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.
This is dumb. You are trying to make the testing process more complicated than it needs to be.
EPO is something that naturally is produced by your body. I’d suggest reading up on the test but it looks to recognize unnatural bands. It is not as simple as that substance does not belong there.
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.
This is dumb. You are trying to make the testing process more complicated than it needs to be.
But is it really? Could it be possible that a B sample fails but that the A sample does not. Yes, we go by the current convention, but the 'what if' scenario is also interesting. How can one sample be more relevant than the other?
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
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.
Okay, can't train with his club or coach. Can only train independently.
This post was edited 26 seconds after it was posted.
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.
Well the news had to get their information from somewhere, most likely Bol himself. What is more likely? Bol tells a few of his friends, his agent, etc. There are a lot of weasels in the sport who love to make themselves important by leaking sh/t like this. If it was a doping or federation official they should be banned from the sport. Karma. Without any other information I'd say it was someone in Bol's camp, and presumably they were told by Bol himself.
This is dumb. You are trying to make the testing process more complicated than it needs to be.
I don't think it is more complicated. More expensive? Yes, certainly. So maybe only select 25% of samples for the A, B, C system at random and the other 75% use the old system.
One thing is for certain - if EITHER an A or a B come back positive, people are going to seriously question that athlete's integrity. Bol is questionable in many people's minds right now despite being cleared on the B. The odds that a truly clean athlete would have two false positives out of three is highly improbable.
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.
Well the news had to get their information from somewhere, most likely Bol himself. What is more likely? Bol tells a few of his friends, his agent, etc. There are a lot of weasels in the sport who love to make themselves important by leaking sh/t like this. If it was a doping or federation official they should be banned from the sport. Karma. Without any other information I'd say it was someone in Bol's camp, and presumably they were told by Bol himself.
media did nothing wrong. They reported an adverse A sample.
This is dumb. You are trying to make the testing process more complicated than it needs to be.
But is it really? Could it be possible that a B sample fails but that the A sample does not. Yes, we go by the current convention, but the 'what if' scenario is also interesting. How can one sample be more relevant than the other?
Stop. The only reason why there are two samples is to insure due process. The A sample only serves to streamline the process. The only sample that matters is the B sample. It is identical to the A sample.
Well the news had to get their information from somewhere, most likely Bol himself. What is more likely? Bol tells a few of his friends, his agent, etc. There are a lot of weasels in the sport who love to make themselves important by leaking sh/t like this. If it was a doping or federation official they should be banned from the sport. Karma. Without any other information I'd say it was someone in Bol's camp, and presumably they were told by Bol himself.
media did nothing wrong. They reported an adverse A sample.
But is it really? Could it be possible that a B sample fails but that the A sample does not. Yes, we go by the current convention, but the 'what if' scenario is also interesting. How can one sample be more relevant than the other?
Stop. The only reason why there are two samples is to insure due process. The A sample only serves to streamline the process. The only sample that matters is the B sample. It is identical to the A sample.
Stop what? i will stick to the idea put forward by the poster who asks why is one sample more important than the other. I know how system works, but that does not mean that it is 100% right.
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.
Yeah, because that's exactly what happened to Lagat after his failed A sample!! Never ran a good race again. 🤣
But is it really? Could it be possible that a B sample fails but that the A sample does not. Yes, we go by the current convention, but the 'what if' scenario is also interesting. How can one sample be more relevant than the other?
Stop. The only reason why there are two samples is to insure due process. The A sample only serves to streamline the process. The only sample that matters is the B sample. It is identical to the A sample.
BTW, I accept current system. However, i am interested why one sample is more important than the other, if that makes sense to you given it came from same source.
EPO is something that naturally is produced by your body. I’d suggest reading up on the test but it looks to recognize unnatural bands. It is not as simple as that substance does not belong there.
The tests detect synthetic epo. The only reason the B sample was negative is he got lucky. Despite what people here think it is really hard to test positive, even when you are taking it everyday.
I find it very comical at so many posters on this thread are saying : " wow.....I guess it IS possible for there to be a false positive PED result.. Well I'll be damned". And-
"Maybe Bernie was innocent all along.....?"
This has been well documented for a long time that the possibility of false negatives would/do occur.
But of course there are many posters on here and that never want to give anyone the benefit of the doubt and prefer a very black and white reality with no uncertainties.
The tests detect synthetic epo. The only reason the B sample was negative is he got lucky. Despite what people here think it is really hard to test positive, even when you are taking it everyday.
They detect in the sense that you can interpret EPO in a pattern that is not natural.
I find it very comical at so many posters on this thread are saying : " wow.....I guess it IS possible for there to be a false positive PED result.. Well I'll be damned". And-
"Maybe Bernie was innocent all along.....?"
This has been well documented for a long time that the possibility of false negatives would/do occur.
But of course there are many posters on here and that never want to give anyone the benefit of the doubt and prefer a very black and white reality with no uncertainties.
not sure that is right. I am glad Bol got off, but I am still interested in the possible inconsistency of any test.
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.
Well the news had to get their information from somewhere, most likely Bol himself. What is more likely? Bol tells a few of his friends, his agent, etc. There are a lot of weasels in the sport who love to make themselves important by leaking sh/t like this. If it was a doping or federation official they should be banned from the sport. Karma. Without any other information I'd say it was someone in Bol's camp, and presumably they were told by Bol himself.
Sorry Malmo, but you are dead wrong on this. We (Bol's camp) had nothing to gain from the A sample results being leaked and kept this inhouse. Even the training group weren't aware....and I have apologized to them for having to lie about where Pete was for those two weeks.
Sport Integrity Australia later confirmed testing of the B sample by a World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited laboratory showed an atypical finding, but that in itself is not the same as a negative test result. “The investigation into the matter remains ongoing. Sport Integrity Australia will, as part of its investigation, proceed to consider whether any anti-doping rule violations have been committed,” the government-backed agency said in a statement. “It is not possible to provide a timeframe at this point.”
Richard Ings, the former head of Australia’s anti-doping agency, described the differing results from A and B samples as “exceedingly rare.” “Questions need asking of the lab and how it processed and assessed the A sample,” “Ings posted on Twitter.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.