Seems strange that a lot of you trust the original test results, when even they came back with different results on the A and B! When the same lab comes back with two different results, why is it so implausible that they got the first one wrong altogether?
A - AAF and B - ATF actually increased my trust. That doesn't look like fake results from someone out there to ban athletes no matter what. Rather this looks like honest results from someone out there seeking the truth.
What's implausible to me is that the real answers are actually A - clean and B - clean for the same A and B as proposed by the Norwegians (especially given their history with WADA). What are the odds? More understandable would have been A - ATF and B - ATF or maybe A - ATF and B - clean (and of course A - AAF and B - ATF).
I agree with the sitting in the room for 3 workdays. Yes I would have done that too.
Did you read the letter from the lawyer, and specifically the excerpts from the independent experts?
This only increases my distrust that the results can be reliably interpreted correctly.
What looks most plausible is that the execution of the tests and interpretation of the results by the ASDTL was incorrect, not by malicious intent, but by inexperience and/or incompetence.
We've known since Lagat in 2003, that these EPO urine tests are problematic to interpret correctly. And we've seen serious questions raised in other cases like Steven Colvert, Vojtech Sommer, and Benedikt Karus. This should raise questions about other recent EPO urine positives -- both high profile busts, and the nonames who couldn't afford lawyers and independent scientists.
A - AAF and B - ATF actually increased my trust. That doesn't look like fake results from someone out there to ban athletes no matter what. Rather this looks like honest results from someone out there seeking the truth.
What's implausible to me is that the real answers are actually A - clean and B - clean for the same A and B as proposed by the Norwegians (especially given their history with WADA). What are the odds? More understandable would have been A - ATF and B - ATF or maybe A - ATF and B - clean (and of course A - AAF and B - ATF).
I agree with the sitting in the room for 3 workdays. Yes I would have done that too.
We've known since Lagat in 2003, that these EPO urine tests are problematic to interpret correctly.
The main problem in the Lagat fiasco was how his samples were handled. To be testable, they needed to be refrigerated, or at least kept on ice. Instead, they were left in a hot car, unchilled, in the middle of summer, rendering the test results meaningless.
That's total BS. The people who work for Wada WANT to get more positive tests, because that's how they make their money and stay in business.
Are you seriously suggesting that all WADA-supported labs are corrupt and create false positive test results to get larger WADA grants? Would the many lab employees really go quietly along with that just so the lab gets a larger budget? And that would never leak?
I imagine that there is a lot more money going to the pro athletes, their managers/agents, supporting staff and lawyers etc than there is going to the WADA laboratories and the staff/scinetists working in them.
If there is corruption I would guess that it is more likely to be on the pro athlete's side of things than it is in the WADA testing labs.
We've known since Lagat in 2003, that these EPO urine tests are problematic to interpret correctly.
The main problem in the Lagat fiasco was how his samples were handled. To be testable, they needed to be refrigerated, or at least kept on ice. Instead, they were left in a hot car, unchilled, in the middle of summer, rendering the test results meaningless.
That was clearly a case of tester incompetence.
Yes. Evidently that didn't happen here. One would think that after 20 years of refining the process, proper protocols are in place, as observed by JRinaldi.
Hey rekrunner, now that you are back, will you finally quote the rules that say that "the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab"?
That would be such a ridiculous and outrageous rule that it can't possibly exist. Or can it?
Are you seriously suggesting that all WADA-supported labs are corrupt and create false positive test results to get larger WADA grants? Would the many lab employees really go quietly along with that just so the lab gets a larger budget? And that would never leak?
I imagine that there is a lot more money going to the pro athletes, their managers/agents, supporting staff and lawyers etc than there is going to the WADA laboratories and the staff/scinetists working in them.
Why would pro athletes get paid for testing positive??? That's absurd. However you might be right that Wada pays pro athletes to say that they tested positive. The idea that pro athletes have more money than big pharma Wada though is also quite absurd.
The main problem in the Lagat fiasco was how his samples were handled. To be testable, they needed to be refrigerated, or at least kept on ice. Instead, they were left in a hot car, unchilled, in the middle of summer, rendering the test results meaningless.
That was clearly a case of tester incompetence.
Yes. Evidently that didn't happen here. One would think that after 20 years of refining the process, proper protocols are in place, as observed by JRinaldi.
Hey rekrunner, now that you are back, will you finally quote the rules that say that "the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab"?
That would be such a ridiculous and outrageous rule that it can't possibly exist. Or can it?
Did you read the letter, with the excerpts from the independent scientists? It doesn't sound to me like a robust application of a 20 year refined process like one would think.
I think we have different ideas of whose burden is whose. It would be up to Prof. Erik Boye to support his claims, and you to support yours. I only claimed he was right, so I will give you my rationale:
You advised me, if I didn't believe you, to read the rules. I took the liberty instead of reading WADA's International Standards for Labs (ISL). I found the ISL and its Annex A: Code of Ethics, most relevant. My conclusion from that reading is that Prof. Boye is right: a WADA lab "cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab" without violating their Code of Ethics. Any WADA lab engaging in "analytical services" at the request of "an athlete" in "a Doping Control adjudication", "giving expert testimony" "questioning" the "scientific validity" of "work performed in the anti-doping program" or "negatively affecting the Analytical Testing of Anti-Doping of Samples from Anti-Doping Organizations" would risk committing multiple violations of the Code of Ethics, in the eyes of WADA, and risk their WADA-accreditation status. This would greatly hinder their ability to be independent on behalf of an athlete.
Interesting. You said earlier that it was in the rules, which is why I asked you to cite them:
I read the WADA rules covering the labs. He's right and you are not.
This was about Boye's extraordinary and unproven claim:
the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited
But now, you admit that such a rule does not exist, meaning both you and Boye were incorrect to say it's in the rules. Thank you for that admission.
Instead you now argue that Boye is somewhat right anyway, because you somehow indirectly conclude this from "their Code of Ethics", because somehow that Code "would greatly hinder their ability to be independent on behalf of an athlete". For that, you also didn't present any evidence, but ok.
I get the general point, that WADA labs tend to stand up for each other, which I never disputed. However Boye's original statement went a lot further, which doesn't speak well for his neutrality.
Interesting. You said earlier that it was in the rules, which is why I asked you to cite them:
I read the WADA rules covering the labs. He's right and you are not.
This was about Boye's extraordinary and unproven claim:
the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited
But now, you admit that such a rule does not exist, meaning both you and Boye were incorrect to say it's in the rules. Thank you for that admission.
Instead you now argue that Boye is somewhat right anyway, because you somehow indirectly conclude this from "their Code of Ethics", because somehow that Code "would greatly hinder their ability to be independent on behalf of an athlete". For that, you also didn't present any evidence, but ok.
I get the general point, that WADA labs tend to stand up for each other, which I never disputed. However Boye's original statement went a lot further, which doesn't speak well for his neutrality.
Haven’t followed this case, but it is in the rules that WADA lab employees can’t provide exoert testimony against the findings of any anti-doping organization. I think it’s section 3.2.2.
Interesting. You said earlier that it was in the rules, which is why I asked you to cite them:
I read the WADA rules covering the labs. He's right and you are not.
This was about Boye's extraordinary and unproven claim:
the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited
But now, you admit that such a rule does not exist, meaning both you and Boye were incorrect to say it's in the rules. Thank you for that admission.
Instead you now argue that Boye is somewhat right anyway, because you somehow indirectly conclude this from "their Code of Ethics", because somehow that Code "would greatly hinder their ability to be independent on behalf of an athlete". For that, you also didn't present any evidence, but ok.
I get the general point, that WADA labs tend to stand up for each other, which I never disputed. However Boye's original statement went a lot further, which doesn't speak well for his neutrality.
I didn't ever say it's in the rules. You wrongly inferred that. I said I read the rules and I concluded he was right to say that such a dispute cannot happen within the rules. Perhaps I would have written "he is effectively right", if I had spent more time. And my following your advice is not a complete analysis -- maybe I could be persuaded otherwise by any evidence and arguments you present how such a scenario can happen.
If your point is that he paraphrased the resulting effect of the collection of lab standards and codes, rather than annotate and provide direct quotes to specific rules in a guest article, bravo. Maybe he goes in more depth elsewhere in other publications.
But it goes much further than WADA labs tend to stand up for each other -- it is codified in their ethics, and they would risk losing their accreditation by attempting to perform any such analytic services, activities and testimony, while wearing their WADA lab hat for any entity that is not an anti-doping organization.
Haven’t followed this case, but it is in the rules that WADA lab employees can’t provide exoert testimony against the findings of any anti-doping organization. I think it’s section 3.2.2.
I didn't find 3.2.2 but would be interested in the exact language.
These restrictions permeate through WADA Code and associated Standards.
Here is a quote in the ISL saying labs are not allowed to issue statements or evaluate the findings:
"The Laboratory or ABP Laboratory shall not issue any statements related to its analytical processes or findings, unless otherwise provided in Code Article 14.3.6. The responsibility for evaluation of these findings with further action and publication, if considered necessary, shall be the sole responsibility of the responsible Anti-Doping Organization(s)."
14.3.6 prohibits public comments of specific facts, except as allowed in 14.3.1 (public announcement of athletes name and suspension) and 14.3.3 (publishing the ADRV after the decision is resolved).
I also made no such admission that such a rule does not exist.
You are one funny person. Just here in the last 24 hours, one can find these statements from you here in this thread:
rekrunner wrote:
I read the WADA rules covering the labs. He's right and you are not.[/quote]
rekrunner wrote:
I didn't ever say it's in the rules. [/quote]
So.... are just rekrunnering here to smear Bol and Boye?
Lastly, is it in the rules or not? And if yes, why do you deny to say in which one?
Read more carefully. At that time, I literally did not say it was in the rules, but that I read the rules, and concluded Prof. Erik Boye was right (to say other labs "... cannot dispute ...").
I don't deny to say, but I said that the Code of Ethics in the ISL contain many rules that do not permit another WADA lab to dispute conclusions, as a WADA lab, in an adjudication.
It doesn't take that much effort to find it and read it -- I don't need or want to spoon feed anyone not willing to make the effort.
My reading was not exhaustive -- there may be other rules that Prof. Erik Boye referred to which I'm unaware. That would be a question for him.
Am I "rekrunnering here to smear Bol and Boye"? I'm gonna say no.
Haven’t followed this case, but it is in the rules that WADA lab employees can’t provide exoert testimony against the findings of any anti-doping organization. I think it’s section 3.2.2.
I didn't find 3.2.2 but would be interested in the exact language.
These restrictions permeate through WADA Code and associated Standards.
Here is a quote in the ISL saying labs are not allowed to issue statements or evaluate the findings:
"The Laboratory or ABP Laboratory shall not issue any statements related to its analytical processes or findings, unless otherwise provided in Code Article 14.3.6. The responsibility for evaluation of these findings with further action and publication, if considered necessary, shall be the sole responsibility of the responsible Anti-Doping Organization(s)."
14.3.6 prohibits public comments of specific facts, except as allowed in 14.3.1 (public announcement of athletes name and suspension) and 14.3.3 (publishing the ADRV after the decision is resolved).
I guess the numbering system has changed in the last few years. 2nd paragraph under section 3.3 on page 146 is another example:
You guys keep referring to several different restrictions, but none of them resembles Boye's statement.
Page 146 and following comes closest:
3.1: describes the requirements to test samples ("proper type", "accordance with the ISTI"...)
3.2: Labs "shall not accept Samples directly from individual Athletes" - so Bol couldn't pick a Wada lab to test his blood or urine.
3.3: "Clinical or Forensic Analysis" doesn't apply here.
3.4: "Other Analytical Activities"
Now it gets interesting:
"The Laboratory or ABP Laboratory shall not provide analytical services in a Doping Control adjudication, unless specifically requested by the responsible Testing Authority or Results Management Authority (if different), WADA or a hearing body."
So Bol or Greene or Rinaldi etc. can't ask another Wada lab to re-analyze/interpret/comment in an adjucation, but - in direct contrast to Boye's claim - AIU/USADA/WADA/CAS/... can ask another Wada lab in an adjucation!
Boye must have overlooked the "unless specifically requested...".
3.5: "Sharing of Knowledge" doesn't apply here.
4.0: "Duty to Preserve the Integrity of the World Anti-Doping Program..."
No "fraud, embezzlement, perjury, etc." doesn't apply here. No advise to athletes how to mask etc., no info to athletes how "to avoid the detection of doping" and so on.
5.0: "Breach and Enforceability" doesn't apply here.
Read more carefully. At that time, I literally did not say it was in the rules, but that I read the rules, and concluded Prof. Erik Boye was right (to say other labs "... cannot dispute ...").
You are kidding, right. You are concluding from the rules that Boye was right that it is in the rules, but you didn't say it is in the rules. WOW.
Is it in the rules? After you responded evasively at best some 4 - 6 times, I am going with:
No it is not in the rules.
Shall I prove it's not in the rules?
Rule 1: it is not in there. Rule 2: it is not in there. Rule 3: it is not in there. Rule 4: it is not in there. Rule 5: it is not in there. Agreed so far? Shall I go on?
But it goes much further than WADA labs tend to stand up for each other -- it is codified in their ethics, and they would risk losing their accreditation by attempting to perform any such analytic services, activities and testimony, while wearing their WADA lab hat for any entity that is not an anti-doping organization.
Not quite true. 3.4 of the Code of Ethics explicitly allows them to do so when asked by AAA or CAS, for example, not just by "an anti-doping organization".
I do appreciate that you are finally admitting that they may "perform any such analytic services, activities and testimony" when asked by AIU, WADA or USADA, while Boye outright denied that option.
You guys keep referring to several different restrictions, but none of them resembles Boye's statement.
Not sure what Boye said. I just pointed out the specific rule that precludes WADA lab personnel from providing expert testimony or analysis that would question the scientific validity of any other analysis conducted in the anti-doping program. Therefore, WADA lab personnel (some of whom conduct WADA-funded research on anti-doping substances) can only testify in support of a WADA lab analysis (i.e., Prosecution witness only). I suppose that is why the Defense will always have to go outside the WADA system to find expert witnesses.