- Yes, he has to cover his own legal costs . - Yes he had to pay for one of the independent tests and the other was free of charge (both clearly documented in the embedded documents in the original article posted on this thread). If not I believe we have shared them with Letsrun to publish.
- He never failed a blood test (blood passport was negative, urine was what had the ‘positive’ A sample). Both blood and urine were taken at the same time. Not to be rude, but if you are not across what he failed, then you have taken the time to read the article.
- Independent lads review the tests performed by the Australian labs, athletes don’t get access to their urine or blood. Also worth noting that athletes in Australia have to pay to get a copy of the lab pack ($1250 per test). It’s free for athletes in the US for example.
- Independent lads review the tests performed by the Australian labs, athletes don’t get access to their urine or blood. Also worth noting that athletes in Australia have to pay to get a copy of the lab pack ($1250 per test). It’s free for athletes in the US for example.
Ah yes, that makes more sense. So no "independent testing", in fact no testing at all, but a paid review of the old test results.
That may be in the article quoted by the OP, but they want me to subscribe and I have more than enough subscriptions, thanks.
However, another WADA-accredited laboratory is not independent; the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab (discussed in a recent publication from our group).
This un-reviewed statement from the retired Boye is actually not correct. There are of course no such rules.
Don't believe it? Read the rules; I cannot prove that that is not in there.
- Yes, he has to cover his own legal costs . - Yes he had to pay for one of the independent tests and the other was free of charge (both clearly documented in the embedded documents in the original article posted on this thread). If not I believe we have shared them with Letsrun to publish.
- He never failed a blood test (blood passport was negative, urine was what had the ‘positive’ A sample). Both blood and urine were taken at the same time. Not to be rude, but if you are not across what he failed, then you have taken the time to read the article.
- Independent lads review the tests performed by the Australian labs, athletes don’t get access to their urine or blood. Also worth noting that athletes in Australia have to pay to get a copy of the lab pack ($1250 per test). It’s free for athletes in the US for example.
In defence of us who didn't read the article in the OP, it is behind a paywall.
I'm thinking, that actually, we will know fairly soon. Either he will be able to run the same times he has been running recently or he will regress, and that will be our answer. I kind of doubt that if he was micro-dosing EPO that he will continue.
It's a co-incidence, or extraordinary bad luck, that the two most prominant James Templeton athletes - Bernard Lagat and Peter Bol - have both suffered such 'catastrophic blunders' in completely unrelated labs seperated by two decades.
Lacking the character to admit you were wrong AND functionally illiterate in your native language. Coincidence? I think not.
Two independent laboratories have cleared Australian runner Peter Bol of ever using the banned substance EPO in a development his US-based lawyer Paul Greene has described as a “catastrophic blunder” from Sports Integrity Australia.
Bol’s legal team last week sent a letter to the sports integrity body, demanding an end to the investigation.
The letter includes claims the expert analysis of the 800-metre runner’s urine sample from October last year “never showed the presence of any synthetic EPO” and that “inexperience and incompetence at the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory (ASDTL) led to an incorrect determination” of his positive A-sample.
In a lengthy interview with The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age at his home in Melbourne, Bol said the tests confirmed what he knew all along.
“That I’m innocent,” he said. “I wasn’t guilty, waiting for a miracle – I was innocent and waiting for it to be proved. I knew it would come. The people who analysed it had no idea who I was, and it shows in detail how [ASDTL] messed up. I want them to acknowledge that. I don’t want to fight, but I don’t want to go quietly either. We want to improve the whole sport. You can’t have innocent athletes getting done for something they’ve never used.”
Bol became a household name at the Tokyo Olympics in 2021 after breaking two national records in qualifying to reach the men’s 800m final, in which he finished fourth.
The scenes back at home were wild as Peter Bol contested the men's 800m final at the 2021 Tokyo Olympics.
The reigning Australian champion and record-holder was suspended in January after his A-sample indicated high levels of EPO. The result was leaked to the media and later confirmed in an Athletics Australia statement days before he was expected to be named Young Australian of the Year.
Bol was allowed to return to the track a month later after the B-sample tested by the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) returned an atypical result, which means it was neither negative nor positive.
Erythropoietin – better known as EPO – is a naturally occurring hormone produced by the kidneys but, in synthetic form (referred to as rEPO), can turbocharge performance and aid recovery by increasing an athlete’s red-blood-cell count.
Greene said the independent testing cast Bol’s innocence in a new light.
“Sport Integrity Australia has an affirmative duty to publicly acknowledge the catastrophic blunders that have been made in Mr Bol’s case and immediately exonerate him since the rules mandate that anti-doping authorities like Sport Integrity Australia be held to the same strict standards as athletes,” Greene wrote.
SIA and the ASDTL had no comment when contacted on Tuesday afternoon.
There is an ongoing debate about the best method to test for EPO.
The SARS-Page gel test, used by the drug testing laboratory to determine Bol’s A-sample result, measures EPO levels across five bands. Isoelectric focusing (IEF) was used by WADA to determine the atypical finding in his B-sample. The ASDTL is an independent laboratory used by Sports Integrity Australia for its investigations.
As reported by the Herald and The Age last month, Norwegian professors Jon Nissen-Meyer, Tore Skotland, Erik Boye and Bjarne Osterud have been long-term critics of EPO testing by some WADA-sanctioned laboratories because they are too reliant on the subjective interpretation of results.
Those four professors concluded Bol’s tests indicated “a large amount of natural EPO in his sample”.
A second analysis, from Dr David Chen at the University of British Columbia, was more damning of SIA’s findings. “The numbers showed absolutely no evidence for the presence of any rEPO in the two samples tested,” Chen said in his report. “Only naturally occurring endogenous erythropoietin was observed.”
Chen said Bol’s A-sample was incorrectly found to be positive after misreading the SARS-Page method. After examining Bol’s urine sample, he concluded that the IEF-Page test would have found a negative result.
‘I want SIA to see this as an opportunity to improve. Not to see it as me trying to fight them.’
“I found that all the data as presented in the two reports showed negative results for recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO),” he wrote. “The gel images are distorted, making some of the protein spots appear to have larger molecular weights than the identical protein standards run on a separate lane.”
Chen was engaged as an independent expert by Elite Medical Experts, which conducted the analysis of Bol’s samples for Greene’s firm Global Sports Advocates, although Chen did not know the identity of the athlete. Greene said the Norwegian professors did not accept any remuneration for their services.
Despite having his ban lifted in February, Bol will not compete at the Australian Track and Field Championships in Brisbane, starting on Monday. He is likely to return at a Diamond League meet in Morocco in May.
He said he does not intend to sue SIA for damages, even though his legal costs are more than $50,000.
“But I want SIA to see this as an opportunity to improve,” he said. “Not to see it as me trying to fight them. We’ve been transparent the whole time. They should be the same. What my family has gone through should never happen, but it did happen, and we want people to be held accountable … We’re not here to say we’re angry. We want to understand why people did it. That is the least they can do.”
NYT mentioned the same issue with some analysts potentially misinterpreting the SARS-Page gel test results.
Thank you, very informative.
Greene clearly knows how to pick which experts for which scenario:
As reported by the Herald and The Age last month, Norwegian professors Jon Nissen-Meyer, Tore Skotland, Erik Boye and Bjarne Osterud have been long-term critics of EPO testing by some WADA-sanctioned laboratories because they are too reliant on the subjective interpretation of results.
But why Chen from UBC? He is a mass spec/sugar guy...
However, another WADA-accredited laboratory is not independent; the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab (discussed in a recent publication from our group).
This un-reviewed statement from the retired Boye is actually not correct. There are of course no such rules.
Don't believe it? Read the rules; I cannot prove that that is not in there.
Then you can hardly claim "This un-reviewed statement from the retired Boye is actually not correct. There are of course no such rules."
Pretty bizarre how someone who never took epo can test positive for it, eh? But logically i'd think he probably had trace amounts of it which disappeared in re-testing, which would explain what happened.
There's so many of these elites on the sauce and they all know how difficult it is to actually get unlucky to test positive for it. If someone is diligent and careful with regards to their doping regimen, there's no way they should not be beating this faulty testing system that gives advanced notice, given that the drug traces can disappear quickly or be deliberately made to disappear quickly with masking agents.
It's a co-incidence, or extraordinary bad luck, that the two most prominant James Templeton athletes - Bernard Lagat and Peter Bol - have both suffered such 'catastrophic blunders' in completely unrelated labs seperated by two decades.
Lacking the character to admit you were wrong AND functionally illiterate in your native language. Coincidence? I think not.
Pretty bizarre how someone who never took epo can test positive for it, eh? But logically i'd think he probably had trace amounts of it which disappeared in re-testing, which would explain what happened.
There's so many of these elites on the sauce and they all know how difficult it is to actually get unlucky to test positive for it. If someone is diligent and careful with regards to their doping regimen, there's no way they should not be beating this faulty testing system that gives advanced notice, given that the drug traces can disappear quickly or be deliberately made to disappear quickly with masking agents.
You’ve not read the thread have you?
his coach has explained that the ‘retest’ is not a retest at all.
It’s a secondary (and tertiary) analysis of the original tests.
It's a co-incidence, or extraordinary bad luck, that the two most prominant James Templeton athletes - Bernard Lagat and Peter Bol - have both suffered such 'catastrophic blunders' in completely unrelated labs seperated by two decades.
This is a show put together in order to keep the current status quo - meaning letting Africans and other third world athletes cheat as much as possible. It's all political, and part of a broader attack on the West in general. Look at how 'they' spring into action when one of their precious tools is accused/caught. It's laughable.
Pretty bizarre how someone who never took epo can test positive for it, eh? But logically i'd think he probably had trace amounts of it which disappeared in re-testing, which would explain what happened.
How do you think these tests work? You make it sound as if there is just a printout of what compounds were found or something farcical.
NYT mentioned the same issue with some analysts potentially misinterpreting the SARS-Page gel test results.
Thank you, very informative.
Greene clearly knows how to pick which experts for which scenario:
As reported by the Herald and The Age last month, Norwegian professors Jon Nissen-Meyer, Tore Skotland, Erik Boye and Bjarne Osterud have been long-term critics of EPO testing by some WADA-sanctioned laboratories because they are too reliant on the subjective interpretation of results.
But why Chen from UBC? He is a mass spec/sugar guy...
He's got a ton of publications and experience in capillary electrophoresis and separation technologies, which is relevant here. Also, being a "sugar guy" would be helpful in this case, given the nature of EPO and rEPO because they differ in their sugar profiles.
Nice. You of course have no evidence for it to be in the rules.
Would you expect my to provide evidence for one of the claims from Prof. Erik Boye?
However, I would expect you to provide evidence for your claim.
But just the same, I completely took your advice, because I didn't believe your un-reviewed claim provided with no evidence, and I read the WADA rules covering the labs. He's right and you are not. Thanks for the tip.
