WADA To Review Yuliya Efimova Case & Asks Lab Experts To Look Into Salt Lake ‘Error’

Yuliya Efimova  at the London 2012 Olympic Games before her troubles began - will she be in Rio? - by Patrick B. Kraemer
Yuliya Efimova at the London 2012 Olympic Games before her troubles began - will she be in Rio? - by Patrick B. Kraemer

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has placed a negative test turned positive in the Yuliya Efimova meldonium case under review and asked its Laboratory Expert Group to look into an ‘error’ made at the Salt Lake City laboratory

All SwimVortex articles are placed in our archive after five days, the library of content available to subscribers.
Log In Register

Comments

pegasus523

so … another piece of evidence pointing to “guilty” of doping turns up and the verdict should be “not guilty”? What am I missing?

Craig Lord

Not much this side of what we know: I think that’s the outcome some would certainly like, Pegasus

pegasus523

The Russian playbook relies heavily on deceit, PR, and attacking the integrity of anyone who can prove guilt. The appropriate challenge is to Efimova, not the lab. And “one cannot trust any results obtained” by the former.

Craig Lord

Yes, sweeping suggestions that you can’t trust from someone who many don’t trust are to be taken with a pinch of Salt, Lake City not in need of a wholesale inquiry Sochi-Moscow style, it seems to me. Legitimate, of course, to seek explanation as to how a test result went from negative to positive.

aswimfan

According to this:
http://www.allsportinfo.ru/index.php?id=104259

(if you use Chrome web browser, just click on translate).

Efimova’s samples which were analyzed in Montreal and Los Angeles labs yielded positive results.

Even if Salt Lake City’s result is voided, her other samples still yielded positive results, by TWO accredited labs, no less.

anna prostyakova@yandex.ru

It sounds strange, but all her positive doping samples prove the fact that Meldonium can be detected in the body for a very long period of time! USADA takes care Efimova and take doping samples almost every 10 days…

Craig Lord

That assumes, Anna, we know when the swimmer consumed the substance. Research would, of course, need to know that for sure, not on say so, regardless if any athlete is telling the truth or not. It’ll be interesting to see if every one of those 10-day tests result in a positive…

stabilo

I am sorry to ask but can someone explain because I do not understand.

(If her argument is that a test’s outcome was later changed, and therefore you can’t trust any test they ever did, then I understand. And disagree)

But from the other article it says FINA’s suspension was because ”… one of the samples (taken March 2, 2016 and analyzed in the laboratory in Salt Lake City) was negative and did not contain banned substances after 1 March 2016 ….” .
and “that a negative test following a positive test indicates that the banned substance in question was consumed after January 1,2016”

I don’t see how this makes sense? If the January test was indeed negative (and then March was positive) – ok; but why March 1st positive but March 2nd negative means she took something after January?

Much appreciated if someone can clarify.

Craig Lord

Not sure I can see that reference, stabilo. The wording I do see is “The negative after the positive sample caused FINA to impose a temporary suspension on Efimova, she claims, forcing her out of Olympic trials at Russian championships in May.” It is her claim, to which I have added: The logic of the argument is unclear.

Barnabas Mandi

Craig,
There’s an A sample and a B sample.
Negative means: 2 negative tests.
Positive means both A and B are positive or
A sample is positive but B is not or
vice versa.
There isn’t false positive in the case of these types of drugs only false negative.
What’s the question?
On the other hand not only two samples exist from the same time but a series of dual samples. In this case the question is definitely not only about yes or no but the quantity related to units increases, stagnates or decreases.
Of course experts (pharmacologists) can produce fogging effect on the runoff, but the type of dynamics remains the same.
Don’t forget, the meldonium as a vasodilatator was developed at a Latvian Institute in 1970. So in USSR. They know something about it.

Craig Lord

Thanks Barnabas. I’m sure they do know something about it. The ‘false’ pos, ‘false’ neg is the swimmer’s language in her statement. I see what you mean on “units increases, stagnates or decreases”. Meanwhile, there may be an aspect of this case that is yet to make the light.

Barnabas Mandi

You can be sure, that I know that they must know and they do know. This is the worst.
With all of my respects, the term “false something” is definitely not the swimmer’s language. It’s a term of experts. Chemists, pharmacologists, lab meds, etc. It’s an existing reality.
In this case there isn’t any possibility for false pos. That’s the cause they use “false neg.”
In the case of chemicals, drugs, alcohol, etc. there is no false pos. No way.
False pos it’s another topic. If you like to know much more about it I’ll answer.
(with the use of very little characters, because not necessarily belongs to here, I’m a MD, this is the cause I can’t promptly make difference between Latin latin ” vasodilatator” and English latin vasodilater.
The near future for clean sports? I don’t see too much light 🙁

Leave a comment

Post a comment with your SwimVortex Account. Don't have a SwimVortex Account, Sign Up?

(*) Fields are required!
×