Professional Cycling - Marion Jones Positive A sample

http://www.news1130.com/news/sports/article.jsp?content=s081875A


(AP) Marion Jones failed an initial doping test at the U.S. national championships in June, according to a newspaper report.

The five-time Olympic medalist's “A” sample tested positive for a banned performance enhancer at the event in Indianapolis, The Washington Post reported Friday night on its Web site, citing people with knowledge of the results who were not identified.

Oh no.... horrible American lab for leaking... or horrible American federation for leaking... what about due process...

well, that felt good.

http://www.news1130.com/news/sports/article.jsp?content=s081875A



Oh no.... horrible American lab for leaking... or horrible American federation for leaking... what about due process...

well, that felt good.If the news was leaked by a lab, the lab should lose its WADA certification, regardless of whether the lab is American or not.

If the news was leaked by a National Federation, the National Federation should be sanctioned for violating due process, regardless of whether the National Federation is American or not.

If the news was leaked by an International Federation, or by WADA, that organization should be sanctioned.

If she's found in violation of the rules after adjudication and appeal, she should be sanctioned, regardless of whether she's American or not.

I don't care about the nationality of the wrongdoer. You apparently do. And that's sad.

http://www.news1130.com/news/sports/article.jsp?content=s081875A



Oh no.... horrible American lab for leaking... or horrible American federation for leaking... what about due process...

well, that felt good.


" if one protocol is broken, the integrity of others is open to question " ... seems fair

I think we know who broke protocol here.....................:rolleyes:

I think we know who broke protocol here.....................:rolleyes:

EPO for a sprinter? :rolleyes:

Makes you wonder whether somethings wrong with the labs, or if someone got her dope mixed up, or if she had the same massage therapist as Gatlin.

If the news was leaked by a lab, the lab should lose its WADA certification, regardless of whether the lab is American or not.

If the news was leaked by a National Federation, the National Federation should be sanctioned for violating due process, regardless of whether the National Federation is American or not.

If the news was leaked by an International Federation, or by WADA, that organization should be sanctioned.

If she's found in violation of the rules after adjudication and appeal, she should be sanctioned, regardless of whether she's American or not.

I don't care about the nationality of the wrongdoer. You apparently do. And that's sad.

No, I don't really. But others have posted that there never are leaks from American labs or federations. And that's just not true.

http://www.news1130.com/news/sports/article.jsp?content=s081875A



Oh no.... horrible American lab for leaking... or horrible American federation for leaking... what about due process...

well, that felt good.

If that felt good then you must be in a lot of pain.

No, I don't really. But others have posted that there never are leaks from American labs or federations. And that's just not true.Fair enough. But just to be clear, I don't object to LNDD leaking test results because LNDD is French; I object to it because it's a corrupt practice.

I don't understand how the lab would know who's sample it is. From my understanding I thought the lab sample has a UPC scanner code with numbers under it. They don't know who it belongs to. Or that's what I thought.

The lab isn't supposed to know whose sample it is. It's supposed to be completely anonymous at all times. That's what the rules require, and that's what ensures the integrity of the test. The fact that a lab does know whose sample has been submitted for testing indicates that the testing isn't anonymous, and therefore, indicates that testing procedures haven't been followed. That calls into question the integrity of the entire test. If an athlete can prove that the testing procedure wasn't followed, and that violation had the potential to affect the test results, the test will be invalidated. That's why corruption in the anti-doping organizations undermines the anti-doping effort.

The lab isn't supposed to know whose sample it is. It's supposed to be completely anonymous at all times. That's what the rules require, and that's what ensures the integrity of the test. The fact that a lab does know whose sample has been submitted for testing indicates that the testing isn't anonymous, and therefore, indicates that testing procedures haven't been followed. That calls into question the integrity of the entire test. If an athlete can prove that the testing procedure wasn't followed, and that violation had the potential to affect the test results, the test will be invalidated. That's why corruption in the anti-doping organizations undermines the anti-doping effort.

This is the central issue that the "Landis is guilty, can we just kill him already" crowd choose to ignore as some sort of religious sacrament. The accusation stands, even though the demonstrated repeated lack of integrity of the testers is known. I don't even know why they need to test, just make the accusation and be done with it. It's a kangaroo court. Their lack of credibility on this whole mess has turned it into a farce and the truth is unlikely to ever be known.

It doesn't sound like the source that leaked was from the lab. I read a article in the LA Times today that said the results were announced on 8/19 (day after original poster's article). Could be they leaked knowing it was going to be announced the following day. The race in Indianapolis was the US National Championships.

As for Jones, its anything but a surprise that she failed a test. Her ex-husband was banned. The father of her child was banned. Her former coach was banned. She's linked to the Balco case. No surprise that she's failed a test at all.

No surprise that she failed a control, but leaking the information weakens the case against her and may allow her to get off. It also opens up the lab to civil litigation for violating the confidentiality contract they had with Jones. I hope she sues the lab out of business, perhaps then doping control agencies will start taking their confidentiality clauses seriously.

No surprise that she failed a control, but leaking the information weakens the case against her and may allow her to get off. It also opens up the lab to civil litigation for violating the confidentiality contract they had with Jones. I hope she sues the lab out of business, perhaps then doping control agencies will start taking their confidentiality clauses seriously.

word

The NYTimes article was very careful to state that the source was "those familiar with the case" so it may not have been the lab. It may have been federation officials from Track and Field or USADA offocials, since there was a small number of people in the loop.

I bet it was not the lab. But its just a hunch. I think more likely frustrated insiders wanting to see her come down and not understanding why the long delay in getting the word to her she was positive and dealing with it instead of letting her continue to run.

The NYTimes article was very careful to state that the source was "those familiar with the case" so it may not have been the lab. It may have been federation officials from Track and Field or USADA offocials, since there was a small number of people in the loop.

I bet it was not the lab. But its just a hunch. I think more likely frustrated insiders wanting to see her come down and not understanding why the long delay in getting the word to her she was positive and dealing with it instead of letting her continue to run.


That's my thinking on the leak. There hasn't been anything stating that the lab leaked the results. Its probably from insiders that bent on getting anyone associated with Graham and the Balco scandal.

This thread raises some very tricky ethical issues that I want to touch upon. Let me bring up a skosh of Christian history to illustrate my point. I don't intend to delve into religion per se, just want to use something I'm familar with to illustrate, so lets not get off track into religion because of my example.

During the era of Roman persecutions of Christians, some Christians handed over their religious texts to Roman authorities rather than become martyrs. Or they signed a paper saying they adhered to particular beliefs consistent with Polytheism. They had been baptized already. In those days you were supposed to keep pure after your baptism or your soul was believed to be in jeopardy. Thus, many people waited to be baptized until on their deathbed. The practice of last rites probably derives from this in some way.

Anyway after the persecutions subsided, the question arose of whether these 'traditores' (from which the word traitor comes) needed to be re-baptized. And also, whether the sacraments that they now dispensed (acting as bishops who had been traditores) were invalid. That is, did their sin make them unable to 'channel' God's blessing?

The answer according to Church Father Augustine was no. He developed the doctrine of ex opere operato which meant that the sacraments were sufficent in themselves to convey what they were supposed to convey.

For me, the issue of labs that can't keep secrets reminds me of this church controversy which took place in the 3rd-4th centuries. Does the fact that labs leak results mean that the results should be questioned?

I don't intend to answer that question definitively.

Rather, the point Augustine also made in this contect is that there are 'two churches'. The visible church here on earth that includes sinners and the invisible church of heaven that only includes perfect saintly people. I don't want to make to fine a point of that last sentence, just to say that it illustrates rather well that while I really really understand integrity and wish the labs would have proper integrity and keep quiet about things, I also understand that it is perhaps asking too much of human beings to do this, and I therefore call into question the notion that just because a lab leaked a secret, that it by necessity means that the lab lied about the test itself.

That is, just as these folks handed over their bibles to be throw into the fire, it didn't make their souls corrupt to the point of them being unable to give sacraments, I don't equate the giving away of a secret to mean that someone is telling a lie.

As with other things, we believe what we want to believe. Somewhere out there, some Marion Jones fan is defending her to his or her last breath that she is clean, despite her links to Balco, despite all the people she is associated with who are known and bannned, despite the positive A sample.

I believe it is likely that Floyd cheated. I believe it is likely that the lab tested him fairly but it was such a big piece of news that someone just couldn't keep the secret. People are only human. That said I would like to see some sanction of labs that leak information prematurely. But I don't believe that invalidates the test.

If you had finished second in the Tour, and ridden clean, and someone escaped sanction after returning a positive sample because a lab leaked, could you really believe that was fair to you? Floyd shouldn't escape sanction because the lab leaked, but the lab should be punished. Hopefully something has gone on behind the scenes about this.

Furthermore, there is a phrase you may have heard called 'mustard after dinner.' That is after you've finished dinner, you don't want any mustard, you want dessert. The Tour had just finished the Sunday before and shesh, part of me wants to say we deserved to know before the ink on the Yellow Jersey had dried. I believe the leak probably leaked due to this sense of outrage at an evident fraud that we had all been sold. But to say someone would make that up? These are both breaches of ethics but differ radically in scale. Do you really think the French hate Americans that much? If they were going to do that, wouldn't they have done that to the one that 'they' 'really hated': Armstrong? Why pick on Landis, on unknown, unassuming, seemingly deserving winner - it just doesn't follow and IMHO it is a weak argument made by people who just don't want to believe that a nice boy like Floyd wouldn't play fair. And since he is so obviously guilty now it is they only straw that they have left to grasp at, that he deserves to get off because the lab didn't follow protocol.

Hopefully he will learn his lesson, his hip surgery will go well and he we can all cheer for him in the Vuelta in 2008. No one would be more pleased than me (and my bad hip) to see him succeed again. But I've accepted the fact that he is likely to be banned because he is probably guilty.

Interesting analogy.

While I agree with both your interpretation of early Church history as well as of Augustine of Hippo I'm not sure I agree with applying Augustine's logic to the legal machinations surrounding anti-doping measures. The reasoning of God's mercy as interpreted by men may not apply to the secular quasi-legal institution that is the WADA.

Augustine wrote of the actions that some scared men took when faced with a painful and public execution. Floyd may well have acted out of fear prior to Stage 17 but his fate (at least in regards to earthly matters such as retaining his title) will be settled by a secular agency.

As a history teacher I really do like your analogy though!

From my first post on this issue I've acknowledged that the presence of leaks in the lab do not ipso facto invalidate the lab's technical results. However, breaking procedure in one area is grounds for concern about protocol in other areas. If I were in Landis' position, I'd be all over that. Innocent or guilty he can't afford to pass up that line of defense. The problem is that there is no real way, that I know of, to double check the lab. Though this is not a true legal system, the stakes are high. Floyd will lose, one would think, hundreds of thousands of dollars in actual and potential income if he becomes the first rider to be stripped of a Tour title. Many others have or will lose substantial incomes as well. With these kinds of stakes I'd be much more comfortable if the process was scrupously followed. As Augustine would readily agree, perfection is beyond our grasp, but the various agencies could have come much closer.

It'd help if a bombastic blowhard wasn't in charge of the WADA as well.

I don't want to make to fine a point of that last sentence, just to say that it illustrates rather well that while I really really understand integrity and wish the labs would have proper integrity and keep quiet about things, I also understand that it is perhaps asking too much of human beings to do this, and I therefore call into question the notion that just because a lab leaked a secret, that it by necessity means that the lab lied about the test itself. No, it doesn't mean that, but it does mean that we need to examine the testing protocols very closely when we know they've been violated. Somebody mentioned previously that it may not be the lab that leaked the result. I won't dispute that, because they're right-- it may not be the lab.

But if a lab did leak the result, it means the lab knew whose sample was being tested, and *that* is a problem, because once anonymity is breached, it's far too easy to come up with a positive result if that's what somebody wants. So if anonymity is breached, the test result is too tainted by suspicion to have any worth as evidence in an adjudication. How on Earth would the anti-doping agency prove that even though the anonymity protocol was breached by the lab, the test was nevertheless conducted honestly?

They couldn't prove that, and thus, the test would be worthless as evidence.

Now on the other hand, if the lab didn't know whose sample was being tested, but the anti-doping agency leaked the results, then that in itself doesn't invalidate the test results.


And since he is so obviously guilty now it is they only straw that they have left to grasp at, that he deserves to get off because the lab didn't follow protocol.No, not at all. He doesn't deserve to get off "even though he's guilty" just because protocol wasn't followed.

The failure to follow protocol indicates problems with the testing and/or adjudication, and *if* those problems resulted in a positive test result or *if* those problems led to an unfair adjudication, that would be grounds for finding him not in violation.

Even if he is properly found to be in violation, the parties breaching the WADA Rules should be sanctioned appropriately.

Even if he is properly found to be in violation, the parties breaching the WADA Rules should be sanctioned appropriately.

So we are saying that we don't know if it was the French lab or the UCI that leaked the information? I thought it was the lab? You make an important point about the anonymity of the testing being of paramount importance and I am totally with you on that. It is essential that the tests be blind tests.

Interesting analogy.

While I agree with both your interpretation of early Church history as well as of Augustine of Hippo I'm not sure I agree with applying Augustine's logic to the legal machinations surrounding anti-doping measures. The reasoning of God's mercy as interpreted by men may not apply to the secular quasi-legal institution that is the WADA.

Augustine wrote of the actions that some scared men took when faced with a painful and public execution. Floyd may well have acted out of fear prior to Stage 17 but his fate (at least in regards to earthly matters such as retaining his title) will be settled by a secular agency.

As a history teacher I really do like your analogy though!

From my first post on this issue I've acknowledged that the presence of leaks in the lab do not ipso facto invalidate the lab's technical results. However, breaking procedure in one area is grounds for concern about protocol in other areas. If I were in Landis' position, I'd be all over that. Innocent or guilty he can't afford to pass up that line of defense. The problem is that there is no real way, that I know of, to double check the lab. Though this is not a true legal system, the stakes are high. Floyd will lose, one would think, hundreds of thousands of dollars in actual and potential income if he becomes the first rider to be stripped of a Tour title. Many others have or will lose substantial incomes as well. With these kinds of stakes I'd be much more comfortable if the process was scrupously followed. As Augustine would readily agree, perfection is beyond our grasp, but the various agencies could have come much closer.

It'd help if a bombastic blowhard wasn't in charge of the WADA as well.

Thanks so much for the kudos. I realize the analogy is somewhat imperfect, but I thought it illustrative nonetheless.

And yes, I agree the agencies accountable for the process could have done better, I just realize that humans would naturally struggle with this kind of thing. I agree there is a distinction between someone faced with martyrdom and someone who just has big news, but the same basic human failing comes into play somehow.

And yes, Landis has to make this point because it is one of his only lines of defense. Not having a scientific grasp of the test I currently know of no other way for him to make a stand.

Furthermore I agree that since there is no way to double check the lab, it might be good if the test was done on the B sample in another lab, or else they need to fix the problem with the integrity of the testing by following the rules to the letter.

I would actally characterize Mr. Pound as a zealot in the traditional sense of someone walking around with a knife and a list, prepared to kill and destroy to accomplish his objective, no matter the collateral damage. On one hand I admire this but I think it is quite evident that he often goes too far.

Wow...when did Jones ride in the TdF??

Wow...when did Jones ride in the TdF??

Same year that I did. NEVER. :p :D

EPO for a sprinter? :rolleyes:

Makes you wonder whether somethings wrong with the labs, or if someone got her dope mixed up, or if she had the same massage therapist as Gatlin.

According to the article in USA Today, EPO allows sprinters to work out longer and harder. So it doesn't directly allow you to run 100 meters faster; it does allow you to have longer, harder workouts.


And Vincent Conti of Balco fame has stated that Jones was using steroids, EPO, and HGH, before during and after the 2000 Olympics.

How many of you think Jones is probably guilty? How many think Landis is probably guilty. My bet, vast majority of people on here think ok another sprinter positive for dope, what's new. Yet a substantial percentage of people here can't allow themselves to believe it's highly likely that Landis doped. Huge disconnect in rational thought.

I used to think that once $$ entered the picture, everyone would look for an edge. but actually It happens all the time without the money. Kids take steroids in highschool to play football and to try and get laid. Women gobble diet pills like there is no tommorow, thinking they are some magic bullet to happiness etc..Parents try to bribe the little league coach to give their kid more playing time.

once a fat paycheck and fame/glory enters the equation, clean sport is a myth.

So we are saying that we don't know if it was the French lab or the UCI that leaked the information? I thought it was the lab? You make an important point about the anonymity of the testing being of paramount importance and I am totally with you on that. It is essential that the tests be blind tests.With Jones, we don't know who leaked the info.

With Landis, we know it was the UCI. Although technically Landis wasn't named, McQuaid said "It's the worst case scenario" which can only mean it's the winner of the TdF, i.e., Landis. Nudge nudge, wink wink, eh McQuaid?

There is strong suspicion that the French lab has leaked information to L'equipe in years past, and although they did not leak the Landis test results, McQuaid did justify UCI's leak on the grounds that LNDD would have leaked the results if UCI hadn't.

Well Merlin I'll bite,

Jones is entering a process that Landis is further along but neither has seen that process through to either conviction or exoneration though both, apparently, have seen confidential information released inappropriately.

Wouldn't surprise me if both end up being sanctioned.

As far as all the background noise goes; both come from sports that have bad reps when it comes to doping.

Sorry I didn't fit your preconceived notions....

Well Merlin I'll bite,


Sorry I didn't fit your preconceived notions....

Didn't mean to imply that everyone was inconsistent. But there are definitely a number of people around here that wouldn't doubt for a minute Gatlin, and Jones doped, but will argue for 27 pages of thread that Landis can't possibly be guilty.

Jones has had other implications than just this failed test, she has a problem of "guilt by association" more than most athletes and suffers for that while Gatlin is an egotistical athlete that is too easy to dislike.

As for defending Landis, Jones, or Gatlin: many people "defending" any of them are really defending the ideal of withholding judgment until all the facts are known. Some people will, and have, argued that Landis can't possibly be guilty and those people are just is wrong as those stating that he is guilty- because they can't possibly know.

You want to talk guilt by association then we can hang Floyd and nine or ten other Phonak pros.

Landis has nothing on Jones but convicting either through their respective associations is just wrong.

While we're at GBA would could talk a lot about people connected to Dr. Ferrari etc...you have to nail the person, it is true you can't for sure say GBA.

Why don't we leave GBA out of this, we are all guilty of something by that standard. It is a ridiculous but common standard that I would hope we could rise above.

Why don't we leave GBA out of this, we are all guilty of something by that standard. .
heck we've all be seen in a public forum with some very unsavory charachters

I used to think that once $$ entered the picture, everyone would look for an edge. but actually It happens all the time without the money. Kids take steroids in highschool to play football and to try and get laid. Women gobble diet pills like there is no tommorow, thinking they are some magic bullet to happiness etc..Parents try to bribe the little league coach to give their kid more playing time.

I used to, before a motorcycle accident changed both my perspective and body, competitively weight lift.

Talk about people with no perspective.

I've seen people juice to win neighborhood bench press competitions where the entry fees were donated to charities.

Since most "drug free" meets can't afford testing they rely on polygraphs. I've heard at least dozen ways to keep those needles from bouncing around.

The best? I know for a fact that entrants juiced to compete in the weight lifting competition of the Law Enforcement Olympics.

I've heard of much else but the above I know through actual observation.

Justin Gatlin agreed to an 8 year ban in return for his coorperation. This could be very interesting. American T&F could take some more big hits soon. Of course, we all know the defense of everyone he's going to implicate. "Gatlin's got no credibility. He just fingered me so he wouldn't get a lifetime ban."

Sounds like a good defense.

So Jones is now cleared. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14559419/

According to the article in USA Today, EPO allows sprinters to work out longer and harder. So it doesn't directly allow you to run 100 meters faster; it does allow you to have longer, harder workouts.


And Vincent Conti of Balco fame has stated that Jones was using steroids, EPO, and HGH, before during and after the 2000 Olympics.

Get real, how long does it take a sprinter to recover your oxygen deficit from a 10-20 second sprint?
Other weak links such as the muscle fibers themselves would be strained stretched and torn and their repair would limit the amount of training that would be effective. Any sprinter using EPO for extra training is deluding themselves into poorer performance.

EPO is effective in endurance sports wherein oxygen carrying capacity limits performance, not sprints.

But, the lab tech did what he set out to do. By "leaking" the "A" result to the press before Marion was able to get a "B" test conducted, her reputation has been trashed. She was "uninvitated" to some major events, and her ability to get endorsement contracts is zero.

It is ridiculous that the efforts to control doping by athletes is being tainted by the unethical and even criminal conduct of the so-called "professionals" employed at the WADA-approved labs. The fact that the head of WADA is himself a lying thug with the morals of a $5 hooker may explain why labs are able to leak the results of "A" tests, yet continue to as "WADA certified" labs.

Get real, how long does it take a sprinter to recover your oxygen deficit from a 10-20 second sprint?
Other weak links such as the muscle fibers themselves would be strained stretched and torn and their repair would limit the amount of training that would be effective. Any sprinter using EPO for extra training is deluding themselves into poorer performance.

That's a good point. It's interesting to look at the biochemical pathways that various supplements affect. Creatine shouldn't provide any benefit unless you are routinely working out to *total* exhaustion, and I doubt a fraction of the people hoovering it up at GNC are doing that; even all the baseball designated hitters, no matter how much time they spend on the exer-cycle between at-bats. But the placebo effect is probably important. Maybe good trainers should be teaming up w/ sports psychologists and injecting saline to all their stars w/ careful advice about how to mask it and optimize your training from it...

The fact that the head of WADA is himself a lying thug with the morals of a $5 hooker may explain why labs are able to leak the results of "A" tests, yet continue to as "WADA certified" labs.

Excuse me, but $5 hookers everywhere will take offense by being lumped in with this duffus and his antics.

That's a good point. It's interesting to look at the biochemical pathways that various supplements affect. Creatine shouldn't provide any benefit unless you are routinely working out to *total* exhaustion, and I doubt a fraction of the people hoovering it up at GNC are doing that; even all the baseball designated hitters, no matter how much time they spend on the exer-cycle between at-bats. But the placebo effect is probably important. Maybe good trainers should be teaming up w/ sports psychologists and injecting saline to all their stars w/ careful advice about how to mask it and optimize your training from it...

I have used creatine and spoken to others who used it while lifting weights. Its results are nothing short of remarkable even just for the below-average Joe. As far as its impact on cycling, I don't think it is as noticeable. The research I have read is that especially for older riders, a small amount of creatine (like 1 g/day) has been shown to help.

The results of it in weightlifting are not placebo-effect. There's no way a placebo could generate those kind of results.

The "B" test came back negative.

This from an article about the 'B' sample coming back negative:



Long a target of governing bodies in track and the Olympic movement, Jones always vehemently denied ever taking performance-enhancing drugs. But she tested positive for EPO on June 23, after winning the 100 meters at U.S. nationals for her first sprint title since 2002.

She withdrew from the 200 meters the next day and was slated to race at a meet in Switzerland in August, but withdrew unexpectedly. Hours later, reports of her positive "A" test for EPO were revealed.



Notice the timing. She withdrew twice without explaination. As I understand this is required. No fault of her's. But for any beat reporter following track this is a huge red flag, something is going on! They are all going to investigate and keep investigating until they find something. No matter what they find it is news.

This has been the pattern for the cycling drug tests as well.

So why blame the lab? It is the procedure that is flawed. If you require athletes to act in a manner that will attract investigation it insures the news will be found.

Her withdrawals could have other causes and so news outlets would refrain from speculating (else get sued), however, reporting a leaker removes the outlet's culpability.

The basic problem with the leakers in this case is that they undermine the anti-doping system while harming the athletes. This is most obvious in the Jones case where her B sample came back clean. The credibility of the anti-doping lab is tarnished as many will wonder how the lab screwed up, the credibility of the organization is lessened (coupled with the other leaks) by the incomplete accusation, the earning power of the individual is hurt now that the permanent accusation of doping (ok, she already had this to a lesser degree). All of this could have been avoided had the leak not occurred, the lab would not have proverbial egg on it face and Jones would not even really been accused. The procedures are in place and everyone involved should adhere to them.

The only things that benefited from the premature leak were the leaker's ego and the viewership/readership of the news outlets.

What is the likelihood that the B sample results are a false negative?

Does it matter if the B sample results clear her erroneously?

Her withdrawals could have other causes and so news outlets would refrain from speculating (else get sued), however, reporting a leaker removes the outlet's culpability.

The basic problem with the leakers in this case is that they undermine the anti-doping system while harming the athletes. This is most obvious in the Jones case where her B sample came back clean. The credibility of the anti-doping lab is tarnished as many will wonder how the lab screwed up, the credibility of the organization is lessened (coupled with the other leaks) by the incomplete accusation, the earning power of the individual is hurt now that the permanent accusation of doping (ok, she already had this to a lesser degree). All of this could have been avoided had the leak not occurred, the lab would not have proverbial egg on it face and Jones would not even really been accused. The procedures are in place and everyone involved should adhere to them.

The only things that benefited from the premature leak were the leaker's ego and the viewership/readership of the news outlets.

The EPO test takes 3 days min. She wouldn't have received the results that quick. Besides, she competed in other events later in the summer.