Pete Bol's phone had doping instructions

It makes him innocent. And you say you studied law...

I guess that is one way to look at it.

I'm sure many athletes read Conte's letter in one of many publications, but I'm not so sure that many of them would admit to "researching EPO" based on having read it.

But does it? I'm sure many athletes have read Conte's letter, as it was widely published, but wouldn't say they "researched EPO", on the strength of reading a Guardian article.

And do we have a positive test? It looks like at best it is an unconfirmed positive. The reason for B-sample confirmation is to rule out WADA Lab errors that might result in a false positive.

Recall this is your goalpost.

Like a whack-a-mole, you emerge from your goalpost, only to disappear back into it, and re-emerge from another one, only to redisappear, and re-emerge from yet another one, ad infinitum.

Well, no we don''t really have a postive test at all. The atypical result on the B-sample wasn;t the end of the process. This triggered further analysis of the A sample. This in turnresulted in the A sample being declared negative (quote from Sport Integrity Australia below). This is combined with multiple expert testimony from Bol's side that suggested the A sample should never have been declared negative. Refer to my post upstream that provides some relevant links. Any honest debate on this case needs to be in this context.

From SIA.."...

"The analysis and interpretation of all samples is conducted by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited laboratories and WADA-recognised experts, independently of Sport Integrity Australia.
The World Anti-Doping Code (Code) requires a mandatory provisional suspension be imposed when a positive test for synthetic EPO is reported. In this case Athletics Australia was required to impose the mandatory provisional suspension.
A subsequent independent analysis of the athlete’s B-sample returned an atypical finding which did not confirm the result of the A-sample.
The Code requires the mandatory provisional suspension to be lifted when the B-sample analysis does not match that of the A-sample.
As required under the Code, Sport Integrity Australia conducted an investigation into the results. As part of this investigation, Sport Integrity Australia initiated further analysis of the samples using a different independent WADA-accredited laboratory and different WADA-recognised EPO expert.
Sport Integrity Australia also sought confirmation from WADA regarding the applicable EPO analysis process.
The further analysis resulted in varying expert opinions as to the positive or negative reporting of the sample, and the A-sample was reported as negative. As a result, Sport Integrity Australia has taken the decision not to progress an anti-doping rule violation for this sample. The investigation into this sample is finalised"

I think it’s both in having it saved and then saying “oh, I read a lot of things, I am interested in learning and all that.” Sounds like “I didn’t research, but I did research” is his argument.

Turns out it was his background!!!

What it sounds like depends on the listener.

This all seems to hinge on whether saving and reading a newspaper clipping can be called "research" on synthetic EPO.

Thanks for the links -- I had already read the Global Sports letter last time, and these experts opinions were very interesting to say the least. But it is far from certain that calling the A-Sample an AAF would be the right call.

Silly. Lagat's samples didn't degrade because of the passage of time. They were unusable because they weren't handled properly (to say the least). Instead of being put on ice, as was required, they were kept uncooled in a hot car.

And the idea that the freeze-thaw cycle made rEPO undetectable in Bol's samples is nonsense. Study after study has shown that freezing and thawing doesn't cause protein degradation. That's why frozen samples can stored and used for testing later, after the required testing technology has been developed.

Basically, Bol was saved from a ban by the low level of EPO caught in the test and the reason he had such a low, but non-zero, level of EPO was that he was microdosing, a technique he had learned from reading the Conte letter he had saved to his phone. That explains everything. Now, they just need a police investigation to track down his purchase or receipt of synthetic EPO.

The Conte letter I read didn't describe EPO microdosing (contrary to newspaper reports and WADA's General Counsel), but taking larger doses of 4,000 IU that can be detected for 1 day (intravenous) or 3 days (subcutaneous). This 16-year old "advice" wouldn't work today, with the ABP, and with more advanced detection techniques and longer detection times. Conte's technique for escaping detection was whereabouts related -- as far as I know, Bol wasn't charged with whereabouts failures.

According to other non-WADA experts, it was the WADA Lab (ASDTL) who made multiple errors, due to inexperience, including overloading the samples causing the band to spread, and an incorrect interpretation of the gel patterns.

It is obvious you didn't. An acquittal is not proof of innocence - a distinction beyond you.

Reading an article which happens to be in the Guardian is not the same as a professional athlete saving information onto their phone on how to dope. The former is merely indicative of interest while the latter suggests intention.

I don't have a goal post; I am simply discussing the subject of the thread, which is that an athlete who failed a test (yes, the B sample was inconclusive) was found to have information on how to dope saved to his phone. Nothing to see here.

What if the information saved on the phone is a screenshot of the Guardian article, that he was simply interested in reading at a later time?

There is no clear suggestion of intent or any indication "about what an athlete might do".

Your goalpost was indications "about what an athlete might do."

No, it wasn't. I didn't have a goal post; I was discussing the thread subject. Not everyone thinks as tortuously (and fallaciously) as you do.

A professional runner who returns a positive test is found to have advice on how to dope saved to his phone. What a coincidence. And it's not as if professional runners actually dope.