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.
No comment on this case, but why would someone stop doping just because they screwed up and almost got caught? Dopers know better than anyone that detection can be avoided if they are careful.
So an "independent testing lab" payed by for the defendant declares him innocence. No way. Definitely nothing more to see here.
On one hand we have the incompetence of testers, on the other the repeated instances of athletes doping and lying over and over again. Truly a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
so basically the defence lawyers paid known skeptics to read stuff from a lab and say it is poor quality without actually stating why.
the wada technical document appears quite precise about the testing and interpretation. no lab that i know of would do anything in a report except parrot the contents of the reference document with the results in the expected place. whyb would a lab write a report that could be used to hang them.
looks exactly like typical defence lawyer smoke blowing tactics.
and once again the drug apoloigists are out in force downvoting anyone who doesnt think Bol is innocent.
Guys please...if you don't know how this works or refuse to read up about it, don't make idiotic statements
Have the humility to ask questions instead, not everyone is expected to know stuff outside their field of expertise
I literally asked a question, you are the one taking ad-hominem swipes and did not even answer the question. And for your info, my career is in Biomedicine and there is a huge difference between "independent testing" as the thread implies and reanalysis.
You could have simply stated that the results were reanalysed and not retested but you didn't, you chose to be a self righteous d!ck
Your degree is in biomedicine and you don't know how to read the article (and other news on this) but ask a forum how the samples were handed out to other labs?
So an "independent testing lab" payed by for the defendant declares him innocence. No way. Definitely nothing more to see here.
On one hand we have the incompetence of testers, on the other the repeated instances of athletes doping and lying over and over again. Truly a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
And the converse: a lab paid for by the prosecution finds him guilty.
so basically the defence lawyers paid known skeptics to read stuff from a lab and say it is poor quality without actually stating why.
the wada technical document appears quite precise about the testing and interpretation. no lab that i know of would do anything in a report except parrot the contents of the reference document with the results in the expected place. whyb would a lab write a report that could be used to hang them.
looks exactly like typical defence lawyer smoke blowing tactics.
and once again the drug apoloigists are out in force downvoting anyone who doesnt think Bol is innocent.
For clarity, I’m downvoting you not because you don’t think Bol is innocent, but because you got the facts wrong.
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.
Well said and it did not prove he did not take EPO.
A test said he did B test was faulty.
The ban is lifted. Some of us think he was lucky to have a good lawyer. Maybe, maybe a faulty B test. The A test was not faulty so he is probably off on a technicallity.
However, you are right one one thing. The EPO test cannot be trusted as athletes who have proved to be doping have generally passed multiple tests over the years, (if they have not missed any) Athletes don't set pb's prs win gold etc then start doping they have been doping for years. Look at that NZ runner just recently. Busted after 10 years of tests in...Kenya - shocker!
- 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.
So, both blood and urine were taken at the same time, and the same day and time as the wada samples?
So an "independent testing lab" payed by for the defendant declares him innocence. No way. Definitely nothing more to see here.
On one hand we have the incompetence of testers, on the other the repeated instances of athletes doping and lying over and over again. Truly a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
And the converse: a lab paid for by the prosecution finds him guilty.
That's a good comparison actually. But let's be real here for a minute: the defendant wants to get cleared, no matter whether he's guilty or not; while the prosecution only wants to ban guilty people. In fact Wada is there to protect the clean athletes.
Yes - both blood then urine samples were taken during the same drug test. They take blood first and then urine (same urine split in to an A and B sample).
I understand that people mistrust the findings when it comes from someone who is paid, but if any of you know an expert that would review the testing for free to the level of detail they have, please let me know. Seems strange that a lot of you trust the original test results, when even they came back with different results on the A and B! When the same lab comes back with two different results, why is it so implausible that they got the first one wrong altogether?
Also, if you had an athlete that you knew had never taken EPO, wouldn't you do everything possible to get to the bottom of the results? Even if that means sitting in a room for 3 days (22 hours) watching them test the B sample, when you have no idea what they are actually doing?
Seems strange that a lot of you trust the original test results, when even they came back with different results on the A and B! When the same lab comes back with two different results, why is it so implausible that they got the first one wrong altogether?
A - AAF and B - ATF actually increased my trust. That doesn't look like fake results from someone out there to ban athletes no matter what. Rather this looks like honest results from someone out there seeking the truth.
What's implausible to me is that the real answers are actually A - clean and B - clean for the same A and B as proposed by the Norwegians (especially given their history with WADA). What are the odds? More understandable would have been A - ATF and B - ATF or maybe A - ATF and B - clean (and of course A - AAF and B - ATF).
I agree with the sitting in the room for 3 workdays. Yes I would have done that too.
And the converse: a lab paid for by the prosecution finds him guilty.
That's a good comparison actually. But let's be real here for a minute: the defendant wants to get cleared, no matter whether he's guilty or not; while the prosecution only wants to ban guilty people. In fact Wada is there to protect the clean athletes.
That's total BS. The people who work for Wada WANT to get more positive tests, because that's how they make their money and stay in business.
Yes - both blood then urine samples were taken during the same drug test. They take blood first and then urine (same urine split in to an A and B sample).
I understand that people mistrust the findings when it comes from someone who is paid, but if any of you know an expert that would review the testing for free to the level of detail they have, please let me know. Seems strange that a lot of you trust the original test results, when even they came back with different results on the A and B! When the same lab comes back with two different results, why is it so implausible that they got the first one wrong altogether?
Also, if you had an athlete that you knew had never taken EPO, wouldn't you do everything possible to get to the bottom of the results? Even if that means sitting in a room for 3 days (22 hours) watching them test the B sample, when you have no idea what they are actually doing?
Thanks. And another point worth noting is that the SAR-PAGE (Gel Electrophoresis) is NOT a foolproof test, as it is subject to interpretation. You have to look at it and make determinations. This is why it is a discredited test.
Something like GC-IRMS, because it can be calibrated to discriminate between natural EPO and synthetic (due to difference in stable isotopes), can actually , from said calibration, give you a pass/fail number. There are still assumptions on the level of the isotopes present, but it will have a degree of certainty around it. That , plus the athlete's blood passport, (which had no prior issues) already showing the isotopic composition of his natural EPO.
That's total BS. The people who work for Wada WANT to get more positive tests, because that's how they make their money and stay in business.
Are you seriously suggesting that all WADA-supported labs are corrupt and create false positive test results to get larger WADA grants? Would the many lab employees really go quietly along with that just so the lab gets a larger budget? And that would never leak?