Peter Bol already questioning legitimacy of B sample: good move?

I don't want the system to be flawed, obviously. But I don't want Bol to be guilty.

Agreed. If you're innocent, let the process play out and wait for the B sample results. Although it does seem unfair to me that the results of the A sample are out in the open.

I have revised my opinion of Peter from "let's wait and see" to probably guilty.

Felt that individual was a doper. Glad to see this cheating doper one big step towards getting kicked off the track.

Agreed, I don't understand why the A sample is made public before the B testing is done. Athlete should be privately notified of the A sample positive, and then B sample should be immediately tested.

The only one who can disclose a positive A sample is Bol.

The B sample cannot be tested immediatly without Bol, or his reprentative, being allowed to observe the test.

Hmmm.

In this January 10th article he said "Above all, I remain hopeful that the process will exonerate me" but now he's questioning the fairness of the process. It does lead me to believe that either he already knows or strongly suspects that he failed the B test.

athleticsweekly.com

Australian 800m record-holder Peter Bol tests positive - AW

Olympic finalist and Commonwealth silver medallist failed out-of-competition test for EPO but disputes the finding

Link:athleticsweekly.com/athletics-news/aus...

Maybe you're overthinking it?

I think your imagination is getting the better of you. The process is fair precisely because he is allowed to have representation present at the time that his B sample is tested.

No one in the lab knows whose sample they are testing. They only know that they are testing anonymous serial numbers. Only when a sample tests positive do they need to match it with its B, and provide the proof of due process.

Right. Bol released the A test result for PR reasons, just like he is now questioning the results of the B test before the public hears about it.

After he was caught, he realized the ban is unavoidable, and now he is on damage control. No surprise, given that he is using Shelburrito's lawyer and his playbook.

As a healthy person who never uses drugs and doesn't believe in them, except for the FACT that they make people sick, I would always question every result from the bogus big pharma drug tests.

There is nothing questionable about questioning the test results. The only questionable thing is to not question their use in the first place, because they're a needless and extremely harmful waste of time.

Peter Bol has the same manager as Bernard Lagat had when he had his B sample miraculously cleared.

Just saying.

For the record, we don't know the results of the B test yet. We are sitting here every day (every second) waiting for them to come thru.

Ask yourself, if you NEVER took EPO and a test comes back saying you did, wouldn't it be natural to question the test? Wouldn't you want to know how it could possibly happen?

Coevett - pull you head in mate. Some of the comments you've made lately border on the line of pure racism. I can handle the drug cheat comments, but not the ones in relation to race.

This is not true unfortunately - they knew they were testing Pete's B. This whole process is strange to be honest

Coevett, racist?

when is this B sample test being done. One of my highly anticipated sporting events for me.

If they already tested it without Bols representation then the procedure is voided, regardless of the result.

Peter is still in the denial stage. He's probably going to copy Asbel Kiprop's timeline. Denial, then acceptance and admittance when he's hit rock bottom in hopes of making a comeback which may or may not happen depending on the amount of fitness he's lost.

You're not wrong. I too think the optic of this isn't great - it's basically setting up that good old victim card to be played in the event this doesn't go his way. I don't you are overthinking it at all because this is the impression I get too.

What puzzles me is how a negative B sample can basically fully exonerate him here. I felt exactly the same with the Lagat situation. Because I get it, he gets his sample tested by a different lab with either him or his people present but even if it's now negative why is the assumption immediately made that the first test was then faulty and not the second? Because him or his lawyer are watching it happen? I also will never understand how even if the A sample was somehow "incorrectly" tested that out of all things, traces of synthetic EPO just so happen to show up in it. Same with Lagat - guess out of all things that an incorrect procedure could show it just so happens to be a banned substance extremely beneficial to endurance athletes huh.

Justin assuming positively here that Peter never took EPO, have you been given any possible explanation by the scientific/medical community as to how a positive test for EPO came out of the A sample? I'm totally hypothesizing here but do they have a reagent that they use to detect specific PEDs that if the test is done incorrectly or not to procedure end up showing presence of the substance?