If you're a pro in the testing pool, what the hell are you doing saving that on the phone though.
I mean, yeah not a great idea. This is the same guy that took a lie detector test on TV to prove his innocence—lie detectors are nonsense rubbish. BUT, there's nothing against the rules about reading. I have a copy of "How to Disappear in America Without a Trace" on my bookshelf, which suggests more than a few illegal things.
It might not be against the rules, but on top of the fact that he did fail an A sample 3 or 4 months after this screenshot, and his poor results since, you'd have to be absurdly 'open-minded' to continue to believe in his innocence.
It should be against the rules BTW. In the UK you go to prison if you download something like "the anarchists cookbook". An athlete should be banned if he is caught obtaining information on how to cheat.
The letter also contained advice on how to game the whereabouts system.
"There was a screenshot found on Mr Bol's phone which was an article which included a letter from Victor Conte to [former UK Sprinter] Dwain Chambers discussing micro-dosing with EPO in the off-season and there was also discussion [of] various techniques to game the whereabouts system, putting in inaccurate information, making sure your voicemail was full," WADA's general counsel Ross Wenzel said.
And Rekkie maintains that missing three tests has nothing to do with doping!
Is it hard to believe that a team with financial resources might similarly know how to 'game the system' when it comes to the handling of the B sample after an A sample positive?
Who coaches him? Who is in his group, if they aren't leaving or calling him out you can assume they have the same moral standards. Isn't he part of a specific '800m training group's.
Do you actually not know who his coach is? Regular poster on here sitting up on his high horse claiming to be the worlds premier 800m coach! Deng quit the group. Bol guilty AF. Sumner disappeared without trace. Mathas and Learmonth bang average 1.46 guys, probably 1.48 unaided
Rinaldi comes across as a decent guy, but he has been aggressive towards me whenever I mentioned Bol. He demands to know who I am. As if I would tell him when I get regularly threatened here by headcases like Hoady.
Hoady last week - "You are mad. You have accused myself, my training partner, and my coach of being this Hoady guy'.
And Rekkie maintains that missing three tests has nothing to do with doping!
I maintain, as does WADA, that three "whereabouts" failure does not constitute "presence" or "use" of a banned substance or method, per se.
These distinctions are clearly described in the WADA Code.
Clean athletes can repeatedly commit whereabouts failures -- this is actually foreseen in the Code, and some margin is afforded by rules to permit such innocent failures.
The saved on the phone thing is suspicious because he seemingly removed it from his search history OR someone sent it to him (and he deleted the history of that interaction). The whole "I'm just interested in these things and reading about them" works best if there was a pattern of him with like "how do athletes get away with microdosing?" in his search history. No question that'd be suspicious as hell, but you could play the curious angle on that. But it looks like a botched cover-up and he might've been using that screenshot as a de facto manual.
i think he's guilty, but it's not just the options you mentioned.
it could also just be something that popped up on social media and he screenshotted
Athletics Australia says Peter Bol’s spot at Paris 2024 will not be affected by the revelations that included the discovery of a screenshot of doping information on his phone.
His early (Nationals) Oly selection on the back of average results when they didn't select winners like Adam Spencer was a weird exercise in appeasement....
“The Bol case, we had a very low recombinant EPO signal in the A sample which was weakened in the B sample confirmed three months later. This time issue is important when you are looking at samples with such low concentration of recombinant EPO, as in the Bol case, because you can have degradation over time,” WADA scientist Yvette Dehnes told the hearing.
so his a was positive. was his b positive or 'weakened' below the threshold level? since when did we retest a samples? that is what the b test is for. and their shouold be a protocol for degradation over time, that the athlete is responsible for.
Do you actually not know who his coach is? Regular poster on here sitting up on his high horse claiming to be the worlds premier 800m coach! Deng quit the group. Bol guilty AF. Sumner disappeared without trace. Mathas and Learmonth bang average 1.46 guys, probably 1.48 unaided
Rinaldi comes across as a decent guy, but he has been aggressive towards me whenever I mentioned Bol. He demands to know who I am. As if I would tell him when I get regularly threatened here by headcases like Hoady.
Hoady last week - "You are mad. You have accused myself, my training partner, and my coach of being this Hoady guy'.
Hmmmm.....
The real crime here is that it should be to run two laps as "quickly" as possible, not as "fast" as possible. Throw in a "legally" while we're at it.
Do you actually not know who his coach is? Regular poster on here sitting up on his high horse claiming to be the worlds premier 800m coach! Deng quit the group. Bol guilty AF. Sumner disappeared without trace. Mathas and Learmonth bang average 1.46 guys, probably 1.48 unaided
Rinaldi comes across as a decent guy, but he has been aggressive towards me whenever I mentioned Bol. He demands to know who I am. As if I would tell him when I get regularly threatened here by headcases like Hoady.
Hoady last week - "You are mad. You have accused myself, my training partner, and my coach of being this Hoady guy'.
Hmmmm.....
I've never seen anyone on here personally threaten you.Troll you yes,threaten,no.I'll just say that if youre being personally threatened on here,that is just plain wrong,and nobody deserves that.
It should be against the rules BTW. In the UK you go to prison if you download something like "the anarchists cookbook". An athlete should be banned if he is caught obtaining information on how to cheat.
I love that you constantly wrong. It's not illegal to download that book. It's been used to bolster convictions, but Coevett being in favor of book banning is par for the course.
Yet somehow, I still believe Rinaldi has absolutely nothing to do with this. Rinaldi is far too successful outside of coaching to risk his reputation on cheating. And he's always been a stand-up guy.
Yet somehow, I still believe Rinaldi has absolutely nothing to do with this. Rinaldi is far too successful outside of coaching to risk his reputation on cheating. And he's always been a stand-up guy.
I agree and I appreciate that Rinaldi is a regular on this site and doesn't hide from anyone. However, if he isn't asking himself "WTF?" right about now, he should be.
And Rekkie maintains that missing three tests has nothing to do with doping!
I maintain, as does WADA, that three "whereabouts" failure does not constitute "presence" or "use" of a banned substance or method, per se.
These distinctions are clearly described in the WADA Code.
Clean athletes can repeatedly commit whereabouts failures -- this is actually foreseen in the Code, and some margin is afforded by rules to permit such innocent failures.
Rekrunner has just discovered that three missed tests isn't the same as returning a positive test. But what he doesn't yet understand is that it is a doping violation because if the athlete had been available for tests they likely would have at some point tested positive because they were probably doping - which is why they weren't available for a series of tests. That is why a whereabouts failure is a doping violation or missing tests would mean absolutely nothing and would incur no penalty. One day rekrunner might get that. Nah.
"Clean athletes can repeatedly commit whereabouts failures -- this is actually foreseen in the Code, and some margin is afforded by rules to permit such innocent failures."(quote)
Clean athletes don't miss a series of tests, which is why missing them is a doping violation. They have to produce convincing factual evidence showing legitimate cause for missing three tests. Most can't - because almost always there isn't legitimate reason for missing three tests. Once again you fail to acknowledge the least likely explanation - that they have a legitimate cause - is not the most probable, which is they were ducking the testers. The most probable explanation is why a whereabouts failure is a doping violation.