Former Oregon star Shadrack Biwott (USA) suspended for four years for EPO

Eh, you can’t be faulted for the errors of youth, but neither Shaddy (who tested positive) nor Mansoor can be viewed as above full suspicion at this point.
Most people will never know how long Shaddy doped, but it’s likely he did it during his successful run of WMM finishes when he was with Hansons. News flash: even a doper will speak ill of other dopers; it’s called projection. Even worse that Shaddy can’t own up now a year and a half later.

As for Mansoor, that guy has been involved in the sport long enough to know where some of the bodies of running world are buried. That’s an objective observation, and as Shaddy’s coach it would be hard to believe he was completely ignorant to the allegations. As far as UCD and Mansoor are concerned, good riddance.

For those wondering about the Peterson’s and UCD, Emma and Drew seemingly got out before they were let go. There appears to be no intention to hire a legit distance coach for 25-26, which means that there are probably plans to wash the whole coaching slate clean and reboot when UCD moves to the Mountain West a year from now. Sucks to take an ‘L’ for a full year, but on paper the men’s and women’s distances can’t really get much worse than they already are with or without an accomplished person at the helm right now.

I agree with most of what you are saying here. Just a couple of small changes for me and that is that I believe Mansoor has known that Shaddy was on drugs for a very long time.

The other one that I would say is that UC Davis has some talent on the roster and it's too bad they aren't willing to look for a coach that is willing to continue to develop it and begin recruiting. If they don't have anyone recruiting this year then they are going to be way behind when they make the jump to the new conference.

Didn't Shelby speak out against dopers?

Indeed. And Armstrong and Ullrich. And, best of all, Kiprop wanted them in jail LOL.

Which is exactly why "speaking out against dopers" is the worst defense.

What? Duncan Kibet with his surprising 2:04 in 2009?

You've said it twice in this thread -- can you provide a quote from Lance Armstrong where he spoke out against dopers?

My recollection was that he generally spoke out against speaking out, saying that talking about doping at all only hurts the sport. See, for example, Christophe "Mr. Clean" Bassons, and the threats made by Armstrong, simply for speaking out, which ultimately led Bassons to quite the tour, and cycling.

Yeah closest quote I could find was calling Landis a “proven liar.” It was all attacking people accusing him.

Closest I could find was testimony from teammates like Hincapie, from 1995: "this is BS, people are using stuff", and "we are getting killed". "... he did not want to and something needed to be done. I understood that he meant the team needed to get on EPO."

But this wasn't "speaking out" -- these were private conversations within the team. And he wasn't speaking against the doping, but the losing, and decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". He wasn't campaigning against others doping, but for his own team's doping.

And "a black eye for the sport"

espn.com

Armstrong talks about 'black eye' cycling suffered

Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong said cycling has suffered a "black eye" from ongoing disclosures about doping scandals, but so have a number of sports so he doesn't know how it will affect interest in this ye...

Open link

"Doping is a global problem. It's a sports problem, and it's never a good thing, either through positive tests or admissions," Armstrong told reporters during a teleconference.
"It is a black eye, but I suspect that there are a lot of sports out there with black eyes, and it's just something that we as a community or global community, sports community, have to work through," he said.

What an odd set of statements. Is Armstrong really blaming dopers for doping, and defending clean athletes as the victims here? For such a good speaker, his choice of words and viewpoints are atypical.

He doesn't once acknowledge that clean athletes as victims of cheating and fraud, robbed of podium places, and lost sponsorship opportunties, with dopers and their enablers as the perpetrators. Instead, he actually seems to blame "positive tests" and "admissions", as if he is arguing for unadmitted doping with no positive tests, for giving "black eyes" to the sport of cycling. Cycling is the real victim, with declining television ratings. He then goes on further attacking David Walsh, among other journalists, for his upcoming book "From Lance to Landis", accusing them of "jumping on the bandwagon" and "sullying reputations" and "a consistent failure to adhere to the most basic journalistic standards or ethics".

He is still speaking out against speaking out about doping, whether it is from the athletes, investigative journalists, or the anti-doping agencies. For him, the bad publicity is the real problem that doping brings.

It does make it harder to distinguish the clean athletes from the dopers, when the guilty ones pretend to be innocent.

It's a little stronger when several others make the statement about an athlete (e.g. Christophe Bassons), as character witnesses -- something cyclists like Armstrong never had. Yet still, such statements do little to persuade a cynical or skeptical public, and carry no weight at all in any anti-doping proceedings.

Your underlying assumption is that the consultation within the "relevant scientific community" supported the use of the test, solidly. What if they talked to five people, and three said the test was crap? You're accepting WADA's approval of the test as something more than it is. And what is the "relevant scientific community?" Finally, the fact that the test has been the basis of hundreds of AAFs is not proof that the test is good, or works accurately. That just means it's been used a lot.

Also, the arbitrator did not determine the validity of the method, he/she took WADA's word for it: "The World Anti-Doping Code has accounted for such arguments and states that '[a]nalytical methods or Decision Limits approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community or which have been the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid.'" So in this case, the proof of validity is, indeed, "WADA says so."

Here's a quick summary from ChatGPT:

WADA’s erythropoietin (EPO) detection test went through a long process of scientific validation before it was accepted into the anti-doping system. Here’s the outline of how its validity was determined:
1. Scientific Development and Basis
Recombinant human EPO (rhEPO, first marketed in the late 1980s) differs from endogenous human EPO in glycosylation patterns (the way sugar side chains are attached).
Researchers (notably in France, Australia, and Norway in the 1990s) developed methods to separate isoforms of EPO by isoelectric focusing (IEF), and then identify the bands using double blotting and chemiluminescence with anti-EPO antibodies.
The principle: recombinant EPO migrates differently than natural EPO, producing a distinct banding pattern.
2. Controlled Administration Studies
Healthy volunteers were administered rhEPO under medical supervision.
Their urine and blood samples were tested with the developing method.
The banding patterns were consistent, reproducible, and distinguishable from natural EPO.
Studies confirmed that detection was possible for ~3–5 days after last injection in urine, and longer in blood (reticulocyte stimulation provided indirect evidence too).
3. Specificity & Sensitivity Testing
Specificity (false positives): Large numbers of samples from unexposed, drug-free athletes were tested. No endogenous EPO pattern was mistaken for recombinant.
Sensitivity (false negatives): Multiple rhEPO formulations (Eprex, NeoRecormon, etc.) and doses were tested to ensure detectability across brands and regimens.
4. Peer-Reviewed Validation
Independent labs (Paris, Sydney, Oslo, Beijing) reproduced the method with consistent results.
Peer-reviewed papers (esp. Lasne & de Ceaurriz, Nature, 2000) described the test and its validation data.
Blind trials were done where labs were given coded samples (doped vs. clean), and detection accuracy was confirmed.
5. WADA Accreditation & Standardization
WADA’s Laboratory Expert Group reviewed all validation studies.
A standardized operating procedure (SOP) was issued to accredited labs.
Inter-lab comparison studies (“ring trials”) were run to confirm reproducibility worldwide.
6. Legal Robustness
The method was challenged in arbitration (CAS cases in early 2000s, e.g., against cyclists and cross-country skiers).
Panels examined the science, chain of custody, and possibility of false positives.
CAS generally upheld the validity, finding the science solid and reproducible, though they sometimes criticized early documentation practices.
✅ In summary: WADA determined the validity of the EPO test through controlled administration studies, large-scale testing of clean samples, peer-reviewed publications, inter-laboratory trials, and legal scrutiny in CAS hearings. This multi-layered process is how it became accepted as scientifically and legally reliable.

and after all of that, bottom line is that Shaddy failed two urine tests and a blood test. It's hard to get more guilty than that.

+1

The problem with accepting "consultation within ???" is the lack of transparency makes it impossible to assess and confirm the validity of these representations. If anyone wants to dig into what "consultation within the relevant scientific community" means, we immediately run into a vacuum, because nothing about the process is ever made public. For example, who in the "relevant scientific community" was consulted? What did they say? Who was not, and what would they say? Did they express any concerns or limitations? Did they declare any conflicting or competing interests? If the "relevant" scientists are exclusively working at WADA approved labs, or are exceptionally invited to WADA's Working Groups, with access to data and events and minutes not made available to the wider scientific community or the public, we have to reserve the right to ask questions about independence and neutrality with respect to charged athletes when the charges are relying on these opaque consultations. WADA is not solely a scientific body, but a combination of scientists, lawyers, and politicians.

We can see that the arbiters in this case give a great deal of deference to the opinions of USADA's experts who "both sit on WADA’s EPO Working Group", while discounting Dr. Chen's expert opinions because he "never worked in a WADA-accredited laboratory". It's like the arbiter sees WADA as a privileged exclusive closed scientific network that sits above the broader set of scientists working in non-WADA environments, rather than the other way around.

WADA's procedures and actions look good on paper, but arbiter review is just not the same as scientific peer review.

For a good look at a broader set of scientific, legal, social, and moral criticisms of WADA and the current WADA Code, and the prohibited list, as it exists today, I find this "Invited Review" is highly relevant:

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.14998

Here's a quicker summary: "Hey, we're WADA. Trust me bro! We're doing it right. Even WADA says so."

Your reliance on ChatGPT is not a substitute for real intelligence. Like many "google" searches, ChatGPT will often tell you what you want to hear, depending on what question you ask. Here is an untrained ChatGPT counterpoint, slightly edited for readability:

Question: Regarding the history of WADA testing for erythropoietin, given the cases of Bernard Lagat, and Peter Bol, and the criticisms in cases like Steven Colvert's, and the criticisms from scientists like Erik Boye, what are the limitations with the EPO testing as implemented by WADA Approved Labs?

ChatGPT said:
You’ve raised a complex and important topic: the limitations of WADA-approved laboratory testing for erythropoietin (EPO), as illuminated by Bernard Lagat, Peter Bol, Steven Colvert, and critiques from scientists like Erik Boye. Let’s unpack the key issues:
1. Inconsistent and Technically Cumbersome Detection Methods
Urine-based EPO tests are technically demanding and vary in reliability. Early methods—such as isoelectric focusing (IEF)—are cumbersome, technician-dependent, and not universally robust, making them expensive and burdensome to deploy widely. See "Hein Verbruggen".
Poor reproducibility across labs. A study found striking discrepancies between two WADA-accredited labs: in some instances, one lab detected positives or “suspicious” samples, while another found none. See "ScienceDaily" "Medical Xpress".
Short detection window. Urine-based tests have a very limited window—mere days—to detect recombinant EPO, which limits their effectiveness, especially for athletes micro-dosing or spacing their usage. See "Physiology Journals" "ScienceDaily".
2. Subjectivity and Ambiguity in Interpretation
Lack of clearly defined decision thresholds. Many anti-doping tests for non-threshold substances—including EPO—are not governed by quantitative cutoffs. Results are often interpreted subjectively (“we know it when we see it”) rather than using precise criteria, undermining objectivity and comparability. See "PMC".
Differing interpretations of lab data. Even among WADA-accredited labs, interpretations can diverge, leading to false positives—or false negatives—based on how gel images or band patterns are judged. See "ASHA Publications" "Physiology Journals".
3. Procedural and Peer Review Shortcomings
Lack of transparency for athletes’ defense. Athletes often don’t have access to raw or complete analytical data—only the data that supports the lab’s conclusion—making it difficult to mount effective challenges. See "Sports Scientists".
Second opinions from non-independent sources. While WADA permits a second opinion from another accredited lab, it remains within the same system and subject to collective biases or pressures. Truly independent expert review is rare. See "Sports Scientists".
4. Wrongful Positives and Legal Vulnerabilities
Examples like Bernard Lagat. He was cleared because his B sample did not confirm the A sample result, highlighting issues of reproducibility and chain-of-custody. See "The Washington Post".
Peter Bol’s case revealed procedural flaws. He received a false positive. After an eight-month probe, WADA mandated second opinions before confirming adverse findings and improved definitions around “atypical” and “negative” findings. See "Adelaide Now" "Chronicles of sport and anti-doping".
Potential for sample interpretation errors. Reddit discussions hint that technical lab errors—like overloading gels—could lead to misinterpretation of band patterns resembling synthetic EPO. See "Reddit".
5. Power Imbalances and Systemic Biases
Financial dependency and institutional power. WADA-accredited labs rely financially on WADA, and panels or CAS judges may be predisposed to trust their findings over athlete defenses—especially independent scientists with no vested interest. See "Sports Scientists".
Economic disadvantages for athletes. Defending against doping charges is expensive, and athletes with fewer resources are at a systemic disadvantage. Some must even pay to access data needed for their case. See "Sports Scientists".

Summary Table
Limitation: Description

- Technical inconsistency: Labs vary widely in detection ability and reproducibility.
- Short detection window: Urine tests only detect EPO for a few days post-use.
- Subjective interpretation: No clear thresholds; decisions often rely on expert judgment.
- Lab procedural errors: Overloading gels, image artifacts, and technical errors can mislead results.
- Limited athlete defense access: Athletes often don’t receive full raw data.
- Weak independence of second opinions: “Second opinions” still come from within the same institutional system.
- Power and financial imbalance: Labs are under WADA’s shadow; athletes may lack resources for fair defense.

Final Thoughts
While WADA has taken steps—such as enhancing procedural guidance and requiring multiple opinions post–Peter Bol—it’s clear that systemic and scientific limitations persist. Urine-based EPO testing remains a fragile tool: sensitive to technical error, interpretational bias, and procedural misuse.

Future improvements could include:
Transitioning more to blood-based or biological passport testing (monitoring longitudinal biomarkers, not just detecting EPO in isolation) "Wikipedia" "WIRED".
Establishing quantitative, standardized decision criteria to reduce subjectivity.
Ensuring full data access for athletes and independent review panels.
Structurally ensuring independence in review—bringing in truly independent experts, not just another lab in the same accreditation system.
These measures would help reconcile anti‑doping goals with fair process and scientific rigor.

Would you like to dive deeper into any specific case—like Bol’s procedural reforms—or explore the shift toward blood‑passport strategies?