You know, this isn't great, but I for one have taken shots from dopers books and sent them to other athletes, to say - that's how those MFs do it. Or it's so easy to get away with it.
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.
A common factor that has been observed in many criminal cases is that the internet search history of the accused has reflected the crime for which they were subsequently convicted. Bol is not a criminal but his search history/screen shot shows what he was interested in.
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.
You are not a professional athlete. Your interest in doping reflects only your obsession. It indicates nothing about what an athlete might do.
That this apparent account of a screenshot of an article about a letter would be given any credence at all is crazy. The information emerged in a hearing for a Croatian footballer which had nothing to do with Bol, and should not have been used as a platform for WADA to be making claims about other athletes.
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.
You are not a professional athlete. Your interest in doping reflects only your obsession. It indicates nothing about what an athlete might do.
You are not a professional athlete. Your interest in doping reflects only your obsession. It indicates nothing about what an athlete might do.
That this apparent account of a screenshot of an article about a letter would be given any credence at all is crazy. The information emerged in a hearing for a Croatian footballer which had nothing to do with Bol, and should not have been used as a platform for WADA to be making claims about other athletes.
Exactly. Simply a sequence of words constructed decades ago that were quoted in ink on paper, digitized and turned into pixels that happened to become stored on a young Sudanese born runner's phone memory, after allegedly emitting photons that were collected by his eyes and converted into electromagnetic nerve signals that reached his frontal cortex. Allegedly. The whole thing is a storm in a teacup.
Professional athlete or not, the screenshot of a letter published in a half dozen articles indicates nothing about what an athlete might do.
So why lie about it.
I guess you mean Bol? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? As we have seen, this letter was provided 16 years ago, before the ABP improved blood doping detection, to UK Sport, and published in the BBC, the Guardian, and the Daily Mail, and who knows how many more news sites. What's the "lie"? Are we calling reading public newspaper articles "research", and pretending this is the "gotcha"?
That this apparent account of a screenshot of an article about a letter would be given any credence at all is crazy. The information emerged in a hearing for a Croatian footballer which had nothing to do with Bol, and should not have been used as a platform for WADA to be making claims about other athletes.
The ardent defender of Shelby Houlihan has arrived. To defend another likely doper.
That this apparent account of a screenshot of an article about a letter would be given any credence at all is crazy. The information emerged in a hearing for a Croatian footballer which had nothing to do with Bol, and should not have been used as a platform for WADA to be making claims about other athletes.
another moronic move by Paul Greene that puts a client in a worse situation and from nowhere Twoggle appears…it’s like a magic summoning spell.
I guess you mean Bol? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? As we have seen, this letter was provided 16 years ago, before the ABP improved blood doping detection, to UK Sport, and published in the BBC, the Guardian, and the Daily Mail, and who knows how many more news sites. What's the "lie"? Are we calling reading public newspaper articles "research", and pretending this is the "gotcha"?
His comments are inconsistent. His excuse for having it on his phone is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.