Bol announced his + A result on social media before it made the press, AA also released a statement but pretty sure that was after Bol's social media post. Regardless, having been provisionally suspended it seems reasonable for this to become public knowledge in the interest of transparency.
Bol's B sample is not negative. It is just not a confirmed positive. There will be follow up from SIA.
Good for him, but it should be noted that the only 2 previous examples of this occuring in athletics are Bernard 3:26 Lagat and Marion BALCO Jones.
And Lagat and Bol share the same manager (James Templeton).
It could have happened more times but never been made public. This is what Paul Greene says about it being made public before the B sample result has returned:
“The problem is that it should never have been announced. You should never announce it until an athlete is charged,” Greene said. “You have to have an A and a B to actually issue a charging letter. We were never shown any lab documents at all. There was no supporting documentation. “They announced it without sharing any documentation with us. It’s a really poor process and in my opinion they need to redo and relook at their processes. “USADA is the world leader in this regard, under no circumstances would this happen in the USA. No one would have ever known about this if Pete was an American athlete.”
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.
this hasnt been answered that i can see, but seems obvious.
the a sample is done without supervision or fuss, with the technicin doing hundreds of samples one after the other without external interference.
the b sample should be done in exact the same laboratory techiques, but with many witnesses and other confounding issues present for full 'transparency' etc.
it is clear how this streamlines the process, and why it is done this way.
it is very very rare for a b sample to not come back with significantly the same result, and one of the tings testing regimes need to strive to do is to try to push this number to 0.
Unless there was some other data linked at a later stage, the data presented in the other thread showed the specificity of the A sample was 100%
That is zero false positives.
The positive predictive value is therefore 1 or 100%.
In other words, based on the data, you can assume an athlete is a doper based on the A sample.
If this were a medical diagnostic test you would have certainly diagnosed the disease based on the A sample alone.
In fact from a medical perspective, presented with both the positive A and negative B, (based on the performance of the test according to the data), it would still confirm a positive diagnosis.
Here is the study again. In this study, the first time a sample is tested, there are false positives and at that point the PPV is only 50%. When the same sample is retested, the false positive rate falls to zero if you require both runs of the assay to be positive to call it an adverse analytical finding. In real life testing, is the A sample screened once, and if positive, tested again and found to be confirmed positive before issuing the A positive result? If yes, then you are correct.
Yes there is a screening and confirmation analysis but that is one test
Hence the specificity is 100% and there were zero false positives.
Which is what you would expect from a doping test. Or else it would not be fair or feasible to use as an anti-doping test.
Maybe there is some other study that shows different result, or perhaps the test in this case was materially different, there was foul play, negligence and so on. But most the assertions being made based on that study have been completely incorrect.
Yes there is a screening and confirmation analysis but that is one test
Hence the specificity is 100% and there were zero false positives.
Which is what you would expect from a doping test. Or else it would not be fair or feasible to use as an anti-doping test.
Maybe there is some other study that shows different result, or perhaps the test in this case was materially different, there was foul play, negligence and so on. But most the assertions being made based on that study have been completely incorrect.
There are in fact two tests to detect EPO. They did one of them for the A. It was described by Bol’s people as a narrow judgment call to give him an AAF based on 1 suspicious band out of 5. On the B sample, they likely did both EPO tests, and with more thorough testing they didn’t have an AAF upon further review.
There are in fact two tests to detect EPO. They did one of them for the A. It was described by Bol’s people as a narrow judgment call to give him an AAF based on 1 suspicious band out of 5. On the B sample, they likely did both EPO tests, and with more thorough testing they didn’t have an AAF upon further review.
Ok. Sounds to me he tested positive and then 'Bol's people,' who clearly know a thing or two about EPO testing, realised they could probably lawyer their way out of it.
Very similar to the Lagat case. Fail a test and then bring in 'experts' to clear your name.
Yes there is a screening and confirmation analysis but that is one test
Hence the specificity is 100% and there were zero false positives.
Which is what you would expect from a doping test. Or else it would not be fair or feasible to use as an anti-doping test.
Maybe there is some other study that shows different result, or perhaps the test in this case was materially different, there was foul play, negligence and so on. But most the assertions being made based on that study have been completely incorrect.
There are in fact two tests to detect EPO. They did one of them for the A. It was described by Bol’s people as a narrow judgment call to give him an AAF based on 1 suspicious band out of 5. On the B sample, they likely did both EPO tests, and with more thorough testing they didn’t have an AAF upon further review.
Oh my goodness. Some of you guys are just not understanding why there are two samples. If there was only one sample to be tested the athlete would not be afforded the opportunity to challenge the result of the test. THINK.
There are in fact two tests to detect EPO. They did one of them for the A. It was described by Bol’s people as a narrow judgment call to give him an AAF based on 1 suspicious band out of 5. On the B sample, they likely did both EPO tests, and with more thorough testing they didn’t have an AAF upon further review.
It sounds like there were a number of stuff ups all round. The leaked info made public about Bol having a positve A sample should never have happened in the first place. It's only meant to be made public when both A and B samples are positive and hence he is guilty of doping. I would be almost certain that there are tons of professional athletes who have had a positive A and negative B just like Bol and we wouldn't even know about it.
There are in fact two tests to detect EPO. They did one of them for the A. It was described by Bol’s people as a narrow judgment call to give him an AAF based on 1 suspicious band out of 5. On the B sample, they likely did both EPO tests, and with more thorough testing they didn’t have an AAF upon further review.
Ok. Sounds to me he tested positive and then 'Bol's people,' who clearly know a thing or two about EPO testing, realised they could probably lawyer their way out of it.
Very similar to the Lagat case. Fail a test and then bring in 'experts' to clear your name.
I think Bol is innocent and feel really bad for him that the A sample positive was leaked to the Press. That should never have happened.
I also think, sadly, that it is premature for Bol and his coach, Mr Rinaldi, to cry "outright exoneration" at this time, as the case is still being "investigated" by one of the Australian official bodies linked to the sport.
Hopefully, everything will be in order and the likeable, modest Bol - who nobody has a bad word to say about, will be able to get on with his career and maximize it during the next couple of years with Paris, 2024, likely being his swansong. Bol is no spring chicken and time is of the essence.
It sounds like there were a number of stuff ups all round. The leaked info made public about Bol having a positve A sample should never have happened in the first place. It's only meant to be made public when both A and B samples are positive and hence he is guilty of doping. I would be almost certain that there are tons of professional athletes who have had a positive A and negative B just like Bol and we wouldn't even know about it.
Yes, one can almost deduce a possible form of racism vis a vis Bol, from the OZ authorities, but I'm not going there, because this is just a guess, without evidence. Ozzies on this forum, what do you think?
It could have happened more times but never been made public. This is what Paul Greene says about it being made public before the B sample result has returned:
Never trust a lawyer's PR without evidence. Who leaked it when? Evidence? We heard it from the suspected doper first.
Greene also said that the system is broken and Shelby innocent. That's his (PR) job, those aren't facts.
I also think, sadly, that it is premature for Bol and his coach, Mr Rinaldi, to cry "outright exoneration" at this time, as the case is still being "investigated" by one of the Australian official bodies linked to the sport.
That of course is also part of the PR. We are being played. A test -> AAF; B test -> ATF.
I also think, sadly, that it is premature for Bol and his coach, Mr Rinaldi, to cry "outright exoneration" at this time, as the case is still being "investigated" by one of the Australian official bodies linked to the sport.
That of course is also part of the PR. We are being played. A test -> AAF; B test -> ATF.
Team Bol: he is innocent!
I also think he (Bol) is innocent, more on an intuitive basis than anything else, and I think all the evidence from his long career, personal profile, references from others, etc, would point to that being the case. It is lamentable that Bol's A sample was "leaked" before the B sample rendition. No matter what happens, Bol has lost some credibility in the eyes of some people.
When it happened to Lagat, in 2003, there were few precedents and he was let off the hook with little to no damage. With Lagat's long career, and unblemished record, this would also point to Lagat most likely being clean historically.
I’m an MD and deal with diagnostic testing all of the time. This outcome is not surprising. Data presented on the prior main thread on this topic documented that the specificity of the A sample test alone (negative in non dopers) and therefore the positive predictive value (that a positive A sample is a predictor of true doping) is low enough for the epo assay that NOBODY should assume an athlete is a doper based on the A sample result alone.
Unless there was some other data linked at a later stage, the data presented in the other thread showed the specificity of the A sample was 100%
That is zero false positives.
The positive predictive value is therefore 1 or 100%.
In other words, based on the data, you can assume an athlete is a doper based on the A sample.
If this were a medical diagnostic test you would have certainly diagnosed the disease based on the A sample alone.
In fact from a medical perspective, presented with both the positive A and negative B, (based on the performance of the test according to the data), it would still confirm a positive diagnosis.
Good points. On top of that, the B sample in this case is not even negative - is "atypical finding" the same as "borderline positive" ? No idea why your post has so many downvotes.
Unless there was some other data linked at a later stage, the data presented in the other thread showed the specificity of the A sample was 100%
That is zero false positives.
The positive predictive value is therefore 1 or 100%.
In other words, based on the data, you can assume an athlete is a doper based on the A sample.
If this were a medical diagnostic test you would have certainly diagnosed the disease based on the A sample alone.
In fact from a medical perspective, presented with both the positive A and negative B, (based on the performance of the test according to the data), it would still confirm a positive diagnosis.
Good points. On top of that, the B sample in this case is not even negative - is "atypical finding" the same as "borderline positive" ? No idea why your post has so many downvotes.
Not necessarily - you just choose to phrase it that way. Atypical can mean all sorts of things, which may have little to do with being a doping positive. But in the context of the A finding people assume the B is positive or someone is nefariously hiding something (as with the general mindset about Lagat). Just as many people (except rekrunner) jump to the conclusion that a whereabouts sanction means they are doping (which isn't necessarily the case).
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.