The Nigerian women’s 3000m record is slower than a US high school girl ran this weekend for 2 miles. If she mover to Nigeria and broke their 3000m record wouldn’t it seem odd? How early in life would she be allowed to move and not have it feel odd?
I’m not sure I have a definitive answer in my head, but it feels strange to celebrate this a little bit. Not as weird as when Lagat broke US records as a Kenyan, but odd.
No, the haters have been proven right by his UNDOUBTEDLY drug fueled time. hahhhhaaa
Yes, and down the line more will have to admit you and others voicing concern over his proven drug use were vindicated. It’s almost embarrassing the way the wokesters have to fall all over this fraud. Similar to the lapdogs for Lagat.
No, the haters have been proven right by his UNDOUBTEDLY drug fueled time. hahhhhaaa
Yes, and down the line more will have to admit you and others voicing concern over his proven drug use were vindicated. It’s almost embarrassing the way the wokesters have to fall all over this fraud. Similar to the lapdogs for Lagat.
His A sample came back positive, and his B sample came back 'atypical'.
“During the Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing (for a footballer represented by the same lawyer that represented Peter Bol), WADA’s lawyer revealed that Sport Integrity Australia investigators had seized Bol’s phone and discovered a screenshot of a letter from sport drug trafficker Conte to British sprinter Dwain Chambers. The letter discussed micro-dosing EPO and how to avoid drug testers. The hearing was told it was photographed by Bol five weeks before he was drug-tested and returned an initial positive drug test.”
His A sample came back positive, and his B sample came back 'atypical'.
“During the Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing (for a footballer represented by the same lawyer that represented Peter Bol), WADA’s lawyer revealed that Sport Integrity Australia investigators had seized Bol’s phone and discovered a screenshot of a letter from sport drug trafficker Conte to British sprinter Dwain Chambers. The letter discussed micro-dosing EPO and how to avoid drug testers. The hearing was told it was photographed by Bol five weeks before he was drug-tested and returned an initial positive drug test.”
In January 2023, Australian athlete Peter Bol was notified of a positive finding for synthetic EPO. Read Sport Integrity Australia's update on the matter
As required under the Code, Sport Integrity Australia conducted an investigation into the results. As part of this investigation, Sport Integrity Australia initiated further analysis of the samples using a different independent WADA-accredited laboratory and different WADA-recognised EPO expert. Sport Integrity Australia also sought confirmation from WADA regarding the applicable EPO analysis process. The further analysis resulted in varying expert opinions as to the positive or negative reporting of the sample, and the A-sample was reported as negative. As a result, Sport Integrity Australia has taken the decision not to progress an anti-doping rule violation for this sample. The investigation into this sample is finalised. WADA has acknowledged that at all times Sport Integrity Australia adhered to the Code in relation to its management of the matter. Athletics Australia, too, has adhered to the required process throughout this matter. WADA will now undertake a review of current EPO processes. It is important to highlight that the analysis for synthetic EPO is a unique process which is different to how other prohibited substances are identified.
The Code requires the mandatory provisional suspension to be lifted when the B-sample analysis does not match that of the A-sample. As required under the Code, Sport Integrity Australia conducted an investigation into the results. As part of this investigation, Sport Integrity Australia initiated further analysis of the samples using a different independent WADA-accredited laboratory and different WADA-recognised EPO expert. Sport Integrity Australia also sought confirmation from WADA regarding the applicable EPO analysis process. The further analysis resulted in varying expert opinions as to the positive or negative reporting of the sample, and the A-sample was reported as negative. As a result, Sport Integrity Australia has taken the decision not to progress an anti-doping rule violation for this sample. The investigation into this sample is finalised.
I don't think this makes the case you want it. This is far from a "nothing to see here." On the facts - his A sample tested positive. His B sample tested "atypical" - with WADA scientists suggesting this was due to degradation. They therefore had to declare the suspension lifted because the two samples did not match.
Note that neither of these initial tests were negative - one was positive, one was atypical.
On a subsequent reanalysis of the A sample, there were differing opinions as to it being positive or negative - essentially rendering it "atypical".
Again - note here that this is not a universal "negative".
In 2023-2023, Sport Integrity Australia performed 4,177 tests. There were a total of 27 disclosure notices issued, which may be for any adverse findings. That is a tiny number - less than 1%.
Yet Bol has at least one (if not 2) atypical findings, and an incriminating screenshot on his phone, all of which coincided with the year he finished 4th at the Olympics despite never previously making it out of the heats.
At least enough smoke to suspect there might be a fire.
Degradation 7 weeks after the A sample was tested! That means that every EPO B sample will have the same issue moving forwards. It's also worrying that even WADA's own experts can't agree what is a positive or negative when looking at the same data sample (The further analysis resulted in varying expert opinions as to the positive or negative reporting of the sample, and the A-sample was reported as negative). Note that is retesting of the A sample not the B (which I guess also must have depredated given it was months after the B).
Not sure why they bother freezing all these samples if they can't even last 7 weeks? Guessing they should throw away all those 2012 samples from London. I was hoping we'd catch a lot more athletes once they were re tested.
Fingers crossed they can come up with a more conclusive EPO test soon :(
The Code requires the mandatory provisional suspension to be lifted when the B-sample analysis does not match that of the A-sample. As required under the Code, Sport Integrity Australia conducted an investigation into the results. As part of this investigation, Sport Integrity Australia initiated further analysis of the samples using a different independent WADA-accredited laboratory and different WADA-recognised EPO expert. Sport Integrity Australia also sought confirmation from WADA regarding the applicable EPO analysis process. The further analysis resulted in varying expert opinions as to the positive or negative reporting of the sample, and the A-sample was reported as negative. As a result, Sport Integrity Australia has taken the decision not to progress an anti-doping rule violation for this sample. The investigation into this sample is finalised.
I don't think this makes the case you want it. This is far from a "nothing to see here." On the facts - his A sample tested positive. His B sample tested "atypical" - with WADA scientists suggesting this was due to degradation. They therefore had to declare the suspension lifted because the two samples did not match.
Note that neither of these initial tests were negative - one was positive, one was atypical.
On a subsequent reanalysis of the A sample, there were differing opinions as to it being positive or negative - essentially rendering it "atypical".
Again - note here that this is not a universal "negative".
In 2023-2023, Sport Integrity Australia performed 4,177 tests. There were a total of 27 disclosure notices issued, which may be for any adverse findings. That is a tiny number - less than 1%.
Yet Bol has at least one (if not 2) atypical findings, and an incriminating screenshot on his phone, all of which coincided with the year he finished 4th at the Olympics despite never previously making it out of the heats.
At least enough smoke to suspect there might be a fire.
Likewise with Bernard Lagat. What are or were the odds of a 3:26 runner getting a false positive out of the thousands tested? And then to find it had been 'contaminated'? I think at the time, only two other sportspersons had had an EPO positive overturned - one was Marion 'Balco' Jones, and the other was a pro cyclist who later tested positive again and was banned.
And here we have Bol who moved up a gear in his late 20's, researched how to get away with micro-doping EPO just five weeks before the A-sample positive (according to WADA), gets it 're-tested' and overturned (by the same manager who got Lagat off), runs like jelly for the next couple of years, and is suddenly back jogging a 1:43 in April at the age of 31.
