But then lawyers did what lawyers do. Same manager as Lagat, so they've got history of miraculously turning positive into negative.
Let's be honest, it was someone's flawed interpretation of the test that led to declaring it positive.
And let's continue to be honest, you also wanted him to test positive.
Seems unlikely odds that the same manager gets two athletes off after an A sample test for a 'flawed interpretation'. Have any other athletes managed by Templeton had EPO positives? Would seem to suggest that most EPO positives are flawed, and Lagat (3:26 at the height of the EPO era) and Bol were simply lucky to have Templeton and his lawyers.
Nobody wants a clean athlete banned for a false positive, but it's almost like you want the EPO test scrapped and a return to the 'good old days'. Excited about the possibility of Reynold Cheryuit becoming the first man under 3:20?
Let's be honest, it was someone's flawed interpretation of the test that led to declaring it positive.
And let's continue to be honest, you also wanted him to test positive.
Seems unlikely odds that the same manager gets two athletes off after an A sample test for a 'flawed interpretation'. Have any other athletes managed by Templeton had EPO positives? Would seem to suggest that most EPO positives are flawed, and Lagat (3:26 at the height of the EPO era) and Bol were simply lucky to have Templeton and his lawyers.
Nobody wants a clean athlete banned for a false positive, but it's almost like you want the EPO test scrapped and a return to the 'good old days'. Excited about the possibility of Reynold Cheryuit becoming the first man under 3:20?
But then lawyers did what lawyers do. Same manager as Lagat, so they've got history of miraculously turning positive into negative.
Let's be honest, it was someone's flawed interpretation of the test that led to declaring it positive.
And let's continue to be honest, you also wanted him to test positive.
It doesn't say "someone's flawed interpretation..."
Honest:
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.
Quick summary:
A was analyzed by some to be positive, and by some to be negative.
B was analyzed to be inconclusive.
Consequence: the athlete will not get banned.
Conclusion: the process sucks, and will get revisited and hopefully optimized for the next cases.
Let's be honest, it was someone's flawed interpretation of the test that led to declaring it positive.
And let's continue to be honest, you also wanted him to test positive.
Seems unlikely odds that the same manager gets two athletes off after an A sample test for a 'flawed interpretation'. Have any other athletes managed by Templeton had EPO positives? Would seem to suggest that most EPO positives are flawed, and Lagat (3:26 at the height of the EPO era) and Bol were simply lucky to have Templeton and his lawyers.
Nobody wants a clean athlete banned for a false positive, but it's almost like you want the EPO test scrapped and a return to the 'good old days'. Excited about the possibility of Reynold Cheryuit becoming the first man under 3:20?
This doesn't necessarily follow. As someone that is familiar with the labs (if not the actual lab) that do these tests, the EPO test prescribed by WADA is the subjective one. However, it doesn't mean that all the tests are 'borderline' or dodgy. There can be clear cut subjective interpretations either way. In Bol's case there are mixed subjective views on his A sample, and an Atypical finding on B. This is not unusual in conclusions of subjective tests.
In other words, it doesn't necessarily follow that other busted people should be declared negative.
Also note that from the outset of Bol's result being leaked, he confidently stated that he was clean and would be proven so. He didn't make any burrito type excuses
This doesn't necessarily follow. As someone that is familiar with the labs (if not the actual lab) that do these tests, the EPO test prescribed by WADA is the subjective one. However, it doesn't mean that all the tests are 'borderline' or dodgy. There can be clear cut subjective interpretations either way. In Bol's case there are mixed subjective views on his A sample, and an Atypical finding on B. This is not unusual in conclusions of subjective tests.
In other words, it doesn't necessarily follow that other busted people should be declared negative.
Also note that from the outset of Bol's result being leaked, he confidently stated that he was clean and would be proven so. He didn't make any burrito type excuses
When you've got a manager who has history of this sort of thing, everything after he said after he got busted would have been very tightly controlled.
Guessing claiming full innocence and vowing to clear his name was an important part of that.
Now the dodgy managers know how to cast doubt on any positive test, they can certainly go back to doping without risk. Sad state of affairs.
Big news down under as Sport Integrity Australia (the Australian anti-doping agency) has concluded its investigation into Peter Bol and has ruled there is no anti-doping rule violation.
The really interesting thing here is that SIA is now saying that after further analysis -- including by a different WADA lab and an EPO expert -- there were varying opinions about whether the sample was positive or negative and they've now reported the A sample as negative.
Remember, before the A sample was reported as positive and the B sample was "atypical" -- not positive, but not definitively negative either.
The other big takeaway for me is that WADA is now going to review its current EPO process -- which it definitely should given how this case has played out.
Doesn't make sense that synthetic epo turns up in the sample of a clean runner. Only happens to someone on epo. Is that what happened? I assume any saucer would only have trace amounts if they were even careless or reckless enough to not acquire 100% clean blood at the time of the testing.
Yes it is. I hope people are realizing that this could open the floodgates and we could be back in the full throttle EPO era shortly.
The issue for you on the sideli es is you need to believe that the admistrators are infallible.
They aren't. Nor are all athletes fitting in the same box. There are lots of outliers in life. People with extra toes, extra heads, athletes with natural hematocrit levels above the regulations for doping.
The worst issue here is the Bol was screwed by the incorrect application of the administrators own rules.
It cost him a lot. He should be reimbursed. And the processes should be penalized.
Seems unlikely odds that the same manager gets two athletes off after an A sample test for a 'flawed interpretation'. Have any other athletes managed by Templeton had EPO positives? Would seem to suggest that most EPO positives are flawed, and Lagat (3:26 at the height of the EPO era) and Bol were simply lucky to have Templeton and his lawyers.
Nobody wants a clean athlete banned for a false positive, but it's almost like you want the EPO test scrapped and a return to the 'good old days'. Excited about the possibility of Reynold Cheryuit becoming the first man under 3:20?
It's "Cheruiyot", Coevett.
At least make your anonymous names less obvious Hoad. And what are you afraid of anyway you spineless coward? No doubt Jama Aden and a few others have your back.
Let's be honest, it was someone's flawed interpretation of the test that led to declaring it positive.
And let's continue to be honest, you also wanted him to test positive.
It doesn't say "someone's flawed interpretation..."
Honest:
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.
Quick summary:
A was analyzed by some to be positive, and by some to be negative.
B was analyzed to be inconclusive.
Consequence: the athlete will not get banned.
Conclusion: the process sucks, and will get revisited and hopefully optimized for the next cases.
Agree with all this. It seems that they should revisit how the A sample was analyzed to be positive. If it's borderline/close (especially for an athletes who has an unusual profile as it seems here), instead of going through the whole dog-and-pony show, bring in impartial experts and be damn sure it will hold up to scrutiny. I understand this will add a little extra time, but surely this mistaken A positive was a bigger drain on resources, bad press than nipping it in the bud early.
Also why is Reynold Cheruiyot being brought into the conversation here lol?
At least make your anonymous names less obvious Hoad. And what are you afraid of anyway you spineless coward? No doubt Jama Aden and a few others have your back.
I don't know if anyone could be more obvious than you when they are posting under a different username, so that's a bit of a laugh.