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".
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.
In Peter Bol's case, there were doubts between dueling experts, about whether the A-Sample test result was positive.
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.
In Peter Bol's case, there were doubts between dueling experts, about whether the A-Sample test result was positive.
It was positive. That is why they debated whether it could be relied on.
In Peter Bol's case, there were doubts between dueling experts, about whether the A-Sample test result was positive.
It was positive. That is why they debated whether it could be relied on.
Do try to keep up. You have outdated information. The reported positive result did not pass independent peer-review, raising significant doubts about how the tests were executed and interpreted.
According to two independent expert reviews of the data, the A-Sample was clearly negative the first time. The positive finding was reported in error because the sample was "overloaded". Both the high amount of natural EPO, and the symmetric diffusion indicates natural EPO and the absence of synthetic EPO. There were errors in lab execution of the test, and errors in interpretation of the results.
Do try to be serious. The lawyer - see the page you are citing - called one "expert" after the other until he finally found some who disagreed with WADA's experts. Pointless....
Do try to be serious. The lawyer - see the page you are citing - called one "expert" after the other until he finally found some who disagreed with WADA's experts. Pointless....
I don't see any such evidence for your newly fabricated claim.
The point is to look at the data, rather than the people.
When you read the reports, and see the photos and graphs, you can see that clear errors were made in both test execution and data interpretation, likely due to the inexperience and/or incompetence of the lab with the techniques. It also looks like both the lab personnel and the people providing the second opinion didn't follow the WADA TD.
Oh man... you are linking to globalsportsadvocates.com... scroll down, and the first person to show up is Paul Greene, Founding Partner, known as the Burrito Inventor, and also Bol's lawyer.
And his "experts" didn't follow procedures? Surprise surprise
Oh man... you are linking to globalsportsadvocates.com... scroll down, and the first person to show up is Paul Greene, Founding Partner, known as the Burrito Inventor, and also Bol's lawyer.
And his "experts" didn't follow procedures? Surprise surprise
good point, but just because it is in their library doesnt mean they had anything to do with it.
the question is; who comissioned and paid for these two reports?
Oh man... you are linking to globalsportsadvocates.com... scroll down, and the first person to show up is Paul Greene, Founding Partner, known as the Burrito Inventor, and also Bol's lawyer.
And his "experts" didn't follow procedures? Surprise surprise
The point is to look at the data, not the people.
These reports are not written by Greene, but come from outside experts familiar with the science. You should look at the substantive contents of the reports, rather than focus on the people.
According to Dr. Chen, as explained further in Exhibit A, "The (WADA) lab personnel, including (WADA) people providing the second opinion, didn’t follow Wada TD Section 2.4, regarding how to evaluate and interpret the results."
These reports are consistent with the decision to clear Bol, as the alleged positive result could not be confirmed with B-sample testing and A-sample retesting.
It was positive. That is why they debated whether it could be relied on.
Do try to keep up. You have outdated information. The reported positive result did not pass independent peer-review, raising significant doubts about how the tests were executed and interpreted.
According to two independent expert reviews of the data, the A-Sample was clearly negative the first time. The positive finding was reported in error because the sample was "overloaded". Both the high amount of natural EPO, and the symmetric diffusion indicates natural EPO and the absence of synthetic EPO. There were errors in lab execution of the test, and errors in interpretation of the results.
"Outside experts" means whatever people look credible enough for a jury to buy who will support a lawyer's case. That holds no credibility to anyone who knows the process. If they got the world leading expert on doping to be paid by the court, not one side, to give his or her best assessment, that would hold weight.
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.
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".
At this point, they should subpoena all communications from Bol so as to find out where he was getting his drugs from.
If you go through life ignorant of your source's funding or motivations, it explains a lot about your views lmfao.
If you want to go down that road, there is a lot of interbreeding between the IOC, WADA, and the CAS, not to mention World Athletics and the AIU.
I'm sure with a little digging, we can raise a lot of questions about funding and motivations that risk sacrificing scientific integrity in favor of other agendas.
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".
At this point, they should subpoena all communications from Bol so as to find out where he was getting his drugs from.
They downloaded everything from his phone, laptop and iPad on the day in January last year when they informed him of ‘positive’. There was nothing else incriminating (no search history, no communications, no transactions etc) other than one screenshot. which at the time under interview they admitted was by itself hardly proof of anything.
They raised doubts about the reliability of the test. That is all. So he was lucky. The addition of doping advice on his phone shows how lucky he was.
Au contraire uninformed one. They raised many doubts about how the test was executed and how the results were interpreted.
But even when faced with doubts about reliability, that is sufficient for scepticism.
Raising doubts about a test is not confirmation the athlete is clean. But in your case it wouldn't make any difference; an athlete will undoubtedly test positive and you will still argue their innocence - as you have with Houlihan. In your world, a doper is a unicorn.
"Outside experts" means whatever people look credible enough for a jury to buy who will support a lawyer's case. That holds no credibility to anyone who knows the process. If they got the world leading expert on doping to be paid by the court, not one side, to give his or her best assessment, that would hold weight.
That is an interesting idea, but what should keep scientists credible is the data. If the data is ambiguous, then any conclusions cannot be considered reliable.
Au contraire uninformed one. They raised many doubts about how the test was executed and how the results were interpreted.
But even when faced with doubts about reliability, that is sufficient for scepticism.
Raising doubts about a test is not confirmation the athlete is clean. But in your case it wouldn't make any difference; an athlete will undoubtedly test positive and you will still argue their innocence - as you have with Houlihan. In your world, a doper is a unicorn.
I thought we were talking about the A-Sample, not the athlete.
The fundamental doubt here is whether Peter Bol's A-sample was properly interpreted as positive -- which you made a condition of your original goalpost of "what athletes might do".