Pete Bol's phone had doping instructions

It might not be against the rules, but on top of the fact that he did fail an A sample 3 or 4 months after this screenshot, and his poor results since, you'd have to be absurdly 'open-minded' to continue to believe in his innocence.

It should be against the rules BTW. In the UK you go to prison if you download something like "the anarchists cookbook". An athlete should be banned if he is caught obtaining information on how to cheat.

The letter also contained advice on how to game the whereabouts system.

And Rekkie maintains that missing three tests has nothing to do with doping!

Is it hard to believe that a team with financial resources might similarly know how to 'game the system' when it comes to the handling of the B sample after an A sample positive?

wwos.nine.com.au

Bol phone had doping information says WADA

Secret details aired

Open link

Rinaldi comes across as a decent guy, but he has been aggressive towards me whenever I mentioned Bol. He demands to know who I am. As if I would tell him when I get regularly threatened here by headcases like Hoady.

Hoady last week - "You are mad. You have accused myself, my training partner, and my coach of being this Hoady guy'.

Hmmmm.....

I maintain, as does WADA, that three "whereabouts" failure does not constitute "presence" or "use" of a banned substance or method, per se.

These distinctions are clearly described in the WADA Code.

Clean athletes can repeatedly commit whereabouts failures -- this is actually foreseen in the Code, and some margin is afforded by rules to permit such innocent failures.

What? Running within 0.29 off his PR is not a poor result.

i think he's guilty, but it's not just the options you mentioned.

it could also just be something that popped up on social media and he screenshotted

He’s good looking and he’s an African refugee. They’ve been taking this easy on him and will continue to do so.

His early (Nationals) Oly selection on the back of average results when they didn't select winners like Adam Spencer was a weird exercise in appeasement....

“The Bol case, we had a very low recombinant EPO signal in the A sample
which was weakened in the B sample confirmed three months later. This
time issue is important when you are looking at samples with such low
concentration of recombinant EPO, as in the Bol case, because you can
have degradation over time,” WADA scientist Yvette Dehnes told the
hearing.

so his a was positive. was his b positive or 'weakened' below the threshold level? since when did we retest a samples? that is what the b test is for. and their shouold be a protocol for degradation over time, that the athlete is responsible for.

The real crime here is that it should be to run two laps as "quickly" as possible, not as "fast" as possible. Throw in a "legally" while we're at it.

I've never seen anyone on here personally threaten you.Troll you yes,threaten,no.I'll just say that if youre being personally threatened on here,that is just plain wrong,and nobody deserves that.

I love that you constantly wrong. It's not illegal to download that book. It's been used to bolster convictions, but Coevett being in favor of book banning is par for the course.

Pete is as dodgy as they come.

Yet somehow, I still believe Rinaldi has absolutely nothing to do with this. Rinaldi is far too successful outside of coaching to risk his reputation on cheating. And he's always been a stand-up guy.

Quite sure the B sample was called "inconclusive" at the time.

I agree and I appreciate that Rinaldi is a regular on this site and doesn't hide from anyone. However, if he isn't asking himself "WTF?" right about now, he should be.

Rekrunner has just discovered that three missed tests isn't the same as returning a positive test. But what he doesn't yet understand is that it is a doping violation because if the athlete had been available for tests they likely would have at some point tested positive because they were probably doping - which is why they weren't available for a series of tests. That is why a whereabouts failure is a doping violation or missing tests would mean absolutely nothing and would incur no penalty. One day rekrunner might get that. Nah.

"Clean athletes can repeatedly commit whereabouts failures -- this is actually foreseen in the Code, and some margin is afforded by rules to permit such innocent failures."(quote)

Clean athletes don't miss a series of tests, which is why missing them is a doping violation. They have to produce convincing factual evidence showing legitimate cause for missing three tests. Most can't - because almost always there isn't legitimate reason for missing three tests. Once again you fail to acknowledge the least likely explanation - that they have a legitimate cause - is not the most probable, which is they were ducking the testers. The most probable explanation is why a whereabouts failure is a doping violation.

There is only one reason. No clean athlete would have reason for it.