I wished they published so of the questions they asked me during my 4hr interview, as most of them were laughable. They were telling me that athletes take EPO in the off-season so they don’t have to train! Again, I’m no expert, but I find that hard to believe.
JR
I'm curious on this point and it's surely possible that within the 4 hour interview - which is extremely long - they used questioning which might have been intended to tease out whatever may have been your possible involvement in what may have happened. And that they did so with an open mind. And so some apparently odd questions may have been part of this tactic. The alternative interpretation would be that an anti doping agency in a controversial high profile EPO case would give a key intelligence role to someone with a hugely flawed knowledge of how athletes at this level might combine EPO with training. That seems an unlikely thing to have happened.
btw I'm not expecting you to answer my curiosity on this point.
Has anyone pointed out that the article in question, as well as the letter are freely accessible and were published/reported on by media outlets in 2008?
Interestingly, the context of the letter came after Victor Conte was jailed for "conspiracy to distribute steroids and money laundering", and that he was writing to provide "UK Sport and others with information that will help them to improve the effectiveness of their anti-doping programs."
The letter concludes with Conte's anti-doping recommendations:
He's dirty and that's simply because you don't test positive for synthetic EPO if you're not doping. He got real lucky to be let off, or perhaps he bribed the right person/people since his career was on the line.
He didn't test positive. Quote where he tested positive.
I thought his body language looked off during those interviews that he did talking about his innocence, but I let it slide once his B sample came back. This makes me wonder…
The B sample had degraded. Having synthetic epo in your system is not easily explained away.
Has anyone pointed out that the article in question, as well as the letter are freely accessible and were published/reported on by media outlets in 2008?
Interestingly, the context of the letter came after Victor Conte was jailed for "conspiracy to distribute steroids and money laundering", and that he was writing to provide "UK Sport and others with information that will help them to improve the effectiveness of their anti-doping programs."
The letter concludes with Conte's anti-doping recommendations:
It isn't exactly the Anarchist Cookbook...
so why keep a screenshot of it?
No idea. Why does anyone screenshot an article that they could otherwise access freely on the internet? Could it have been sent to him?
Was there anything in the article that hasn't otherwise been publicly known about doping practices since 2008?
Let’s be clear, the B sample was tested at a date selected by the testing agency, not us. They send you a letter advising of when the B sample will be tested and you can send a representive there to ensure it’s opened correctly if you so choose. It was about 4-5 weeks after the A sample was tested. I truely hope that our testing system isn’t that bad that 4 weeks makes a massive difference. I’m not sure how they have been retesting samples from 2012 if this is the case…but I’m not an expert.
Secondly, the wording of the statement was that the screenshot which contatined information about a letter Conte wrote in the mid 2000’s. Not that the screenshot was of the letter or that he actually read that letter.
Pete ran 1:44.29 and 3:34.54 (PB) last year, so it unfair to say his results have dropped off. He had a poor WC, but that was due to other factors and not reflective of the shape he was in. I take the blame as it was me who pushed him to run these champs when he didn’t;t really want to.
I wished they published so of the questions they asked me during my 4hr interview, as most of them were laughable. They were telling me that athletes take EPO in the off-season so they don’t have to train! Again, I’m no expert, but I find that hard to believe.
Everyone is entitled to their own option, but I still have no doubt in my mind of his innocence and if you ever spent any time at all with him, you’d believe the same.
JR
Not stating my opinion here whether Bol is clean or not, but there is a big difference between running fast times in middle distance events (with many factors such as pace and conditions) and being competitive in major races.
This post was edited 59 seconds after it was posted.
Secondly, the wording of the statement was that the screenshot which contatined information about a letter Conte wrote in the mid 2000’s. Not that the screenshot was of the letter or that he actually read that letter.
JR, I believe that you had nothing to do with this and have admiration for how you're sticking by your athlete. But this is a bit silly. You're grasping at straws to suggest there was no evidence of Pete reading the screenshot or the letter. Of course there's not. But I can't think of many times I've screenshotted something with the intention to ignore it.
Let’s be clear, the B sample was tested at a date selected by the testing agency, not us. They send you a letter advising of when the B sample will be tested and you can send a representive there to ensure it’s opened correctly if you so choose. It was about 4-5 weeks after the A sample was tested. I truely hope that our testing system isn’t that bad that 4 weeks makes a massive difference. I’m not sure how they have been retesting samples from 2012 if this is the case…but I’m not an expert.
Secondly, the wording of the statement was that the screenshot which contatined information about a letter Conte wrote in the mid 2000’s. Not that the screenshot was of the letter or that he actually read that letter.
Pete ran 1:44.29 and 3:34.54 (PB) last year, so it unfair to say his results have dropped off. He had a poor WC, but that was due to other factors and not reflective of the shape he was in. I take the blame as it was me who pushed him to run these champs when he didn’t;t really want to.
I wished they published so of the questions they asked me during my 4hr interview, as most of them were laughable. They were telling me that athletes take EPO in the off-season so they don’t have to train! Again, I’m no expert, but I find that hard to believe.
Everyone is entitled to their own option, but I still have no doubt in my mind of his innocence and if you ever spent any time at all with him, you’d believe the same.
JR
Do you actually believe what you type or are you just truly delusional?
Rinaldi's comments in this prove he's deluded. No idea why he comes here to try and defend Pete's behaviour. Athletics Aus will of course back him in because they've invested so much in making him the feel-good story of Australian sport.
No idea. Why does anyone screenshot an article that they could otherwise access freely on the internet? Could it have been sent to him?
Was there anything in the article that hasn't otherwise been publicly known about doping practices since 2008?
What has this got to do.wirh anything? What has the fact that 'the article is freely available' got to do with anything? What has the context of the letter got to do with anything? The article/letter contains specific info on how to cycle ped use and how to game the whereabouts system, and the hearing made clear that Bol took a screenshot of this info, 3 months before he popped. That's more than 'not a good look'.
No idea. Why does anyone screenshot an article that they could otherwise access freely on the internet? Could it have been sent to him?
Was there anything in the article that hasn't otherwise been publicly known about doping practices since 2008?
What has this got to do.wirh anything? What has the fact that 'the article is freely available' got to do with anything? What has the context of the letter got to do with anything? The article/letter contains specific info on how to cycle ped use and how to game the whereabouts system, and the hearing made clear that Bol took a screenshot of this info, 3 months before he popped. That's more than 'not a good look'.
Context is everything.
A screenshot of a publicly available article isn't evidence of doping. How do I know this? Well, it wasn't enough to ban Bol.
He's dirty and that's simply because you don't test positive for synthetic EPO if you're not doping. He got real lucky to be let off, or perhaps he bribed the right person/people since his career was on the line.
He didn't test positive. Quote where he tested positive.
His 'A' sample. It was the failure to confirm with the 'B' sample that got him off.
What has this got to do.wirh anything? What has the fact that 'the article is freely available' got to do with anything? What has the context of the letter got to do with anything? The article/letter contains specific info on how to cycle ped use and how to game the whereabouts system, and the hearing made clear that Bol took a screenshot of this info, 3 months before he popped. That's more than 'not a good look'.
Context is everything.
A screenshot of a publicly available article isn't evidence of doping. How do I know this? Well, it wasn't enough to ban Bol.
It isn't argued that of itself it is enough to ban. But the screenshot evidence has emerged after he tested positive but got off because of doubts about the 'B' sample. Of itself it isn't proof of doping but in context - yes, that word you used - it makes it strongly suggestive.
This post was edited 46 seconds after it was posted.
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 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.
"Just discovered?" That has been my only position all along, and here you seem to concede that pointing out the false equivalency is not all that controversial.
Of course test avoidance while "glowing" is one possibility ("test evasion" is its own separate violation which is not "presence" "use", or "whereabouts" violations). Do you have any sources about the rest of your post with "because" and "likely" and "probably"?
What did WADA say at the time? When they reduced the whereabouts timeframe from 18 months to 12 months, they still spoke in terms of a tradeoff between two possibilities: 1) "an Athlete who is trying to avoid Testing", and 2) a "the risk that Athletes who are simply careless in handling their paperwork". Reducing the timeframe from 18 to 12 months, reduces the risk, but does not eliminate it. I can find nothing about which scenario WADA found was more probable or more likely.
I'll also note that reporting whereabouts database is not available in all languages: "ADAMS is available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Dutch, Finnish, German, Italian, Japanese, and Russian." Notably absent are any African languages, and Chinese and Indian. I can only imagine if I had to keep my whereabouts updated in a system where all of the online applications and written correspondence is in Swahili, or Hindi, or Mandarin, or Cantonese, and I don't have a phone, or laptop, or a network, or access to support staff who will bear none of the responsibility for any failures.
Context matters, so knowing about this one screenshot tells us nothing one way or another. We don’t know its provenance, the motivation, the thousands of other things he might have screenshotted. All it does is feed fuel to the fire and make his haters double down.
Has anyone pointed out that the article in question, as well as the letter are freely accessible and were published/reported on by media outlets in 2008?
Interestingly, the context of the letter came after Victor Conte was jailed for "conspiracy to distribute steroids and money laundering", and that he was writing to provide "UK Sport and others with information that will help them to improve the effectiveness of their anti-doping programs."
The letter concludes with Conte's anti-doping recommendations:
It isn't exactly the Anarchist Cookbook...
Thanks for these links published 16 years ago, and widely available to the public. Fans expect athletes to be aware of popular drugs, but are surpised when athletes inform themselves about them? Victor Conte has been prolifically outspoken. I'm sure many athletes will have read one of these articles, if not many others. I don't see anything about "micro-dosing EPO", as noted by the Australian article and the OP and the WADA general counsel. In fact, 4000 IU per injection doesn't sound like micro-dosing. I also don't see anything here about avoiding EPO detection, except to wait it out, and that intravenous injection clears quicker than subcutaneous. I didn't see anything else the public didn't also learn from Lance and Ferrari.
I like to read this stuff too, with plenty of bookmarks and downloads on my laptop. Yet the only drugs I take are beer, and prescribed allergy medication for hayfever in spring (when my racing performance is historically slower as it is sometimes difficult to breathe).
I'm curious about the degradation of low concentrations of EPO suggestion from WADA. They retested Lance's 1999 urine samples for EPO in 2003/2004 -- seems like 5 years is not long enough for samples to degrade.
One of the open questions for me is, is WADA's EPO testing reliable? How is scientific integrity of the process ensured? Answering that question requires independent review. Yet WADA's structure and policy ensures the only one in a position to say that WADA makes no mistake is WADA itself, and WADA has an explicit policy of not being critical of itself.
Nevertheless, the failures in the EPO testing have been well documented, including here at letsrun in 2003 in the case of Lagat (I'm surprised "rojo" isn't aware of the details about the failures in sample interpretation), and more recently by Prof. Erik Boye after reviewing the details of the cases of Erik Tysse, Steven Colvert, Vojtech Sommer, and Benedikt Karus. The EPO test is complex and error prone, and it is difficult for the athlete, who has to overturn a "guilty until proven innocent" presumption, to have access to the evidence being used to convict him, in order to have an independent assessment and mount a proper defense.
In Peter Bol's case, the B-Sample did not confirm the A-Sample result. Apparently even retesting the A-Sample did not confirm the A-Sample result. From WADA's point of view, the matter is closed. No violation for presence can occur without B-sample confirmation, regardless of phone screenshots, unless they are screenshots of EPO receipts.
It's also worth reading expert testimony put forward by Bol's camp at the time. Obviously putting forward one side of the story but it's pretty compelling nonetheless.
It's also worth reading expert testimony put forward by Bol's camp at the time. Obviously putting forward one side of the story but it's pretty compelling nonetheless.