I'm on the fence as to whether he doped or not. Going back to the his performance and progression, Bol improved his time by .5s for the 800m in 5 years. Pretty poor return if he was doping. You would have thought after doping for 6months+ and seeing virtually no difference in performance he would have knocked it on the head. Compared that to Lagat who dropped 15s off his 1500m time in 3 years. And looking at cyclists, their FTP has been recorded to improve by as much as 45-50% after a period of EPO doping.
-
51
-
zed wrote:
I'm on the fence as to whether he doped or not. Going back to the his performance and progression, Bol improved his time by .5s for the 800m in 5 years. Pretty poor return if he was doping. You would have thought after doping for 6months+ and seeing virtually no difference in performance he would have knocked it on the head. Compared that to Lagat who dropped 15s off his 1500m time in 3 years. And looking at cyclists, their FTP has been recorded to improve by as much as 45-50% after a period of EPO doping.
His 2 best times were 1.44.56 and 1.44.96 prior to 2021. He was only a fringe international until then
In 2021 he ran a bunch of 1.44s (best 1.44.00) and became a serious medal threat. His 2021 form suggested to me in the right circumstances he could run mid 1.43s. I reckon he actually improved 1% .
52 -
Is there a natural EPO? Curious why he worded it; "synthetic EPO". Perhaps he takes some kind of natural substance & this is why he has abnormally high levels of EPO in his system?
06 -
jda9ball wrote:
Is there a natural EPO? Curious why he worded it; "synthetic EPO". Perhaps he takes some kind of natural substance & this is why he has abnormally high levels of EPO in his system?
Seriously? Your body naturally produces EPO.
20 -
lawyers will be lawyers wrote:
Wasn't it a group of Australian scientists who published a paper that one could use 20 - 40 IU/kg EPO without getting noticed by the ABP software?
Now there's a textbook loaded question.
Dunno. Was it a group of Australian scientists who did that?
We've been living in the age of hypertext for almost 30 years now. So how about giving us a link or two to back up your claim.21 -
jda9ball wrote:
Is there a natural EPO?
Ugh. Google "erythropoietin."
11 -
TheRealTaro wrote:
lawyers will be lawyers wrote:
Wasn't it a group of Australian scientists who published a paper that one could use 20 - 40 IU/kg EPO without getting noticed by the ABP software?
Now there's a textbook loaded question.
Dunno. Was it a group of Australian scientists who did that?
We've been living in the age of hypertext for almost 30 years now. So how about giving us a link or two to back up your claim.
You crack me up. I thought you were informed about the ABP? This 2011 study has been linked here several times. Quick google, and here you go:
"Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO dopingOur treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO."
Details in the pdf. You are welcome.
40 -
lawyers will be lawyers wrote:
TheRealTaro wrote:
Now there's a textbook loaded question.
Dunno. Was it a group of Australian scientists who did that?
We've been living in the age of hypertext for almost 30 years now. So how about giving us a link or two to back up your claim.
You crack me up. I thought you were informed about the ABP? This 2011 study has been linked here several times. Quick google, and here you go:
"Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO dopingOur treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO."
Details in the pdf. You are welcome.
Now you're catching on. Make a claim, support it with evidence. You can't seriously expected anyone read the entirety of a thread that's several hundred posts long.
But that abstract says nothing about the specific dose range you mentioned (20 - 40 IU/kg EPO). It may be in the full-text article (presumably that's the .pdf you referred to), but I doubt you paid the $49.95 needed to access it.
Regardless, do you have any evidence that Bol took rhEPO in doses in that range?22 -
Chris lewis wrote:
"The relevant rules require a WADA-accredited
laboratory to obtain a second opinion from an expert on the WADA EPO Working
Group before any AAF or ATF for Erythropoietin Receptor Agonists (such as
recombinant EPO) can be reported. An ATF is not the same as a negative test
result.So Chris are you saying that second opinion has been obtained and confirmed the ATF, or that now there is an ATF, they get the second opinion?
20 -
Karma Police wrote:
Chris lewis wrote:
"The relevant rules require a WADA-accredited
laboratory to obtain a second opinion from an expert on the WADA EPO Working
Group before any AAF or ATF for Erythropoietin Receptor Agonists (such as
recombinant EPO) can be reported. An ATF is not the same as a negative test
result.So Chris are you saying that second opinion has been obtained and confirmed the ATF, or that now there is an ATF, they get the second opinion?
No, Sports integrity Australia now will have WADA expert examine sample and then it will decide whether to sanction Bol or clear him
20 -
trollism wrote:
TheRealTaro wrote:
You obviously know nothing about Lagat's case.
Not really even talking about his case, talking about his career.
He competed in a pretty rampant doping era for a rampant doping country, and was the fastest of all of them. Coupled with the failed test, it only points to one thing.
Are you referring to Bolt (apart from the failed test)?
01 -
TheRealTaro wrote:
Now you're catching on. Make a claim, support it with evidence. You can't seriously expected anyone read the entirety of a thread that's several hundred posts long.
LOL. You are the one who just scolded someone else for not using google. Seriously. Why are you so aggressive?
30 -
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
Yeah dude I understand that. I'm talking about this specific test - two samples, both not profiles not considered in line with clean athlete urine. Can you disprove that statement? Thought not.
And for the record there is nothing "incorrect" about the results of this particular urine sample. Nice attempt there to try and link "atypical" and "incorrect". His urine analysis wasn't atypical from "correct" or "right" - it was atypical from what is considered clean. Big difference but you knew that.
To the above point, Coevett you do realize that there’re likely other A-pos, B-neg/ATFs that we don’t know about.
Well, Bol's previous one is one we didn't know about. How many others could there be?
11 -
Chris lewis wrote:
Karma Police wrote:
So Chris are you saying that second opinion has been obtained and confirmed the ATF, or that now there is an ATF, they get the second opinion?
No, Sports integrity Australia now will have WADA expert examine sample and then it will decide whether to sanction Bol or clear him
Chris hasn't the WADA "expert" (lab) already examined the sample? Isn't that what the test of the B sample was?
10 -
TheRealTaro wrote:
But that abstract says nothing about the specific dose range you mentioned (20 - 40 IU/kg EPO). It may be in the full-text article (presumably that's the .pdf you referred to), but I doubt you paid the $49.95 needed to access it.
You doubt that I paid, nice. Also irrelevant.
How about you read the pdf? I did. In this day and age, even my grandma can access a pdf that is formally behind a paywall.
30 -
lawyers will be lawyers wrote:
TheRealTaro wrote:
But that abstract says nothing about the specific dose range you mentioned (20 - 40 IU/kg EPO). It may be in the full-text article (presumably that's the .pdf you referred to), but I doubt you paid the $49.95 needed to access it.
You doubt that I paid, nice. Also irrelevant.
How about you read the pdf? I did. In this day and age, even my grandma can access a pdf that is formally behind a paywall.
I hope i am right.
here is section from my upcoming article
Sports Integrity Australia stated on February 14, “The
relevant rules require a WADA-accredited laboratory to obtain a second opinion
from an expert on the WADA EPO Working Group before any AAF or ATF for
Erythropoietin Receptor Agonists (such as recombinant EPO) can be reported”.Even if a B-sample analysis does not support the A-sample
analysis, Sports Integrity Australia could still lay a charge against an athlete
for “using” EPO, along with the same penalties.While Article 2.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code means that
an athlete cannot be charged if the A and B samples do not match, Article 2.2 allows
for an athlete to be charged with ‘use or attempted use’ of a prohibited
substance or method under Article 2.2 of the Code, even when the samples don’t
match.00 -
TheRealTaro wrote:
lawyers will be lawyers wrote:
You crack me up. I thought you were informed about the ABP? This 2011 study has been linked here several times. Quick google, and here you go:
"Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO dopingOur treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO."
Details in the pdf. You are welcome.
Now you're catching on. Make a claim, support it with evidence. You can't seriously expected anyone read the entirety of a thread that's several hundred posts long.
But that abstract says nothing about the specific dose range you mentioned (20 - 40 IU/kg EPO). It may be in the full-text article (presumably that's the .pdf you referred to), but I doubt you paid the $49.95 needed to access it.
Regardless, do you have any evidence that Bol took rhEPO in doses in that range?
no f.c.ing chance people are doing 40IU/kg and avoiding detection.
that ain't microdosing
50IU/kg every other day for a month followed by 20-40IU/kg for a month or two is straight rocket fuel and performance would be massively boosted if ferritin was taken care of ahead of time
10 -
Chris lewis wrote:
lawyers will be lawyers wrote:
You doubt that I paid, nice. Also irrelevant.
How about you read the pdf? I did. In this day and age, even my grandma can access a pdf that is formally behind a paywall.
I hope i am right.
here is section from my upcoming article
Sports Integrity Australia stated on February 14, “The
relevant rules require a WADA-accredited laboratory to obtain a second opinion
from an expert on the WADA EPO Working Group before any AAF or ATF for
Erythropoietin Receptor Agonists (such as recombinant EPO) can be reported”.Even if a B-sample analysis does not support the A-sample
analysis, Sports Integrity Australia could still lay a charge against an athlete
for “using” EPO, along with the same penalties.While Article 2.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code means that
an athlete cannot be charged if the A and B samples do not match, Article 2.2 allows
for an athlete to be charged with ‘use or attempted use’ of a prohibited
substance or method under Article 2.2 of the Code, even when the samples don’t
match.wtf type of bs rule is that?
so they say samples have to match
then they say nah we know you're using
these guys are running a clown show
30 -
pray tell me how you're serious wrote:
Chris lewis wrote:
I hope i am right.
here is section from my upcoming article
Sports Integrity Australia stated on February 14, “The
relevant rules require a WADA-accredited laboratory to obtain a second opinion
from an expert on the WADA EPO Working Group before any AAF or ATF for
Erythropoietin Receptor Agonists (such as recombinant EPO) can be reported”.Even if a B-sample analysis does not support the A-sample
analysis, Sports Integrity Australia could still lay a charge against an athlete
for “using” EPO, along with the same penalties.While Article 2.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code means that
an athlete cannot be charged if the A and B samples do not match, Article 2.2 allows
for an athlete to be charged with ‘use or attempted use’ of a prohibited
substance or method under Article 2.2 of the Code, even when the samples don’t
match.wtf type of bs rule is that?
so they say samples have to match
then they say nah we know you're using
these guys are running a clown show
2021 cyclist lost appeal for 4 year ban despite his b sample being inconclusive to EPO after a sample tested positive.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.00 -
Chris lewis wrote:
pray tell me how you're serious wrote:
wtf type of bs rule is that?
so they say samples have to match
then they say nah we know you're using
these guys are running a clown show
2021 cyclist lost appeal for 4 year ban despite his b sample being inconclusive to EPO after a sample tested positive.
i find this deplorable
to publicly shame and take away somebody's career using a subjective test where results taken from the same stream of piss can't even be agreed upon
if someone is doping and they get caught, great
but if they are just looking to catch someone, anyone, whether it's a for sure thing or not, that's a real problem
not to mention no representatives of the athlete would have been able to witness the A-test, which is the one they were convicted on
i feel bad for pros. clean ones get screwed by dopers. dopers live a shadow life where they're never really content because they know they aren't the person everyone thinks they are; major cognitive dissonance.
but imagine being that rare clean athlete that gets popped. then tarred and feathered.
professional sport ain't it kids. but props to those who soldier on and keep putting on a great show for the rest of us.
43
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.