WADA accredited labs can dispute each other's testing results, but the process for doing so is highly regulated and involves several steps.
ROFL. Don't bother poor rekrunner with facts; he will continue to support the evidently false claim that "the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab".
Or, will he " demonstrate honesty, integrity, humility, and contrition, and go forward with" finally admitting that that claim is wrong, and he was just trolling?
WADA accredited labs can dispute each other's testing results, but the process for doing so is highly regulated and involves several steps.
When a sample is tested at a WADA-accredited laboratory, the results are first analyzed by the laboratory's technical staff. If a prohibited substance is detected, the results are then reviewed by the laboratory's director or designee. Once the results are confirmed, the laboratory reports the results to the athlete, their national anti-doping organization (NADO), and WADA.
If the athlete or NADO disagrees with the results, they can request that the sample be sent to another WADA-accredited laboratory for further analysis. This is known as a "B" sample analysis. If the results of the "B" sample analysis are different from the results of the initial analysis, the two laboratories may enter into a dispute resolution process, which is overseen by WADA.
The dispute resolution process involves a review of the testing methods used by both laboratories, as well as an assessment of any differences in the results obtained. If the dispute cannot be resolved through this process, the matter may be referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for further review.
Do you have a source for this?
Not sure how relevant this is though -- if the B-sample testing does not confirm the A-sample results, there should be no violation for an athlete to dispute and any suspension is lifted and the charge is dismissed and the athletes is cleared. That is what happened with Peter Bol. But it is alarming to see an implication that even when there is no B-sample confirmation, there is still a path through the CAS to convict that athletes -- is that what is being suggested here?
But here in this thread, in the guest article I linked, Prof. Boye is talking about cases where both A and B samples were interpreted as positives, leading to a sanction, but the execution of the testing and the interpretations themselves, whether by 1 or 2 labs who did not dispute each other, are questionable and suspect, but otherwise would not be or could not be challenged. This is discussed in much more detail by Prof. Boye and others, after reviewing the evidence and procedures of the cases of Erik Tysse, Steven Colvert, Vojtech Sommer, and Benedikt Karus.
Prof. Boye is arguing for scientific integrity, and athlete due process -- something that cannot be ensured when the lab staff are afraid to speak independently under fear of individual disciplinary action, or losing their lab's WADA accreditation (see Section 5 of the Code of Ethics), and when the labs do not share the original data used to convict the athletes with the athletes to permit truly independent analysis and reviews, but instead submit manipulated results and final conclusions as evidence in adjudications. (See the cases mentioned above.) Due process requires both independence and transparency at least with the athlete being sanctioned in order to prepare his defense.
In recent publications, Boye has also jointly published papers with Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., and also with letsrun's very own scientific expert for hire, Dr. Ross Tucker, all voicing the need for scientific integrity and greater transparency from anti-doping enforcement organizations.
Not sure how relevant this is though -- if the B-sample testing does not confirm the A-sample results, there should be no violation for an athlete to dispute and any suspension is lifted and the charge is dismissed and the athletes is cleared. That is what happened with Peter Bol. But it is alarming to see an implication that even when there is no B-sample confirmation, there is still a path through the CAS to convict that athletes -- is that what is being suggested here?.
Umm, sorry, but again, no. While Bol's suspension is indeed lifted, he is not "cleared" after his AAF/ATF combo. The investigation is ongoing, as it should be, see below.
I also disagree that "it is alarming" that Bol (or others in similar situations) might end up getting banned after all; , for example IF a second opinion (called for by SIA) convincingly results in A and B both being a positive finding (AAF).
SIA’s statement indicated that its investigation “remains ongoing”. It would not specify a timeframe, although a hearing is scheduled for next month. There are two possible outcomes. SIA can determine Bol has not committed any anti-doping rule violation and close its investigation. Bol’s nightmare will be over. Or SIA could reach the view that Bol’s combined positive and ATF results suggest a possible violation and proceed to take action. A legal fight would likely ensure.
Peter Bol and his supporters were quick to celebrate when Bol's provisional suspension for a positive doping test was lifted. But as the investigation into his atypical B-sample result continues, we ask: have they celebrated...
Bol’s B-sample result was inconclusive, which means it’s neither positive nor negative. Inconclusive results are reported by the lab as Atypical Findings to indicate that further investigation is required.
... The document also requires a second opinion from a member of the WADA EPO Working Group for Atypical and Adverse Analytical Findings.
Note the last sentence. We might very well see an example where Boye's claim ("they [a WADA lab] cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab") will be proven wrong in practice.
If the athlete or NADO disagrees with the results, they can request that the sample be sent to another WADA-accredited laboratory for further analysis. This is known as a "B" sample analysis. If the results of the "B" sample analysis are different from the results of the initial analysis, the two laboratories may enter into a dispute resolution process, which is overseen by WADA.
Exactly. All of the wada laboratories are overseen by wada.
It's ridiculous how the people who work there - like Boised up - keep trying to post that they're allowed to testify outside of wada, when it's so obvious that they are not permitted to do so, and are not allowed to dispute any of the findings that are produced inside of wada, no matter how mistakenly or purposely wrong that they are.
What's really funny is that, while constantly trying to deny it, you keep proving what I posted.
Yet you have the audacity to make personal attacks and call other people names, because that's what stupid people do, who don't understand basic logic and don't have the ability to communicate in an intelligent manner.
Simple question. What are your sources, no name calling. What is the basis for your assertion that WADA accredited labs only make money because they produce positives?
Because that's what wada is in the business to do, and which is why you keep posting the same nonsense that you do on here, even contradicting your own constant admissions that what I've said is correct.
Umm, sorry, but again, no. While Bol's suspension is indeed lifted, he is not "cleared" after his AAF/ATF combo. The investigation is ongoing, as it should be, see below.
I also disagree that "it is alarming" that Bol (or others in similar situations) might end up getting banned after all; , for example IF a second opinion (called for by SIA) convincingly results in A and B both being a positive finding (AAF).
Note the last sentence. We might very well see an example where Boye's claim ("they [a WADA lab] cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab") will be proven wrong in practice.
When the B-sample ATF becomes an AAF, you might have a point, but for now that is wishful speculation. It would also be a farce at this point -- especially when you read the scathing comments of the scientists who conducted an independent review of what was presented as evidence.
It's also possible they find enough to convict Bol under 2.2 "Use or attempted use" which doesn't require a B-sample AAF.
Are the Guardian and Drug Free Sport peer reviewed? Isn't that your benchmark?
Not sure why you want to keep making the same mistake about Boye. His issue is that, because of "ethics", the WADA lab staff "cannot dispute" results on behalf of athletes (excluding theoretical hypotheticals where the CAS compels it). It is one of the ways "WADA exercises its power over individual athletes". It is a question of WADA providing for fairness and due process to the athletes it purports to protect. Anti-doping organizations like the SIA using WADA lab resources and EPO working group members to overturn non-positive conclusions is just rubbing it in that the WADA labs can do this for anti-doping ADAs/ADOs, but not for an accused athlete.
But I'm curious, if the SIA succeeds to convert the ATF to an AAF, does that count as "disputing" the B-sample result, or going out of their way to have the B-sample result not dispute the A-sample result?
No. I never denied "any such rule" - where do you think you saw that?
I stated that Boye was wrong in categorically claiming that "the laboratories are all bound by rules saying that they cannot dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab".
Note that he did use absolute terms such as "all bound by rules" and "cannot dispute", not "don't usually dispute" and not "rarely dispute".
You might recall from the Shelburrito case that some TDs actually say that the first Wada lab should in some situations ask another Wada lab for their opinion.
And of course, here you are actually finally admitting that Boye was incorrect:
Note that the second part is your personal interpretation of the rules, but regardless the first part proves Boye wrong.
Then I guess we can all agree that this rule indeed exists: "The Laboratory should not engage in analytical activities or expert testimony that would intentionally question the integrity of the individual or the scientific validity of work performed in the antidoping program", and that this rule applies to all WADA-accredited labs.
Recall again Boye's statement in context is the from the point of view of the charged athlete trying to prove his innocence, and not ADOs/ADAs or WADA or the CAS. Rather than me denying your own personal interpretation and hypotheticals and restating "he is right, and you are wrong", what do lawyers specializing in sports law say happens in practice? Here is one making Boye's points by juxtaposing the expectation of neutrality in adjudications, with the restriction on questioning integrity and validity of another lab's work:
(Using 2016 numbering of the ILS)
"Article 5 para. 4 of the Code of Ethics accompanying the ISL explicitly states that laboratory staff are to be neutral if called to testify."
"Upon a closer look at the Code of Ethics, the ability of laboratory staff to provide a free and impartial opinion could be in conflict with other provisions in the Code of Ethics. Article 4.1 states:
"Work to aid in forensic and/or legal investigations may be undertaken but due diligence should be exercised to ensure that the work is requested by an appropriate agency or body. The Laboratory should not engage in analytical activities or expert testimony that would intentionally question the integrity of the individual or the scientific validity of work performed in the anti-doping program."(emphasis added)"
"Regardless of the provision in article 5, laboratory staff are in essence prevented from levelling any criticism towards WADA’s anti-doping practices, whether it be the validity of individual tests or the flaws in the program as a whole." (emphasis added)
"For athletes seeking to engage experts who are staff members at WADA-accredited laboratories, article 4.1 Code of Ethics, despite article 5, inevitably means that the athlete is confronted with WADA-accredited laboratory staff who are reluctant to testify on their behalf. This could indeed be down to the laboratory staff’s professional opinion being contrary to the position of the athlete. However, the author herself has experienced WADA-affiliated scientists declining to testify for fear of publicly stating, in their professional opinion, that the doping authority was wrong. This provision de facto prevents an athlete from accessing the WADA network of laboratory staff."
There is still some assumption that Wada science is some form of unique science and thus experts must conversant with WADA science to give expert testimony.
However it is the other way around. Analytical methods are well established and should be the basis of Wada.
We have to look at the originating principles of the WADA code which states that Wada and its code are sports rules and are not subject to usual criminal or civil methods and assumptions and principles.
i wonder what the alternative would be if WADA did not have this complex testing procedure.
USADA states
Is the EPO detection method reliable? The EPO detection method is widely accepted by the scientific community and has gone through an extensive scientific validation process. Accredited anti-doping laboratories worldwide have also successfully used it for years. In September 2005, the WADA Laboratory Committee reaffirmed its support of the method when applied appropriately. According to WADA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has also supported the validity of the EPO detection method in all its decisions relating to EPO.
So is the test of BOL flawed because it did not follow the proper procedure, or are people on here saying the test is bs?
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
If the athlete or NADO disagrees with the results, they can request that the sample be sent to another WADA-accredited laboratory for further analysis. This is known as a "B" sample analysis. If the results of the "B" sample analysis are different from the results of the initial analysis, the two laboratories may enter into a dispute resolution process, which is overseen by WADA.
Exactly. All of the wada laboratories are overseen by wada.
It's ridiculous how the people who work there - like Boised up - keep trying to post that they're allowed to testify outside of wada, when it's so obvious that they are not permitted to do so, and are not allowed to dispute any of the findings that are produced inside of wada, no matter how mistakenly or purposely wrong that they are.
Read again. I don't work 'there'. I work for a supplier of the equipment that is used for this (GC-IRMS and others). I know people there and know how they work.
Referring to ASDTL (if they did the testing as it seems by reference). 'they' are not a 'WADA laboratory' , in as much as they are not owned by WADA, not even a small %. 'They' are a govt laboratory in a govt research/testing facility, wholly owned and mandated by federal govt.
Having said that, other independent labs with the necessary facilities and protocol is allowed to tender for testing at tournaments like Comm Games, Cricket, Rugby world cups etc etc, and if successful they would be operating (for those tests) under direction of WADA, but not managed by them in terms of 'we want positives etc'. Stop it with the ignorance if you do not want to be personally 'ad hominemed'
i wonder what the alternative would be if WADA did not have this complex testing procedure.
USADA states
Is the EPO detection method reliable? The EPO detection method is widely accepted by the scientific community and has gone through an extensive scientific validation process. Accredited anti-doping laboratories worldwide have also successfully used it for years. In September 2005, the WADA Laboratory Committee reaffirmed its support of the method when applied appropriately. According to WADA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has also supported the validity of the EPO detection method in all its decisions relating to EPO.
So is the test of BOL flawed because it did not follow the proper procedure, or are people on here saying the test is bs?
i wonder what the alternative would be if WADA did not have this complex testing procedure.
USADA states
Is the EPO detection method reliable? The EPO detection method is widely accepted by the scientific community and has gone through an extensive scientific validation process. Accredited anti-doping laboratories worldwide have also successfully used it for years. In September 2005, the WADA Laboratory Committee reaffirmed its support of the method when applied appropriately. According to WADA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has also supported the validity of the EPO detection method in all its decisions relating to EPO.
So is the test of BOL flawed because it did not follow the proper procedure, or are people on here saying the test is bs?
I think the relevant phrase here is "when applied appropriately". Apparently it is a complicated and error prone test that apparently is hard to get right, and requiring both highly experienced testers and highly experienced EPO expert analysis.
Have you seen the letter (back on page 2) from the lawyer, including the excerpts from the independent (from WADA) review?
"inexperience and incompetence ... led to an incorrect determination"
"the naturally occurring EPO present in Mr. Bol's 11 October 2022 sample was mistaken for synthetic EPO becuase of fatal errors in the testing process:"
"As Dr. Chen explained, this was not even a close call. Instead, this was a blunder of epic proportions:"
Granted, these statements are cherry-picked summaries from the lawyer, but the letter does give rather unfavorable assessments from the experts in the two independent (from WADA) reviews, explaining in much more detail what issues they found, which are too many to copy/paste here but should be read in context.
This is a heavy read, but I found this 2002 critique of "Doping Due Process" assessing the state of anti-doping "pre-WADA" rather interesting.
A lot of the same criticisms today, of WADA rules and anti-doping enforcement, are the same that existed before the creation of WADA, which WADA was optimistically supposed to solve or improve. They had a lot of good things to say about USADA, including removing the "double jeopardy" threat of all athletes being tried by their NGB, only for that to be thrown out and to be retried again by the IF.
It's way off topic, but there is a lot of information concerning many due process issues at that time for Mary Slaney.
i wonder what the alternative would be if WADA did not have this complex testing procedure.
USADA states
Is the EPO detection method reliable? The EPO detection method is widely accepted by the scientific community and has gone through an extensive scientific validation process. Accredited anti-doping laboratories worldwide have also successfully used it for years. In September 2005, the WADA Laboratory Committee reaffirmed its support of the method when applied appropriately. According to WADA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has also supported the validity of the EPO detection method in all its decisions relating to EPO.
So is the test of BOL flawed because it did not follow the proper procedure, or are people on here saying the test is bs?
A careful reader would note that the question asked whether the EPO test is "reliable." The same reader would also note that the answer never says, "yes."
I have to disagree. The statement was not made in a context-less vacuum and it has to do with all these things. The "rule" was "specified" and is in the ISL Code of "Ethics", and the statement was made in a guest article explicitly about "how WADA exercises its power over individual athletes". 3.3 and 3.4 are permitted for virtually every party except the individual athletes. That is one of the ways "WADA exercises its power over individual athletes".
Even you said this "is indeed a rather unfortunate and stupid rule" when conceding "no WADA lab employee may serve as expert witness for the Defense" -- I honestly cannot understand why you are being so stubborn, obtuse, obstinate, inflexible, pedantic, for something you seemed to essentially agree with, at least for the individual athletes Boye is talking about in a guest article in a blog.
How about "the laboratories are all bound by a code saying that they should not dispute the conclusions of another WADA-accredited lab"? Would that completely solve all your concerns? Keep in mind that Prof. Erik Boye is a scientists based in Norway -- perhaps he is unaware of the subtlety of language that seems to form the basis of your objection.
Didn't you want to be real for a few minutes before? Let's go back there. I gave the example of the sports lawyer telling the effect of this rule in the Codes of Ethics: "laboratory staff are in essence prevented from levelling any criticism towards WADA’s anti-doping practices, whether it be the validity of individual tests or the flaws in the program as a whole" and their personal experience of "WADA-affiliated scientists declining to testify for fear of publicly stating, in their professional opinion, that the doping authority was wrong."
I realize SIA could not sanction Bol because the B-sample result did not confirm the A-sample result, but they don't want to admit defeat. He is cleared for today, but WADA gives anti-doping bodies like the SIA a lot of power and latitude to railroad innocent and guilty athletes alike, with or without scientific integrity.
