Peter Bol tests positive for EPO

Let me put this another way. If a test is falsely positive 5% of the time in the laboratory, when we use this test in the population and as the number of actual dopers in the population decreases, the likelihood that a positive test is in error goes up. Maybe an LRC biostats person can do a better job of explaining this basic concept, but right now, the evidence against Bol is not nearly as strong as many think.

Seems not right to release his A test result until the B test confirms or refutes the A test result. Is this standard practice? If his B test result is negative, a stigma will remain, which seems unfair.

It’s a shame if he was doping. Feel bad for his coach, competitors, family and friends. Very disappointing for Athletics Australia too.

I think Bol was notified of the A result and then he announced this, probably to get out ahead of the story on the assumption the result would be leaked. The athlete should not be notified until the B sample is processed and NO adverse action should be taken, ie provisional suspension, until the complete testing is done. Notifying anybody about a “half-way” positive is damaging, especially because a high % will be over turned. There is not great need to get the athlete out of competitions during the few months it takes to assess the B sample. Any results during the period can be voided. I see the argument if there’s about to be a trials or global championship, but even then, this violates the presumption of innocence based on a test where it is imperative to have both the A and B result to make a proper determination.

Why shame? There's no shame in doping when it's a public secret that every elite athlete is also doping. You can't win anything these days if you don't dope. Champions do whatever it takes to win.

When did Bol join Templeton?

So 50% of athletes testing positive for EPO in th A sample are subsequently cleared by the B sample?? Can you name a few dozen of these? Because the only two I know of in 30 years are Bernard Lagat and Marion (Balco) Jones.

It's amazing that even the East Africans raised, coached, and competing in the West, are 'not as sophisticated at doping' as all the hundreds of native non-African athletes who aren't getting busted.

It's not a 'public secret' It's an empty conspiracy theory propounded by doping apologist shills here, likely paid by the very same coaches and managers who are doping these young African runners and passing off their success as 'evidence of the natural born runner genes'. And it's contradicted by the evidence of every weekly East African bust.

Why don't you and Shelby go make a podcast?

Do we have ANY idea of the denominator of patients with a positive A sample that we never hear about? I’m NOT a doping apologist, I’m simply expounding on the fairly good scientific data presented in a paper posted on this thread about the currently used exogenous epo assay. Did you read it? In this study 330 tests were done on a group of athletes known be be definitively using epo or not. They were volunteers given the drug or placebo. In the 330 A tests, 14 were positive. 7 in patients actually given epo and in 7 not given epo. When the tests were re run (B test), the seven given epo still were positive, but all 7 not on epo turned negative. Ok, the positive predictive value of a test is the true positives (in this case 7/330, divided by the sum of the true positives and the false positives (also 7/330). This means the positive predictive value of a positive A sample in this study was only 50%. In lay terms, based on these data, after a positive A sample result, the likelihood that Bol actually used exogenous epo is 50%. If you have other data on the test performance, please share it. I don’t care about Bol one way or another and I’m not an epo assay expert, but I’m just saying these data suggest that convicting somebody for epo after only knowing the A result is a mistake.

Good for catching him. Now, catch all the others. Most of my competitors in the past cheated. It's interesting how I did not and how close I am to my old PBs because of a more natural decline in aging where a lot of the cheaters may look nothing and perform nothing like their cheating days.

I want to reiterate that I too was surprised by the data on the assay performance presented in the paper posted by thoughtsleader. I’d ask you, do you think Lagat and Jones are the only two athletes with a positive A sample and a subsequent negative B sample? Is it common practice to release or leak the names of those with a positive A sample? Is it possible there are many athletes who have a positive A sample and a negative B sample we never hear about? Based on the small study being referenced, we would expect that upwards of 3-5% of A epo assays in clean athletes will return positive, but they will have negative B samples. This does seem like a lot, but do we really know?

It's more from a point of interest. Someone who has doped, you look at their progression and can more or less see when they started doping. And I think in most cases, at least high profile athletes, there has been a sudden jump in performance. Times and rankings have quickly improved. Athletes have gone from being ranked 400+ in the world to Olympic champion. Running/swimming mediocre times that would struggle to beat college athletes, then suddenly getting close to the world record. And with Bol, I couldn't see that. That's not me saying he's clean, he probably has been doping, but like I said, it's an interesting observation. He either started doping when he was very young or the drugs he was taking weren't doing much for him as his progression was pretty average. 0.5s over 5 years.

If Gault is observing this, I’d love this to be asked of the AIU chief. It is conceivably true, though. It is not standard practice for us to hear about A sample results. I’m with Rojo in that it is unprofessional of an anti-doping association to leak/inform an athlete of the A sample positive unless a major competition is imminent. February is not the time. Also if the athlete is cheating why give them the chance to get off the sauce when they’re likely due to be tested in the weeks until the B sample (Bol would likely OOC or at a meet in Australia).

Yes though not everyone is going to be Ramzi with a clear and obvious jump.

A small sensation seems to me that for Western-based athletes they are almost invariably busted at the peak of their careers (Okagbare, Shelby, Gatlin, and so on). Maybe this is just random, a larger sample size, better testing or indicative of who knows what, but it feels like a half of Africans are busted often well past their peak.

You rarely see a semi-washed Western athlete get popped.

Just recently: Cherono versus Mead. I could go on. Question of (bad) luck when one gets caught.

This isn’t how anti doping works. If your A sample tests positive, verification is performed on the A sample. This is done by two independent scientists. If this is again confirmed positive, the athlete receives notification of a positive A sample, and are then permitted to request their B sample be tested. They are then given the option of being present (or having a representative present) for the opening of their B sample to ensure it has not been tampered with.

With regard to the study - you’re all focusing on the wrong details.

“Of all non‐rHuEPO samples 4.3% was labeled screening positive, but after the standard confirmation analysis no false positives were found. Findings for IEF showed a slightly lower sensitivity and slightly higher false presumptive finding rate of 6%.”

1) even people KNOWINGLY taking EPO are really hard to catch. The “glowing” window is incredibly small (short half life) and the threshold for detection is less than 60%. That’s just the nature of the type of molecule you’re testing for
2) no one in this study had both a false positive for A and B samples. That is the point of having 2 split samples.

So following the progression of anti-doping, Bol has an A sample that tested positive and was verified. Athlete is contacted. He requests B sample be tested.

That’s where we are now.

Ok, thank you. I’m not an expert, obviously, nor does it seem is anybody else posting here. If what you say is correct, then per the study, Bol is a doper. He’s had his sample analyzed twice now and positive x 2. This is what has happened?

Mead I tend to think was essentially retired. I know others will differ. And I’d never say no Kenyans at the top of their game get busted. It might ultimately just be that USADA targets the good athletes whereas AIU and ADAK are rightfully casting a wide net.