian
officials may have threatened that in case she is not reinstated
immediately, they demand similar suspensions for the Sydney athletes, as
well as 10 who had positive blood tests in Edmonton - who with exception of
one athlete who remains unnamed, won't be suspended because urine tests came
back negative (this includes Yegorova).
Makes me wonder if russians could have made the point about procedures not
being followed properly solely on the basis of Yegorova's name being
released before her B-sample was tested (which technicians had problems with
anyways - they couldn't make positive/negative judgement due to some unknown
"difficulties", but then the IAAF reinstatement decision came through, so
the whole B-sample issue became moot anyways).
On more personal note, I was reading russian newspapers following Yegorova's
Paris test announcement, and I was somewhat surprised how confident team
leaders sounded in
interviews from day one - that Yegorova *will* go to Edmonton, plead her
case, and will eventually compete. Almost as if it was a done deal.
It's also quite amusing how "spin machines" can turn the same story either
way - post-championships articles in russian papers reported that Yegorova
was wrongfully accused due to "serious testing procedure violations", IAAF
admitted the mistake and immediately reinstated her and that Yegorova proved
her innocence once again testing negative in Edmonton, but "jealous"
romanian Szabo kept "spreading rumors" and even threatend a boycott. In the
final Yegorova "did the talking with her legs", while Szabo wasn't even fast
enough to "be close enough to see the heels of Yegorova's feet when she
took off" in "blistering finish" (as close as I can be with translation
while it still kinda makes sense in English). The article is titled "Despite
Everything" and as you could guess has a completely different angle from the
ones from Western press.
There are a few new articles, one on Szabo - where her quotes about "russian
robots" sound pretty ridiculous in russian translation. Another on Jonathan
Edwards' comments condemning "campaign to destroy Yegorova" and Radcliffe's
inconsistency of believing that Baumann was innocent and framed.
And believe it or not, judging by the readers' reponses, Yegorova is sort of
a national hero there right now.
And don't shoot the messenger - I am just reporting it as it is.
Oleg.
P.S. Does anyone else find it ironic that "EPO - Go, Go, Go!" - as catchy as
it is - can be interpreted both ways? :)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed & Dana Parrot
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 8:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: re: Edwards thoughts on Yegorova
> So, for them to clear her in a matter of days leads me to believe that she
either wasn't guilty or that there >were serious problems with the testing
protocol.
Someone correct me if they know differently, but there WAS a problem with
the testing protocol - they didn't do a blood test. The IAAF procedure is
to do a blood test first, which can detect EPO usage up to 4-6 weeks prior,
followed by a follow-up urine test. The blood test is considered to have a
small possibility of false positives, so a positive blood test is followed
by the EPO urine test, which is considered reliable but can only test for
usage in the pas few days. The two positive tests together constitute a
legally defensible test. Anything else (like Yegorova's test) is apparently
not. So there was no grey area unless the IAAF wanted to ignore they own
rules (which they've done before). The real errors were the French not
doing a blood test and the IAAF publicizing the positive urine test before
looking further into the matter.
Now here's where it is sticky. The urine test is pretty much considered
reliable on its own. It just usually can't pick up EPO more than a few days
prior. I wondered why they didn't just go with the urine test rather than
the combination but perhaps they wanted to get people used to the idea of
blood testing since that will be necessary for the next advancements in drug
testing. The way they did it just makes everyone doubt more about the
process.
But the fact is that she tested positive using the most reliable test. And
word was going around Edmonton that she was one of a number of athletes who
failed the initial blood test in Edmonton but subsequently passed the urine
test. I never heard official confirmation of this and really we shouldn't
have heard anything about those initial blood tests since they constitute
nothing by themselves. But really it appears that Yegorova was let off on a
real technicality. They had to let her off, and it should never have been
made public in the first place, but given the specifics of the technicality
there should be little doubt in our minds that she would have been banned if
the French had done the blood test.
It is unfortunate for her, the sport, and everyone involved that the IAAF
botched this so badly. As I said before, this is a textbook example of why
the U.S. waits until adjudication is complete before releasing names of
failed testees. The only saving grace is that the efforts to get the
single, reliable EPO test approved will certainly be at the forefront.
- Ed Parrot
