Makes one wonder if a few innocents have been wrongly taken down. Kipyegon Bett, for instance, was adamant about his innocence to the end. Sure, he was a running drunk, but his management didn't cover themselves in glory, either.
So what is the difference between Bol and Paula Radcliffe?
Bol was exonerated of testing positive on a drug test.
Paula crapped in the road?
Paula never tested positive. As far as I understand it, one of her blood profile readings was found suspicious.
Bol has had an 'atypical' EPO test result in 2021, then had an A sample positive in 2022, with the B sample 'atypical'. Bol having the fortunate luck to have the same manager who had Lagat 'exonerated' in similar circumstances 20 years earlier, has his samples reexamined by various WADA experts and there is disagreement between them as to whether the test was positive or negative, but they finally decide negative.
Great for Bol if he is clean that he has been cleared.
But again, why the LetsRun double standards with Paula and Peter Bol?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t, based on this study, the false positives represent roughly 80 of the 305 AAFs WADA labs found from 2012-2017 ?
It’s too early in the morning on the West Coast, so maybe I’m mis-reading the study. Hopefully someone who slept will do the calculation. :-)
'screening' test. a simple test to do a quick assessment so you dont have to do full tests on everything. a 'screening' test by its nature is expected to throw up more 'false positives' than expected. then you test properly. they arent really 'false psoitives' they are just indicators against a certain screening criteria.
a simple and familiar screening test for cervical cancer is; do you have a cervix? counting every person with a cervix as a false positive is a bit much.
Paula never tested positive. As far as I understand it, one of her blood profile readings was found suspicious.
Bol has had an 'atypical' EPO test result in 2021, then had an A sample positive in 2022, with the B sample 'atypical'. Bol having the fortunate luck to have the same manager who had Lagat 'exonerated' in similar circumstances 20 years earlier, has his samples reexamined by various WADA experts and there is disagreement between them as to whether the test was positive or negative, but they finally decide negative.
Great for Bol if he is clean that he has been cleared.
But again, why the LetsRun double standards with Paula and Peter Bol?
Paula had two suspicious "blood profile readings" in 2003 and 2005, and "was likely doping" in 2012.
What double standards? The brojos/Gault stand firmly behind Paula and Bol alike. Some posters think both doped, some think only Paula doped, some think only Bol doped, some think both were clean.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t, based on this study, the false positives represent roughly 80 of the 305 AAFs WADA labs found from 2012-2017 ?
It’s too early in the morning on the West Coast, so maybe I’m mis-reading the study. Hopefully someone who slept will do the calculation. :-)
'screening' test. a simple test to do a quick assessment so you dont have to do full tests on everything. a 'screening' test by its nature is expected to throw up more 'false positives' than expected. then you test properly. they arent really 'false psoitives' they are just indicators against a certain screening criteria.
a simple and familiar screening test for cervical cancer is; do you have a cervix? counting every person with a cervix as a false positive is a bit much.
As far as I can tell, the screening procedure from this study is one of the same ones used by WADA labs for both screening and a “confirmation” analysis. In fact, this study used the same test for both screening and confirmation. You may be seeing something I’m missing, though.
My math may have been wrong if there are two tests per urine sample. Would have preferred that the lab in this study was blinded to the experiment itself.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I must be missing something. How can it be in Australia that Sports Integrity is useless and Bol has been completely wronged.
Sure I can understand people getting upset about the A sample being reported, but Bol did get off as the organisation followed expected procedures.
As there was not universal agreement about the B sample from the experts, the benefit is given to the athlete.
I, for one, am not convinced one way or the other, and i still want to know how the test suggested synthetic EPO in the first place.
Yes, it It may well be that the EPO test is not perfect, but the final verdict followed proper procedure.
I’m a little puzzled here, because the reports in Norwegian media (which of course can be bias or wrong or something) some weeks ago was this:
1. Doping experts (in Norway among others) have some time warned WADA that some of their (laboratories’) methods of analysis are flawed and that there are real danger for false positives… This was before the Peter Bol case was known…
2. Two independent WADA labs (in Norway and Canada I think) reanalysed Bol’s test and how the Australian lab had gotten their conclusions -these two labs concluded with no signs of doping in Bol’s samples, and that the original lab’s methodology was clearly flawed…
3. WADA as organisation may say something more cloudy (to somewhat hide own screw up), but is in my opinion not to be fully trusted..
4. Feel free to update me if the journalist has misunderstood the facts here…
As far as I can tell, the screening procedure from this study is one of the same ones used by WADA labs for both screening and a “confirmation” analysis. In fact, this study used the same test for both screening and confirmation. You may be seeing something I’m missing, though.
My math may have been wrong if there are two tests per urine sample. Would have preferred that the lab in this study was blinded to the experiment itself.
See for example
False presumptive finding rates were 4.3% and 6%, respectively, but none of the false presumptive findings tested positive in the confirmation analysis.
But again, why the LetsRun double standards with Paula and Peter Bol?
This is Letsrun. You know why.
Please educate me, what exactly is the double standard? Wejo and Rojo have always firmly stood behind Paula and she has not had a positive test as far as we know. Bol reportedly had a positive A sample result but was subsequently exonerated and Letsrun has publicized that he was cleared(case in point the first post in this thread). Letsrun has not hinted in any way that Bol doped.
Why when it would appear the EPO test and protocols are wrong.
All due to Wada marking its own work until an external expert appears and blows it all apart.
Will their insurance cover the compo.
I wouldn't say they are wrong; if you know the test you know it has a subjective element to it. If you are old enough to recall the Lagat case, you know how a sample integrity issue can contribute to this.
I had the dubious opportunity to be an expert witness for an athlete for an EPO test in the aftermath of the Lagat fiasco. I should thank Letsrun for that experience as it started here. What I will say is WADA does not like people questioning their testing, though the expert witness is supposed to have the opportunity to do that, and I'm surprised they allowed it to happen again. They locked up like a bank vault after Hans Heid took them to town on the Lagat test.
This doesn't surprise me.
In 2019, Ross Tucker from the sportsscientists featured a guest article from Prof. Erik Boye, that highlighted several issues with how EPO tests are interpreted and prosecuted, with specific examples from the cases of Steven Colvert, and Vojtěch Sommer, and Benedikt Karus (including proof of basic errors, such as the synthetic EPO clearly coming from a reference sample in a neighboring track during the testing, rather than the athlete's sample).
The problems identified were two-fold:
- The test itself is subjective and prone to errors, and requires (subjective) expert evaluation and confirmation.
- WADA lawyers have put up many barriers that prevent an athlete from mounting a proper defense, for example, preventing basic access to the raw data that is used to accuse and convict the athlete, and effectively denying access to a large pool of scientific experts (from any WADA lab) for an "independent" assessment.
It looks like post Lagat, the science and the execution of testing hasn't improved all that much, but rather the lawyers have simply spackled some of the cracks in order to protect the image of WADA and its accredited labs.
Quite frankly, this should cast doubt on every EPO positive since the WADA lab's failure with Lagat's A-sample, where the sole evidence is the WADA A-sample positive and B-sample confirmation, and an athlete hasn't had the opportunity to mount a complete defense.
As far as I can tell, the screening procedure from this study is one of the same ones used by WADA labs for both screening and a “confirmation” analysis. In fact, this study used the same test for both screening and confirmation. You may be seeing something I’m missing, though.
My math may have been wrong if there are two tests per urine sample. Would have preferred that the lab in this study was blinded to the experiment itself.
See for example
False presumptive finding rates were 4.3% and 6%, respectively, but none of the false presumptive findings tested positive in the confirmation analysis.
Yes, but the “confirmation” test was the same as the screening test. Only 7 samples samples of false positives used the confirmation test. At a 4+% false positive rate, one wouldn’t expect any of those tests to be confirmed. But we’re still left with a 4+% false positive rate on the screening/confirmation test. The only saving grace may be that the test is repeated.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
I must be missing something. How can it be in Australia that Sports Integrity is useless and Bol has been completely wronged.
Sure I can understand people getting upset about the A sample being reported, but Bol did get off as the organisation followed expected procedures.
As there was not universal agreement about the B sample from the experts, the benefit is given to the athlete.
I, for one, am not convinced one way or the other, and i still want to know how the test suggested synthetic EPO in the first place.
Yes, it It may well be that the EPO test is not perfect, but the final verdict followed proper procedure.
I’m a little puzzled here, because the reports in Norwegian media (which of course can be bias or wrong or something) some weeks ago was this:
1. Doping experts (in Norway among others) have some time warned WADA that some of their (laboratories’) methods of analysis are flawed and that there are real danger for false positives… This was before the Peter Bol case was known…
2. Two independent WADA labs (in Norway and Canada I think) reanalysed Bol’s test and how the Australian lab had gotten their conclusions -these two labs concluded with no signs of doping in Bol’s samples, and that the original lab’s methodology was clearly flawed…
3. WADA as organisation may say something more cloudy (to somewhat hide own screw up), but is in my opinion not to be fully trusted..
4. Feel free to update me if the journalist has misunderstood the facts here…
Is this the 'independent Norwegian lab' that you are referring to? Norwegian scientists who were already vocal about EPO testing being unreliable, and who Templeton's lawyers handpicked to reanalyze the samples?
Four professors of biochemistry and molecular biology from Norway are worried by the Peter Bol doping case, saying analysis of EPO test results is subjective.
I’m a little puzzled here, because the reports in Norwegian media (which of course can be bias or wrong or something) some weeks ago was this:
1. Doping experts (in Norway among others) have some time warned WADA that some of their (laboratories’) methods of analysis are flawed and that there are real danger for false positives… This was before the Peter Bol case was known…
2. Two independent WADA labs (in Norway and Canada I think) reanalysed Bol’s test and how the Australian lab had gotten their conclusions -these two labs concluded with no signs of doping in Bol’s samples, and that the original lab’s methodology was clearly flawed…
3. WADA as organisation may say something more cloudy (to somewhat hide own screw up), but is in my opinion not to be fully trusted..
4. Feel free to update me if the journalist has misunderstood the facts here…
Is this the 'independent Norwegian lab' that you are referring to? Norwegian scientists who were already vocal about EPO testing being unreliable, and who Templeton's lawyers handpicked to reanalyze the samples?
