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).
Considering that you think Iwan Thomas is the clean wr holder at 400m, I don’t know that you are capable of an intellectually honest conversation about testing, doping positives and witch hunts.
Oh, and just to be clear. The one thing he hasn't had yet is a negative test.
You know people can get upset at this but it’s actually the facts of this situation.
At a first principal level failing a doping test is down to “atypical” results seen in urine (or blood) analysis right? There is a sample analyzed and someone in a lab decides if there are abnormalities in the results that would indicate performance enhancing drug use. For Peter Bol the first half of his sample analyzed came back with abnormalities from clean urine that pointed to synthetic EPO. The second half of his sample was then tested and its also showing “atypical” results or abnormalities from clean urine. You can vote this down or get upset all you want but it’s not the same as saying “there are no atypical findings and therefore it’s a completely passed test”. So one person decided the atypical makers the first time were because of synthetic EPO, the second person decided the atypical makers weren’t and now his provisional suspension is lifted because they those results didn’t align. Is that the situation or results a clean athlete gets from a doping test? Draw your own conclusions.
Again, get upset all you want - but the fact remains the same sample of his urine was tested twice by different labs and the results were not in line with regular findings that would constitute a passed test as thousands of WADA tests do for thousands of athletes every year. Period.
Actually this wasn't the first time he was tested.
So yes he had plenty of negative tests.
This test, which proved incorrect, is an outlier. Or as they say. atypical.
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.
While I unequivocally agree with with your first sentence there, the nationality stuff etc has nothing to do with it.
I just settle on him running 3.26.34 in 2001 (height of the CERA "era") which is still the 3rd fastest time ever run.
Oh and he also once returned an "atypical" doping test.
You know people can get upset at this but it’s actually the facts of this situation.
At a first principal level failing a doping test is down to “atypical” results seen in urine (or blood) analysis right? There is a sample analyzed and someone in a lab decides if there are abnormalities in the results that would indicate performance enhancing drug use. For Peter Bol the first half of his sample analyzed came back with abnormalities from clean urine that pointed to synthetic EPO. The second half of his sample was then tested and its also showing “atypical” results or abnormalities from clean urine. You can vote this down or get upset all you want but it’s not the same as saying “there are no atypical findings and therefore it’s a completely passed test”. So one person decided the atypical makers the first time were because of synthetic EPO, the second person decided the atypical makers weren’t and now his provisional suspension is lifted because they those results didn’t align. Is that the situation or results a clean athlete gets from a doping test? Draw your own conclusions.
Again, get upset all you want - but the fact remains the same sample of his urine was tested twice by different labs and the results were not in line with regular findings that would constitute a passed test as thousands of WADA tests do for thousands of athletes every year. Period.
Actually this wasn't the first time he was tested.
So yes he had plenty of negative tests.
This test, which proved incorrect, is an outlier. Or as they say. atypical.
Yeah dude I understand that. I'm talking about this specific test - two samples, both not profiles not considered in line with clean athlete urine. Can you disprove that statement? Thought not.
And for the record there is nothing "incorrect" about the results of this particular urine sample. Nice attempt there to try and link "atypical" and "incorrect". His urine analysis wasn't atypical from "correct" or "right" - it was atypical from what is considered clean. Big difference but you knew that.
Yeah dude I understand that. I'm talking about this specific test - two samples, both not profiles not considered in line with clean athlete urine. Can you disprove that statement? Thought not.
And for the record there is nothing "incorrect" about the results of this particular urine sample. Nice attempt there to try and link "atypical" and "incorrect". His urine analysis wasn't atypical from "correct" or "right" - it was atypical from what is considered clean. Big difference but you knew that.
I can’t argue with your skepticism in the sense that Bol clearly is producing unusual results. But it seems that some athletes *do that naturally* or at least there’re credible theories from scientists that it can happen. Or of course, you can make the argument that they are microdosing and that is what is being caught. This is where the AIU/WADA’s commitment to privacy makes things tricky. The ABP should be there to at the very least keep Bol from doping much at all (if you believe he is). He is almost assuredly in the “Likely Doping” designation and they will be testing him a lot. He’s firmly on notice. If he’s a clean athlete, he is OK with that even if it might seem unfair. If he’s dirty, well he’s gotta be extra careful. Us as fans can only speculate, but it was a very interesting revelation that this A-positive, B-not positive scenario has happened in the past for him.
To the above point, Coevett you do realize that there’re likely other A-pos, B-neg/ATFs that we don’t know about. The only reason we would assuredly is if a major athlete withdrew from a championship. Even then, they could claim an injury that would be unquestioned in most instances. If it happened in the offseason or early/late competition-wise, it’s plausible it would be kept under wraps.
An aside: As for Bernard Lagat, his career is exceptionally weird. I have no insight on him, but I always struggle to understand how at age 22/23 the guy was a good but not great NCAA runner, and then by age 26 he’s the second fastest of all time in the 1500. As opposed to Noah Ngeny who people doubt here, but was a World Junior record holder and then joined the best training group of the era (as opposed to Washington State).
I am really interested to see what WADA, or whoever, say about two atypical tests. Why would they divert from normal readings for every other test that Bol has had?
Yeah dude I understand that. I'm talking about this specific test - two samples, both not profiles not considered in line with clean athlete urine. Can you disprove that statement? Thought not.
And for the record there is nothing "incorrect" about the results of this particular urine sample. Nice attempt there to try and link "atypical" and "incorrect". His urine analysis wasn't atypical from "correct" or "right" - it was atypical from what is considered clean. Big difference but you knew that.
I can’t argue with your skepticism in the sense that Bol clearly is producing unusual results. But it seems that some athletes *do that naturally* or at least there’re credible theories from scientists that it can happen. Or of course, you can make the argument that they are microdosing and that is what is being caught. This is where the AIU/WADA’s commitment to privacy makes things tricky. The ABP should be there to at the very least keep Bol from doping much at all (if you believe he is). He is almost assuredly in the “Likely Doping” designation and they will be testing him a lot. He’s firmly on notice. If he’s a clean athlete, he is OK with that even if it might seem unfair. If he’s dirty, well he’s gotta be extra careful. Us as fans can only speculate, but it was a very interesting revelation that this A-positive, B-not positive scenario has happened in the past for him.
I get that - I guess it's just a bummer that in this case the "atypical'ness" was close enough to resemble the signature of synthetic EPO. That's unfortunate but you are right it does happen (naturally abnormal results). I look forwards to seeing Bol back to his best and running in the 44's and making global finals.
I can’t argue with your skepticism in the sense that Bol clearly is producing unusual results. But it seems that some athletes *do that naturally* or at least there’re credible theories from scientists that it can happen. Or of course, you can make the argument that they are microdosing and that is what is being caught. This is where the AIU/WADA’s commitment to privacy makes things tricky. The ABP should be there to at the very least keep Bol from doping much at all (if you believe he is). He is almost assuredly in the “Likely Doping” designation and they will be testing him a lot. He’s firmly on notice. If he’s a clean athlete, he is OK with that even if it might seem unfair. If he’s dirty, well he’s gotta be extra careful. Us as fans can only speculate, but it was a very interesting revelation that this A-positive, B-not positive scenario has happened in the past for him.
I get that - I guess it's just a bummer that in this case the "atypical'ness" was close enough to resemble the signature of synthetic EPO. That's unfortunate but you are right it does happen (naturally abnormal results). I look forwards to seeing Bol back to his best and running in the 44's and making global finals.
I find it hard to believe that WADA would have a test for synthetic EPO that is influenced by someone having an abnormal fluctuation of natural EPO values.
If it is the case that a similar thing happened in 2021, I will be very interested to see what expert analysis of Biological Passport comes up with.
Next stage of investigation determines whether the finding is positive or negative,
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
I get that - I guess it's just a bummer that in this case the "atypical'ness" was close enough to resemble the signature of synthetic EPO. That's unfortunate but you are right it does happen (naturally abnormal results). I look forwards to seeing Bol back to his best and running in the 44's and making global finals.
I find it hard to believe that WADA would have a test for synthetic EPO that is influenced by someone having an abnormal fluctuation of natural EPO values.
If it is the case that a similar thing happened in 2021, I will be very interested to see what expert analysis of Biological Passport comes up with.
Next stage of investigation determines whether the finding is positive or negative,
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.
I find it hard to believe that WADA would have a test for synthetic EPO that is influenced by someone having an abnormal fluctuation of natural EPO values.
If it is the case that a similar thing happened in 2021, I will be very interested to see what expert analysis of Biological Passport comes up with.
Next stage of investigation determines whether the finding is positive or negative,
I think it is likely uncommon, but every athlete is different. Do I think of the hundreds of athletes 800 and up that are tested that one could confound the EPO test system based on an unusual profile? Sure.
Wasn't it a group of Australian scientists who published a paper that one could use 20 - 40 IU/kg EPO without getting noticed by the ABP software? Bol seems to have gone even above that.
I’m an MD and deal with diagnostic testing all of the time. This outcome is not surprising. Data presented on the prior main thread on this topic documented that the specificity of the A sample test alone (negative in non dopers) and therefore the positive predictive value (that a positive A sample is a predictor of true doping) is low enough for the epo assay that NOBODY should assume an athlete is a doper based on the A sample result alone.
A few years ago someone I was then dating told me she had tested positive for an initial HIV screen. The results were conveyed to her with no sense of context or reliability; based on her history and a little online research I told her that she would almost certainly discover that this was a false positive; and indeed she did...but the person who passed the initial result on to her reported it to her as definitive--and scared the s__t out of her unnecessarily.
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.