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?
Good article. I’ve heard some of the arguments from these experienced professors before, but the journalist who I refer to wrote independent Wada labs in Norway and North America (Canada?) If these professors were the independent Wada guys in Norway they must have had some kind of Wada accreditation from Wada, or else the journalist is too fluffy with the facts… But I shall do some digging. Anyways -this link you posted was useful, and I don’t at all think professors critical to some of the Wada procedures should be held passive on the side line…
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?
Ok - I found a very good article I have read before. See link. Some crucial sentences for our case:
“Two independent labs analysed Bol’s lab pack. One was David Chen, Professor of Chemistry at the University of British Columbia, and the other was a group of four experts from Norway. Both assert there was no evidence of synthetic EPO in Bol’s sample.”
The article says “independent labs” not “independent Wada labs”. -I can do some more digging in Norwegian media, but whatever I might find will surely not outdo the solidity in this quoted and linked article. So I think we conclude with “independent labs” and removes the Wada. Sorry about that… But the content remains the same, and Bol going for experts he trust goes without saying, and is of course his clear right. And it is striking what is being said of lack of transparency and athlete’s support in Wada…
It’s important for all athletes, and for trust in the anti-doping system, that the validity of the EPO test and the interpretation of the analysis can be transparently relied on.
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.
Bol lost a year of his career. At his peak.
He will never be compensated.
He was provisionally suspended in January this year, and is back racing and has qualified for World's. So he missed part of the Australian domestic season, which many of the top Aussies don't even race in. So he didn't lose a year. I acknowledge that there may be financial implications in terms of damage to reputation/brand value though
So it seems from what we can gather, that Bol's legal team found independent testing labs who were known as being sceptical of current EPO testing and they found no evidence of EPO on his retested samples, and then WADA agreed to retest the samples themselves, and there was disagreement among their experts, but perhaps fearing getting sued by Bol's (Templeton's) impressive legal team, they settled on declaring Bol's test results negative?
So it seems from what we can gather, that Bol's legal team found independent testing labs who were known as being sceptical of current EPO testing and they found no evidence of EPO on his retested samples, and then WADA agreed to retest the samples themselves, and there was disagreement among their experts, but perhaps fearing getting sued by Bol's (Templeton's) impressive legal team, they settled on declaring Bol's test results negative?
Doesn't matter if he is guilty or not, somebody at WADA needs to be fired. This process is horribly designed to the point where it genuinely seems like they wrote it out of spite and hatred for athletes
If it is a 4% chance of a sample being a false positive the chance of both A and B samples being false positive is 0.04 x 0.04 = 0.0016.
0.06 x 0.06 = 0.0036.
Times 10000 => 16-36
Still not insignificant but far from 400-600.
I have fully accepted that I was stupid in suggesting 400 -600. However your figures of 16 - 36 are more than of concern.
When Wada a is part of a business and on a mission then their in-house science should be seen as suspect.
They dare not say that “ actually it is easy to get round the tests because it is all too complicated to stand full legal scrutiny but let’s all spend a billion dollars on our industry as we quite like our jobs.”
I have fully accepted that I was stupid in suggesting 400 -600. However your figures of 16 - 36 are more than of concern.
When Wada a is part of a business and on a mission then their in-house science should be seen as suspect.
They dare not say that “ actually it is easy to get round the tests because it is all too complicated to stand full legal scrutiny but let’s all spend a billion dollars on our industry as we quite like our jobs.”
WADA's last budget was only 46 million dollars...
16 - 36 out of 10,000 (< 0.4% false positives) even if true, does not mean there were 0.16% - 0.36% false bans. Those false positives would still be scrutinized by the AIU + WA + potentially the lawyers + the DT and potentially CAS (if the case goes that far). See Bol for example (who unfortunately leaked his provisional ban, supposedly expecting the Australian NADO would leak it first otherwise).
I have fully accepted that I was stupid in suggesting 400 -600. However your figures of 16 - 36 are more than of concern.
When Wada a is part of a business and on a mission then their in-house science should be seen as suspect.
They dare not say that “ actually it is easy to get round the tests because it is all too complicated to stand full legal scrutiny but let’s all spend a billion dollars on our industry as we quite like our jobs.”
WADA's last budget was only 46 million dollars...
16 - 36 out of 10,000 (< 0.4% false positives) even if true, does not mean there were 0.16% - 0.36% false bans. Those false positives would still be scrutinized by the AIU + WA + potentially the lawyers + the DT and potentially CAS (if the case goes that far). See Bol for example (who unfortunately leaked his provisional ban, supposedly expecting the Australian NADO would leak it first otherwise).
The industry is a billion dollar one.
I am not sure what role the NADO’s or the IF’s have once “ a positive “ is declared by the lab.Perhaps you could kindly clarify.
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.
