Peter Bol’s legal team claims “inexperience and incompetence at the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory led to an incorrect determination”.
Yeah we may never know.
It's a co-incidence, or extraordinary bad luck, that the two most prominant James Templeton athletes - Bernard Lagat and Peter Bol - have both suffered such 'catastrophic blunders' in completely unrelated labs seperated by two decades.
And why am I the only person who has pointed out that Bernard 'B Sample' Lagat and Bol share/d the same manager.
Peter Bol is not in the top 5 most "prominant" Templeton-managed athletes.
What lab did the 3rd testing, was it a credited WADA lab or an in pocket, unqualified lab.
Aus media are saying sport integrity aus lab staff were incompetent and inexperienced. This is the wording used by Bols lawyer, I highly doubt SIA would state that and also doubt it would be true. How can the media not see that just because his lawyer states it doesn't make it true. After all that is 100% what he is paid to do, deflect and try to discredit. The labs where Bols independent testing were done, what were the tests, can it be proven the samples were handled properly in transit?, so many questions. Why is the lawyers word taken as truth?
Why don’t you read the article?
We'll share the findings from the two labs when we can. As always, we are open and transparent and have nothing to hide. All we really want is for the lab to admit they have made an error, so we can get back to focusing on running.
Coevett - happy to answer any questions you may have, but you'll need to ask them using your real name.
I have a question. were they WADA accredited labs or investigators, or was it independent analysis which SIA is likely to ignore with their decision to be based on WADA accredited findings.
We can't ask WADA to independently review their own findings and I'm not sure that would be the best course of action.
Agree, they can ignore these finding, but there is clear evidence that the WADA Technical Document hasn't been followed in certain areas when conducting these tests. And to be honest, a lot of what's in the 30+ pages of findings is well over my
comprehension....and so it should be, as I'm not a scientist.
Isn't Bol filming a reality TV show in AUS right now? I'd suggest thats likely getting in the way of "focusing on running"
If you follow fast8trackclub on tweeter, you’ll see that he is back training everyday here in Melbourne. All our workouts are posted there. Like I’ve always said, we are an open and transparent training group.
Good question - why is this legal letter all of a sudden fact? And who is paying Bol’s legal fees - this one’s wired. Anyway, timing of all this tells me something else going on.I believe Bol is about to be suspended……
Who paid for the "independent" lab? How and when were the samples used by the independent lab taken? If not a WADA lab, why would this independent lab have more expertise and experience testing for EPO than a WADA accredited lab?
Personally I find is absurd that a screwed up blood analysis would find EPO rather than say mango juice. I mean, what are the chances?
Justin, I will believe if Bol sues for defamation. That way we will get to see the evidence in a ‘balance of probabilities’ court room. Until that time it’s all legal and PR gymnastics. Can you confirm if Bol is paying his own legal fees? Thanks Sean
'Independent' as in 'hired by yourselves'?
Are you paying them for their work?
The analysis must necessarily be conducted by independent scientists outside of WADA to have any chance of being fair and meaningful, as WADA-accredited labs are bound by rules that forbid them from disputing the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab.
According to Prof. Erik Boye in a 2019 guest article at Sportsscientists, WADA-labs are conflicted:
The WADA-accredited laboratories are collecting and analyzing biological samples on behalf of WADA. They report Adverse Analytical Findings to the antidoping system, which decides whether to press charges against athletes with positive samples. In hearings, the lab scientists appear as experts for WADA. The laboratories are in pole position to prepare, select and promote their own findings. Therefore, they face a conflict of interest: they strengthen the antidoping mission (to catch as many dopers as possible) when promoting their own positive findings and, at the same time, reduce the impact of the athlete’s experts.
Furthermore, the laboratories are financially dependent upon WADA and have an incentive to please them. The lawyers residing in the panels of CAS hearings frequently meet with WADA-accredited scientists and develop a confidence in their expertise that may run counter to trusting opposing and unfamiliar expertise. This lack of power balance is not fair to the athlete. An ideal system would collect evidence from independent scientists who have no vested interest in the outcome.
WADA-accredited laboratories routinely employ one another to present a “second opinion”. However, another WADA-accredited laboratory is not independent; the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab (discussed in a recent publication from our group). A fair and meaningful second-opinion process would include truly independent scientists.
Paul Greene, lol, I remember his "word" from the Shelburrito case.
As for the testing: was there really that much left from the original sample, and Wada sent it to two labs in Australia, or, did the labs analyze new samples?
2023 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion