26mi235 wrote:
But the difference is that the A sample had been badly mishandled, left in a car over either an extra day or a weekend in hot conditions. the B sample was properly refrigerated. This case has been adequately aired and reviewed, including by a key anti-doping guy who said the A testing positive was a mistake. You can search for the 20(+)-page discussion of the case; it is somewhere on the net.
Does someone have a link to the pages on Lagat?
I found this: "The "active urine" phenomenon was first recognized in the summer of 2003, and the first publicized example of the "active urine" phenomenon occurred in the case of Bernard Lagat, (68) a Kenyan middle distance runner. Lagat's "A" sample tested positive for EPO just prior to the 2003 World Championships in Paris, forcing him to withdraw from the competition. About a month later, testing of Lagat's "B" sample revealed that his urine sample exhibited the active urine phenomenon, leading to his exoneration. The newly introduced "activity test" that had been implemented by the laboratory indicated that urine "activity" was indeed taking place. (69)"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2ABX/is_3-4/ai_n25012281/pg_10/Totally forgot Marion had an "A" positive and "B" negative.