The whole 'exonerated by the B sample' thing almost never happens. Just a massive coincidence that it's happened twice to athletes with the same manager.
At let's be honest, nobody is really in doubt as to whether Lagat was doped to the gills.
Oh, and just to be clear. The one thing he hasn't had yet is a negative test.
Since A sample positives aren't meant to be announced unless the athlete waives the B, you don't know the denominator and therefore don't know how rare it is.
The idea that one manager figured out how to game the system 10 years ago, and nobody else knows how to do it, strikes me as hilarious.
Well, either way, it's a huge co-incidence. If A sample positives and B sample negatives (or 'atypicals') have only happened 3 times, then it's a big red flag that 2 of the 3 athletes, separated by two decades, shared the same manager.
Equally, if it's more common than we know, but these 3 cases are the only ones that for some reason were made public, then it's a big red flag that 2 of the 3 athletes, separated by two decades, shared the same manager.
If you delve you will find that for a B to be positive it has to be way more positive than an A. Has to be 160% levels for it to be positive and back the A sample. These samples degrade over time - Lagat knows that. Perfect storm , let it degrade and know that it will not meet the levels to fail on B sample criteria. Sad but true.
You may be absolutely right. I am not contesting that.
But you still want him to be guilty, regardless of what he has or has not done.
Look at your last sentence; you think he is guilty because he hasn't had a negative test, even if his "positive" was shown to be unreliable.
You just don't want Peter Bol to be innocent.
Witch hunting is what you are doing.
Before replying, re-read my first sentence on this post.
It's not about witch-hunts, it's about an unsatisfying outcome that suggests the athlete may be guilty, yet is being held up as an innocent victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice.
After an A sample positive for EPO, Bol comes out and declares confidently that he will be only the 3rd known athlete to be cleared by the B sample (unreported by the media that his manager was also the manager of the 2nd athlete to be cleared this way 20 years ago, and who anyone with an ounce of sense knows was EPOed to the max at the time).
Bol's B sample comes back 'atypical', and according to the rules, his provisional suspension is lifted while investigations continue.
After seemingly plateuing and perhaps starting to decline, Bol had his best season at age 28 and looked a genuine contender for gold.
The curious thing in this thread is not a 'witch-hunt', but that he is being white washed.
If this was a Kenyan, a Moroccan, or a Russian, there wouldn't be nearly so much love (aside from the usual hard-core doping apologist trolls and Aden shills).
If you delve you will find that for a B to be positive it has to be way more positive than an A. Has to be 160% levels for it to be positive and back the A sample. These samples degrade over time - Lagat knows that. Perfect storm , let it degrade and know that it will not meet the levels to fail on B sample criteria. Sad but true.
Bol may be able to race without restriction, but as a spectator, how can one believe in the performances of someone who had an EPO positive A sample followed by a 'atypical' B sample. Far from vindicating. Read between the lines. Given how many dopers are able to evade positives completely, this does not look good. I do not trust his performances any more, personally.
Just Read wise old man's post on the crudity of the epo assay test. If his characterisation is accurate, it is quite alarming that only two tests from the same sample are used.
Maybe testing labs should assess three or four samples, on the epo assay
We've seen this movie before. Specifically circa 2003, when Bernard Lagat was falsely accused of using EPO and drummed out Worlds due to the testers' incompetence.
Anyone who thinks the tests and testers are infallible knows nothing about analytical testing.
And it's truly bizarre how much cynicism the mob spews at athletes while naively accepting test results without a shred of skepticism.
We've seen this movie before. Specifically circa 2003, when Bernard Lagat was falsely accused of using EPO and drummed out Worlds due to the testers' incompetence.
Anyone who thinks the tests and testers are infallible knows nothing about analytical testing.
And it's truly bizarre how much cynicism the mob spews at athletes while naively accepting test results without a shred of skepticism.
Lol.
Even if you only give super shoes 2 seconds in a 1500m, he would be running low 3:24 today and finishing at least 3 to 5 seconds ahead of everybody else.
He did this at the height of the full throttle EPO era.
Both he and Bol have/had the same manager, and both were having 'atypical' seasons when they failed their A Sample.
We've seen this movie before. Specifically circa 2003, when Bernard Lagat was falsely accused of using EPO and drummed out Worlds due to the testers' incompetence.
Anyone who thinks the tests and testers are infallible knows nothing about analytical testing.
And it's truly bizarre how much cynicism the mob spews at athletes while naively accepting test results without a shred of skepticism.
There is no possible scenario in which Lagat never took EPO.
I appreciate he was 'American' at the time, but in those days most people thought the happy, smiley, religious Kenyans couldn't possibly dope just because they loved god and their mothers so much.
Now we know that the majority of Kenyan success was gained through cheating.
Not really a stretch that the fastest of them all, who failed an EPO test, was on balance almost certainly on EPO.
Further complexity has been thrown on the situation with the Sydney Morning Herald reporting that Bol had contradictory EPO testing results in 2021 – with one lab identifying a minor positive, and another concluding the same sample was negative. Bol was reportedly unaware of this until now; it may suggest naturally-occurring high levels of EPO within his body.
Not really even talking about his case, talking about his career.
He competed in a pretty rampant doping era for a rampant doping country, and was the fastest of all of them. Coupled with the failed test, it only points to one thing.
We've seen this movie before. Specifically circa 2003, when Bernard Lagat was falsely accused of using EPO and drummed out Worlds due to the testers' incompetence.
Anyone who thinks the tests and testers are infallible knows nothing about analytical testing.
And it's truly bizarre how much cynicism the mob spews at athletes while naively accepting test results without a shred of skepticism.
. . both were having 'atypical' seasons when they failed their A Sample.
False. Lagat set his 1500 PR in 2001, two years before the EPO false-positive. And he set all his other PRs at least 5 years after the false-positive.
You really don't have any idea what you're typing, do you?
It wasn't a failed test. That's why he was absolved. Not sure how that can be made any clearer.
And he subsequently competed with great success for many years afterward.
Seriously, it was known that the USTAF had been covering up doping busts for years. He was popped just after regaining form after a poor season. He ran only several tenths of a second slower than El G. Nobody can still get near those times even with super shoes and trampoline tracks. The only other guys to run 3:26 were El G (retired as soon as EPO testing came) and Kiprop (busted for EPO).
If Lagat was clean he was by far and away the fastest 1500m runner of all time. Almost a second a lap faster than Coe, Cram, Ovett, Aouita, and probably a 3:21 runner on today's tracks and in super shoes. Isn't it a tad more likely he was doping when there was zero or little testing for EPO, and all his main competitors were obviously doping, and he himself tested positive?
It wasn't a failed test. That's why he was absolved. Not sure how that can be made any clearer.
And he subsequently competed with great success for many years afterward.
. . . and he himself tested positive?
That's dishonest, and you know it. If he had actually "tested positive," he would have been banned. He wasn't. And if you were paying attention back then, you'd know why.
Engaging with dishonest people is a huge waste of time. Sayonara.
Not really even talking about his case, talking about his career.
He competed in a pretty rampant doping era for a rampant doping country, and was the fastest of all of them. Coupled with the failed test, it only points to one thing.
Same logic I used with Lance back in the day before he copped to it. Hmm...
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.