Now watch how crappy of a year Bol will have now that he knows he will be under scrutiny and will have to be off the juice. I bet he doesn’t break 1:45.
-
962
-
Barry Badrinath wrote:
Now watch how crappy of a year Bol will have now that he knows he will be under scrutiny and will have to be off the juice. I bet he doesn’t break 1:45.
Well I am sure he will be trying to run his best after this. WC year 2023, and OG year 2024.
43 -
Anyone know how common negative B samples are? Because I was under the impression it's very rare.
50 -
Letsrun goes home DEVASTATED!
434 -
I suspect some type of foul play here. Clearly someone trying to get him banned. Someone in his own country. Start with whoever's expressed bitterness at two South Sudanese immigrants keeping them from the Australian team.
1338 -
Wise Old Man wrote:
briguy wrote:
I’m an MD and deal with diagnostic testing all of the time. This outcome is not surprising. Data presented on the prior main thread on this topic documented that the specificity of the A sample test alone (negative in non dopers) and therefore the positive predictive value (that a positive A sample is a predictor of true doping) is low enough for the epo assay that NOBODY should assume an athlete is a doper based on the A sample result alone.
A Kafkaesque Nightmare for sure.
Remember the A sample doesn't count anyway. It only serves to streamline the entire process. Otherwise every testing would have to afford due process, which would be a logistical and financial nightmare for all parties involved.
131 -
#27
This post was removed.
-
malmo wrote:
A Kafkaesque Nightmare for sure.
Remember the A sample doesn't count anyway. It only serves to streamline the entire process. Otherwise every testing would have to afford due process, which would be a logistical and financial nightmare for all parties involved.
Yes. I’m sure we’ll learn more about the B sample but from what had been disclosed about the A sample it was not a slam dunk testing positive, 1 band out of 5 or whatever. I still thought it would likely be confirmed, but now that it wasn’t his name is cleared in my book.
150 -
El Keniano wrote:
I suspect some type of foul play here. Clearly someone trying to get him banned. Someone in his own country. Start with whoever's expressed bitterness at two South Sudanese immigrants keeping them from the Australian team.
Uh no. The testers don't know whose samples they're testing. The samples have a blind log number that is only matched after a positive test. The athlete, or rep, gets to witness the matching of the identifying numbers with the samples. AND, observe the testing of the B sample. Theres no way for foul play to occur.
360 -
Jack Parker wrote:
Can someone explain why the A sample gets announced before the B sample is tested? This should all be handled quietly until the B sample comes back, and then release the information. Now some people are going to forever associate Bol with EPO, despite the false positive.
Also this false positive should be hugely concerning to any pro runner. Can someone with knowledge of the testing process tell us how common this is?
Im now realizing this was leaked, not announced. Makes it even worse. Anti-doping agencies need to tighten this up, under no circumstances should an A sample ever be seen by the public before verified by the B sample. Truly embarassing and definitely erodes a little faith in the testing process
421 -
Barry Badrinath wrote:
Now watch how crappy of a year Bol will have now that he knows he will be under scrutiny and will have to be off the juice. I bet he doesn’t break 1:45.
He hasn't been able to train (unlike burrito girl and her club who ignored the rules) so of course he's gonna be slower this year.
His suspension — from a urine sample taken last October — was backdated to January 10 — meaning he could not train or compete at any level.164 -
#32
This post was removed.
-
Jack Parker. wrote:
Im now realizing this was leaked, not announced. Makes it even worse. Anti-doping agencies need to tighten this up, under no circumstances should an A sample ever be seen by the public before verified by the B sample. Truly embarassing and definitely erodes a little faith in the testing process
I dont think the doping agency leaked. If they did then they've violated their own rules and should be disbanded for it.
I'm surprised at how few people understand how the process works. Have any of you ever had to take drug test for employment or professional licensing before? Or, God forbid, in the criminal justice system? The testing and chain of custody process is the same. Theres no possible way for ne'er do wells to sabotage someone's sample.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted. Reason provided: More information91 -
Well Peter is accusing the news of having leaked in his statement, Malmo. He doesn’t point fingers and yes I’d agree it’s unlikely it was anti-doping officials. Someone in Athletics Australia or with some relationship there? Possibly.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.110 -
+1 It's horrible for an athlete to have to go through this. And there will always be a dark cloud over their performances from here on. Impressive that Bernard Lagat went through this and was able to have a great career after that. I'd be done!
201 -
dullard wrote:
Barry Badrinath wrote:
Now watch how crappy of a year Bol will have now that he knows he will be under scrutiny and will have to be off the juice. I bet he doesn’t break 1:45.
He hasn't been able to train (unlike burrito girl and her club who ignored the rules) so of course he's gonna be slower this year.
His suspension — from a urine sample taken last October — was backdated to January 10 — meaning he could not train or compete at any level.WTF, "hasn't been able to train", of course he can friggin' train, do you think there's some kind of law here in Australia that stops someone from running.
361 -
This is why there should always be three samples and all three get tested. Simple best of three is the result. I wonder how many A samples that are negative would have B samples that are positive? We'll never know, of course, because once the A is negative the B gets destroyed. Take an A, B, and C and if you fail two you are banned.
33 -
Some people need to be sued. If there was even a remote possibility of the B Sample coming back negative, then the A Sample result should not have been released to the public. This has still tarnished Bol's reputation - and he should be compensated for that.
Secondly, how is it possible that a test gets a false reading for synthetic EPO? There are hundreds of different substances an athlete could take that provide an illegal performance benefit, so why is it that the test gets a false negative for the most notorious - and most performance enhancing - one?
63 -
that is an interesting point about the possibility that an A sample may be clean and a B sample not.
This post was edited 40 seconds after it was posted.30 -
Adoi wrote:
Some people need to be sued. If there was even a remote possibility of the B Sample coming back negative, then the A Sample result should not have been released to the public. This has still tarnished Bol's reputation - and he should be compensated for that.
Secondly, how is it possible that a test gets a false reading for synthetic EPO? There are hundreds of different substances an athlete could take that provide an illegal performance benefit, so why is it that the test gets a false negative for the most notorious - and most performance enhancing - one?
Yes, I dont think much of the test after this episode. hopefully EPO tests will improve.
20
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.