Questions have long been raised about the reliability of EPO testing, and this negative `B' test will spark further debate.
"I believe there are issues with that test," said Howard Jacobs, another Jones attorney who has defended several athletes on doping charges. "It's a difficult test. From what I saw on the `A' sample, it was questionable as to whether it should've been called a positive. I can't say I was shocked that the `B' came back negative based on what the `A' looked like."
See, if it had been steroids that she tested positive for, I would have been quick to be skeptical that Marion had been clean for the race in question. EPO just made no sense given what Marion does, and as I thought, the backup sample proved it.
#2 Posted on 7.9.06 1825.38 Reposted on: 7.9.13 1827.35
Honestly with the other evidence leaked from the grand jury, I was already convinced she was cheating so this to me was just kind of the rest of the world seeing it. If she wasn't in this particular case, well good for her. But I don't buy the arguement that EPO isn't something that would help her just because it's more for endurance. She has to race several times in a day and it could help there, or multiple events as she usually does, and certainly it would allow her to train for longer periods of time which would help come race day. Argument doesn't hold water, and combined with her ex saying he saw her use EPO and her coach being known to have provided EPO to several track stars it wasn't a good excuse and I think that's part of what irked me.
That said, again I'm glad she was clean in this case, but a little unsure of why one test is weighted more than the other.
#4 Posted on 7.9.06 2127.44 Reposted on: 7.9.13 2127.48
On one hand, it's like they're saying 50% is a passing grade. But on the other I guess having one test say you're clean puts enough doubt into the process to where they could never uphold a suspension in a court so they take the easy route and let it go.