No. I noted that your post started with "Only you can control how informed you are."
Had he been better informed, he would have known that some have been saying there is something wrong with the EPO test results for more than 20 years, since the cases of Lagat, to Colvert, to Biwott.
Are you saying the guilty people think the test is messed up?
Had he been better informed, he would have known that some have been saying there is something wrong with the EPO test results for more than 20 years, since the cases of Lagat, to Colvert, to Biwott.
Are you saying the guilty people think the test is messed up?
Among others.
But the main point was to show some history of cases, where much was said by several others, against the initial claim of "Said No One, ever."
But the main point was to show some history of cases, where much was said by several others, against the initial claim of "Said No One, ever."
I am not following this at all. Are you agreeing that those that are guilty always say there is a problem with the test?
Some do. Because with EPO, you can't argue about your beef burrito or kissing the hooker.
Here, see 4.3 and 5.22 of the decision:
4.3 The Athlete submits, in summary, that certain physiological aspects of his case could have caused his positive test and that the test that was used to analyze his samples was the wrong and inavlid test and the later updated standard should have been applied. The Athlete also challenges the scientific validity of the tests for exogenous EPO in general.
5.22 None of these claims assist Respondent in carrying his burden of proving it is more likely than not that the SAR-PAGE method is not scientifically valid. The method has been approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and has served as the basis for hundreds of AAFs over the past 10-plus years. The method is presumed valid under the rules and in fact is valid.
I am not following this at all. Are you agreeing that those that are guilty always say there is a problem with the test?
Some do. Because with EPO, you can't argue about your beef burrito or kissing the hooker.
Here, see 4.3 and 5.22 of the decision:
4.3 The Athlete submits, in summary, that certain physiological aspects of his case could have caused his positive test and that the test that was used to analyze his samples was the wrong and inavlid test and the later updated standard should have been applied. The Athlete also challenges the scientific validity of the tests for exogenous EPO in general.
5.22 None of these claims assist Respondent in carrying his burden of proving it is more likely than not that the SAR-PAGE method is not scientifically valid. The method has been approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and has served as the basis for hundreds of AAFs over the past 10-plus years. The method is presumed valid under the rules and in fact is valid.
Yes the guilty party challenged the validity of the test as they all do. Not really news just the same protocol that every guilty person has gone through the past few years.
I wonder how many that have gone through arbitration and gotten away with it and we never hear about their tests?
Let's hope not too many. Fortunately most - unlike Biwott and Houlihan - get their provisional suspension made public. As is AIU policy (exception for Nike Houlihan), and most NADOs, but not USADA.
You seem to know about the UC Davis situation. What happened to the Petersons? I heard the John Mansoor is the current temporary coach? The UCD website has no information.
Petersens moved on to Bellarmine. I would hope they didn't keep Mansoor since he's Shaddy's coach and has probably known about this drug thing for a long time.
But the main point was to show some history of cases, where much was said by several others, against the initial claim of "Said No One, ever."
I am not following this at all. Are you agreeing that those that are guilty always say there is a problem with the test?
Not just "those that are guilty", but also some that have been declared innocent (e.g. see the details of the cases of Bernard Lagat and Peter Bol).
Note also that this goes two ways -- who says the test results are valid, and how free are they to say otherwise, and does it stand up to independent review?
Perhaps a good start for you would be to re-read what I posted earlier, as these cases are well documented:
Maybe not the EPO test per se, but it is a difficult test to get right, and the execution and interpretation of the tests have been the target of broad criticism, as far back in time as 2003 with Bernard Lagat's tests, to Peter Bol, and in several other cases highlighed by Prof. Erik Boye of Erik Tysse, Steven Colvert, Vojtech Sommer, and Benedikt Karus. Prof. Boye was an invited guest speaker in (Prof.) Ross Tucker's "sportsscientists" blog, to discuss issues with EPO testing and interpretation of the results, although Ross did provide a "his opinions are his own" disclaimer, while justifying the importance of debate and discussion as his motivation.
As far as I know, these criticisms were all based on presence in urine tests, pointing to sub-par procedures for transporting or storing the samples (in the case of Lagat), or manipulations in photographs of the results, and using these manipulated photographs in anti-doping proceedings. Some cases looked like oversaturation, and in others, like obvious bleeding from the next "control" lane.
I am not following this at all. Are you agreeing that those that are guilty always say there is a problem with the test?
Not just "those that are guilty", but also some that have been declared innocent (e.g. see the details of the cases of Bernard Lagat and Peter Bol).
Note also that this goes two ways -- who says the test results are valid, and how free are they to say otherwise, and does it stand up to independent review?
Perhaps a good start for you would be to re-read what I posted earlier, as these cases are well documented:
Maybe not the EPO test per se, but it is a difficult test to get right, and the execution and interpretation of the tests have been the target of broad criticism, as far back in time as 2003 with Bernard Lagat's tests, to Peter Bol, and in several other cases highlighed by Prof. Erik Boye of Erik Tysse, Steven Colvert, Vojtech Sommer, and Benedikt Karus. Prof. Boye was an invited guest speaker in (Prof.) Ross Tucker's "sportsscientists" blog, to discuss issues with EPO testing and interpretation of the results, although Ross did provide a "his opinions are his own" disclaimer, while justifying the importance of debate and discussion as his motivation.
As far as I know, these criticisms were all based on presence in urine tests, pointing to sub-par procedures for transporting or storing the samples (in the case of Lagat), or manipulations in photographs of the results, and using these manipulated photographs in anti-doping proceedings. Some cases looked like oversaturation, and in others, like obvious bleeding from the next "control" lane.
OK but if the urine test is the problem they also have his blood test which was also positive for EPO. They have a problem with that test as well?
OK but if the urine test is the problem they also have his blood test which was also positive for EPO. They have a problem with that test as well?
If it is the same "SAR-PAGE" method, with the heritage dating back to 2013, there is nothing unique about blood tests. If it is another newer technique, without the heritage, this only adds some new questions, and takes away some of the lab defenses (i.e. "heritage"), and still doesn't address the previous criticisms about test execution, interpretation, manipulation of photos, and obstructing athlete access to unmanipulated lab data, that were raised in the more recent cases I identified of Tysse, Colvert, Sommer, Karus and Bol.
Had he been better informed, he would have known that some have been saying there is something wrong with the EPO test results for more than 20 years, since the cases of Lagat, to Colvert, to Biwott.
Lagat: alleged sample storage issue, no problem with the test itself.
Colvert: yes he alleged issues with the test itself, like Biwott (who tested positive in urine and blood), but he lost, got banned, and lost the appeal too - because the method was valid.
Biwott, see above. Like Idontwantmynamehere19, I really don't see an issue here. On the contrary, as I just quoted earlier from his case:
"The method has been approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and has served as the basis for hundreds of AAFs over the past 10-plus years. The method is presumed valid under the rules and in fact is valid."
But yes, there is always Rekrunner with his/her "doubts", and the dopers with their "experts". To you, Biwott was banned because of a presumption, not because of his intentional doping, amirite? Is it premature to call him out as a doper?
You seem to know about the UC Davis situation. What happened to the Petersons? I heard the John Mansoor is the current temporary coach? The UCD website has no information.
Thank you
If anyone knows the AD or Director of TN&F at the UC Davis athletic department, tell them to check their emails. A trusted and well respected coach on the east coast has confirmed that two well respected coaches, one of which is a retired elite runner who's made multiple national teams, including world cross country and world track teams and is currently coaching D-1 on the west coast, and the other who has been coaching at the D-2 level the past 10 years, have reached out inquiring about the job. Supposedly, neither have been contacted or have gotten a reply.
If UC Davis is simply trying to sh^t can the distance program, then say so! Now they look like a joke of a program, with an interim coach who is a convicted drug cheater. Not a good look for what is a great school academically and has the resources to be great athletically.
Lagat: alleged sample storage issue, no problem with the test itself.
Colvert: yes he alleged issues with the test itself, like Biwott (who tested positive in urine and blood), but he lost, got banned, and lost the appeal too - because the method was valid.
Biwott, see above. Like Idontwantmynamehere19, I really don't see an issue here. On the contrary, as I just quoted earlier from his case:
"The method has been approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and has served as the basis for hundreds of AAFs over the past 10-plus years. The method is presumed valid under the rules and in fact is valid."
But yes, there is always Rekrunner with his/her "doubts", and the dopers with their "experts". To you, Biwott was banned because of a presumption, not because of his intentional doping, amirite? Is it premature to call him out as a doper?
I guess you are expressing one anonymous man's/woman's opinion.
None of this seems to support the original "Said No One, ever." As anyone can find out for themselves, there has been rather detailed criticism of the analysis and interpretation of the tests, and WADA's response seems to be some version of "Hey, we're WADA. Trust me bro! We're doing it right. Even WADA says so."
Lagat: Note I said "Maybe not the EPO test per se" and again "something wrong with the EPO test results". Lagat's case is not about the test per se, but about anti-doping persons getting the analysis wrong due to factors after sample collection, leading to a wrong intepretation of the test result, and a wrongful charge of an ADRV, and risking irreparable permanent damage to Lagat's career. He is still considered a doper in the eyes of many fans, based on the original faulty A-sample interpretation. Lagat was lucky to have the resources to challenge it. Most poor athletes would not be so lucky.
Colvert: An additional criticism in Colvert's case is that Colvert was refused access to the original gel images when he asked for them. The evidence used to convict him was the post-processed output of software, apparently after the original gel images were cut and realigned. Given the burden is on the athlete to prove on a basis of likelihoods with evidence, and he is denied access to the original unmanipulated evidence, this may help explain why he failed to meet his burden, why he was banned, and why he lost his appeal. (Vojtech Sommer had to pay the WADA lab in Dresden 2000 Euros to get the lab to provide the evidence.)
Biwott: Whether you see a problem or not, other lab experts and advocates for scientific integrity do see problems. Even if we "presume" (there's that word again) the WADA peer-reviewed method is valid, this doesn't address the criticism that the execution, analysis, and interpretation, is error prone, if not invalid. Just because WADA has been using it for 10+ years, doesn't mean mistakes were not made. In any case, the method has been under criticism for much of the same 10+ years. (Prof. Boye and colleagues published an article in the Lab Times in September 2015.)
Note that I haven't expressed any personal doubts here about Biwott's test results (having not seen any of the gel images, and admitting having seen nothing about testing blood for the presence of EPO), but was simply a messenger of relevant information that there are experts who have expressed a broad range of doubts, not only about SAR-PAGE result interpretations, but more broadly about the fairness of prosecutions against accused athletes, in a process defined by WADA.
I did express doubts about "why" a 39-year old, who peaked on the track some 20 years ago, and has road PBs from nearly 10 years ago, would intentionally use EPO at 39. Seems like at this point, his coaching job is more important than any future career as an athlete. I'm even wondering why he is still in the testing pool after 2019. We could speculate he was using EPO all along, as some have, but then his times even in his prime were not really all that good, relative to top national class runners, let alone world class.
I guess you are expressing one anonymous man's/woman's opinion.
I know you are expressing one anonymous man's/woman's opinion.
So far, so good. But, you "overlooked" the key conclusion here, from the neutral, evidently experienced arbitrator (see also his IAAF/FIFA/CAS history): "The method has been approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and has served as the basis for hundreds of AAFs over the past 10-plus years. The method is presumed valid under the rules and in fact is valid."
So your alleged
WADA's response seems to be some version of "Hey, we're WADA. Trust me bro! We're doing it right. Even WADA says so."
is nonsense. At best, it exists in your imagination. But more likely, you are just lying for the fun of it.
I guess you are expressing one anonymous man's/woman's opinion.
I know you are expressing one anonymous man's/woman's opinion.
So far, so good. But, you "overlooked" the key conclusion here, from the neutral, evidently experienced arbitrator (see also his IAAF/FIFA/CAS history): "The method has been approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and has served as the basis for hundreds of AAFs over the past 10-plus years. The method is presumed valid under the rules and in fact is valid."
So your alleged
WADA's response seems to be some version of "Hey, we're WADA. Trust me bro! We're doing it right. Even WADA says so."
is nonsense. At best, it exists in your imagination. But more likely, you are just lying for the fun of it.
Actually, I was pointing all of you to the existence of opinions of about a half-dozen non-anonymous scientific experts.
While I agree that the method is presumed valid under the rules, I don't overlook arbitrator's conclusions so much as question their relevant experience to draw any conclusions outside their domain of expertise. Methods cannot be determined to be valid by arbitrators, but rather by constant peer-review.
And I still see this as WADA consulting the relevant scientific community, and then saying "Trust me bro!"
In any case, the validity of the method was not the only criticism. It doesn't matter how valid a method is, if mistakes are made in the testing and/or interpretation of the results.