zed
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by zed on Feb 16, 2023 9:06:04 GMT 8
Seems quite complex. He had another aytpical result back in 2021, A sample showed traces of rEPO, B sample differed. I think he'll be cleared.
|
|
|
Post by triatx on Feb 16, 2023 13:31:18 GMT 8
ZED,Peter has said today that he is going to have his Kidneys tested to see weather he has a naturally occuring high level of EPO.
The offer has come from a Proffeser/Doctor at Fiona Stanley.
EPO is naturally occuring,the testers are looking for Synthetic EPO that you have been topping up with to gain an advantage.
Peter is concerned, that as you said he has now had 2 analytical findings.Apparantly if you produced Higher levels of Natural EPO this is what would happen.
|
|
bosco
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by bosco on Feb 16, 2023 16:24:41 GMT 8
ZED,Peter has said today that he is going to have his Kidneys tested to see weather he has a naturally occuring high level of EPO. The offer has come from a Proffeser/Doctor at Fiona Stanley. EPO is naturally occuring,the testers are looking for Synthetic EPO that you have been topping up with to gain an advantage. Peter is concerned, that as you said he has now had 2 analytical findings.Apparantly if you produced Higher levels of Natural EPO this is what would happen. No - that’s just what Peter and lawyers want you to believe. This has a long way to go to play out.
|
|
|
Post by aplover on Feb 16, 2023 16:57:27 GMT 8
ZED,Peter has said today that he is going to have his Kidneys tested to see weather he has a naturally occuring high level of EPO. The offer has come from a Proffeser/Doctor at Fiona Stanley. EPO is naturally occuring,the testers are looking for Synthetic EPO that you have been topping up with to gain an advantage. Peter is concerned, that as you said he has now had 2 analytical findings.Apparantly if you produced Higher levels of Natural EPO this is what would happen. I think you have been drinking to much cool aid He is guilty as unfortunately
|
|
bosco
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by bosco on Feb 16, 2023 17:08:36 GMT 8
Chances he has not been micro dosing EPO are very very slim
|
|
|
Post by triatx on Feb 17, 2023 8:57:56 GMT 8
I havent been drinking the cool aid i was simply telling you the latest from over here.
And i still say he isnt guilty.
|
|
zed
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by zed on Feb 17, 2023 10:19:51 GMT 8
ZED,Peter has said today that he is going to have his Kidneys tested to see weather he has a naturally occuring high level of EPO. The offer has come from a Proffeser/Doctor at Fiona Stanley. EPO is naturally occuring,the testers are looking for Synthetic EPO that you have been topping up with to gain an advantage. Peter is concerned, that as you said he has now had 2 analytical findings.Apparantly if you produced Higher levels of Natural EPO this is what would happen. Yup as the test procedure is very much open to interpretation, someone that is producing high levels of EPO might produce results that are misinterpreted as synthetic EPO. I think.. But as Bosco said, there is a chance he is micro-dosing, which would produce a positive A sample and a negative B sample or at least a B sample that differs from the A sample. There are a lot of athletes out there that have been doping for years and getting away with it, (by micro-dosing) and it seems you would have to be really unlucky to get popped. The only thing in Bol's favour is that he doesn't seem to have had a massive jump in performance over the years. I think 0.5s over 4/5 years for the 800m. Compare that to Lagat's 1500m progression, he dropped 15s in 3 years.... and his WR of 3.26 was done without super spikes. I'm on the fence with this one. If he was running low 1.40s I'd be more suspicious, perhaps he's holding back or races have been slow? Ultimately testing for rEPO doesn't seem like an exact science and all its going to need is an expert to say Bol's results could be because of naturally occurring EPO or simply because the two samples don't match the test results are binned and he's cleared.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 17, 2023 16:02:14 GMT 8
ZED,Peter has said today that he is going to have his Kidneys tested to see weather he has a naturally occuring high level of EPO. The offer has come from a Proffeser/Doctor at Fiona Stanley. EPO is naturally occuring,the testers are looking for Synthetic EPO that you have been topping up with to gain an advantage. Peter is concerned, that as you said he has now had 2 analytical findings.Apparantly if you produced Higher levels of Natural EPO this is what would happen. I think you have been drinking to much cool aid He is guilty as unfortunately The current results don’t agree with your statement
|
|
bosco
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by bosco on Feb 17, 2023 16:51:01 GMT 8
This is one of the weirdest cases ever but Peter you are right - he is not ‘guinty’ but also has not been found ‘innocent’ either.
Long way to to go in this . Bol has been targeted from prior ‘positives’/AAF- seems they are hell bent on ‘getting him’ this time. I hope they do to move th arguments away from its just the Kenyans- seems testing has caught up to micro dosing protocols with number of positives in last 6 months.
|
|
bosco
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by bosco on Feb 17, 2023 16:52:06 GMT 8
Just remember - this is Western Australians we are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by aplover on Feb 18, 2023 1:46:02 GMT 8
I think you have been drinking to much cool aid He is guilty as unfortunately The current results don’t agree with your statement How is that so he has epo in his A sample , he also has epo in his B sample , but it’s not the same amount as the A sample so “legally “ he can’t be pinned there is no doubt he is/has been doping but legally he won’t be “guilty” (this time at least) due to the tests being inconsistent or inconclusive
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 18, 2023 3:53:06 GMT 8
|
|
|
Post by prince on Feb 18, 2023 7:08:50 GMT 8
The current results don’t agree with your statement How is that so he has epo in his A sample , he also has epo in his B sample , but it’s not the same amount as the A sample so “legally “ he can’t be pinned there is no doubt he is/has been doping but legally he won’t be “guilty” (this time at least) due to the tests being inconsistent or inconclusive the simple fact is the a and b sample differ. that in itself is an impossibility which puts doubt on the validity of the test. simples! You really shouldn't be saying he is doping
|
|
|
Post by prince on Feb 18, 2023 7:08:50 GMT 8
The current results don’t agree with your statement How is that so he has epo in his A sample , he also has epo in his B sample , but it’s not the same amount as the A sample so “legally “ he can’t be pinned there is no doubt he is/has been doping but legally he won’t be “guilty” (this time at least) due to the tests being inconsistent or inconclusive the simple fact is the a and b sample differ. that in itself is an impossibility which puts doubt on the validity of the test. simples! You really shouldn't be saying he is doping
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 18, 2023 11:17:35 GMT 8
I really don’t like agreeing with Prince but he’s right.
|
|
zed
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by zed on Feb 18, 2023 11:28:15 GMT 8
Again this is what I've gleaned from other news sources, so I might be misinterpreting it if he is microdosing, the performance improvements will be slight, but the chances of it being detected are very slim. And because of the low amount, tests may reveal the presence of EPO but not of a sufficient magnitude to elicit an adverse analytical finding. Plus as the B sample is tested at a later date and as EPO has a short half life, it can be virtually undetectable in the B sample.
BBC did a doco on it, microdosing one of their reporters with EPO over a period of time and submitting his blood samples to a WADA approved lab. The reporter Mark Daly, a cyclist, doped for 14 weeks. His FTP improved by 7%, not a huge amount, but he was only taking small amounts of EPP, but more importantly his 14 blood samples he submitted for testing, all came back clean. Traces of EPO, but not enough for an AAF.
This would explain the one thing Bol had going for him - people questioned his marginal gains over the years and said if he's taking EPO then surely he'd be running much quicker, but if he's microdosing, then that's exactly what would happen - marginal gains.
|
|
zed
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by zed on Feb 18, 2023 11:35:32 GMT 8
How is that so he has epo in his A sample , he also has epo in his B sample , but it’s not the same amount as the A sample so “legally “ he can’t be pinned there is no doubt he is/has been doping but legally he won’t be “guilty” (this time at least) due to the tests being inconsistent or inconclusive the simple fact is the a and b sample differ. that in itself is an impossibility which puts doubt on the validity of the test. simples! You really shouldn't be saying he is doping I'm not going to go as far as saying he's doping, because the more I read about it, the more confusing it gets and it's clear that testing for synthetic EPO is a complex process. It's not black and white and can results can very much be open to interpretation. Which also means it's much easier to challenge results. But I would say, his performance progression and results would be in line with someone that was microdosing. I think it's a moot point, he'll be cleared and we will all be left speculating.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 18, 2023 12:02:12 GMT 8
He was tested 26 times in 12 months. Wow
Bol assumed those 16 urine tests and 10 blood samples he gave in the year were just part of the price you paid for being among the world’s best, not because anyone had reason to doubt why he was good.
From theage today.
It is very rare that the B sample does not align with the A, but it is not unheard of. Bernard Lagat, the champion distance runner, is the most famous athlete to have his B sample overturn his A.
With the B sample not confirming the A, Bol’s suspension was lifted, but he is not officially cleared. In accordance with WADA rules, SIA must continue investigating until it has at least spoken to Bol about the case. That is expected to be a fairly short conversation if there is no evidence beyond the disputed drug tests.
His coaching and legal team have always protested his innocence and pointed to several curiosities about his case. First, they say the positive test was only marginal. They were only given a summary of results and not the full lab report, but they said that of five bands on which EPO is measured, Bol was marginally over on only one. This they argued gave credence to the accusation the test is subjective.
Then there were further things they felt didn’t add up. Why would he be doping in October, when only just back from holidays and months before racing again? Sports doping investigators would argue this is not uncommon among athletes who “micro-dose”, regularly taking very small amounts of EPO to keep a consistent level and help in training.
Then there was a point about Bol’s times. At the Olympics a year earlier he twice broke the national record, but it had been years since he had set a new personal best. In 2018, he ran a personal best 1:44.56 for the 800 in Stockholm. It took him four years to improve that time and when he did, it was by just half a second. As Rinaldi said, if he was doping he was not getting much benefit.
|
|
|
Post by aplover on Feb 18, 2023 12:48:35 GMT 8
I suppose the big question is which probably should be a separate thread is how come everyone who test positive for PEDs allways claim to be innocent wouldn’t be nice if someone just comes out and says yeah I did it , and got busted (apart from poor old stu O , who used epo once and got caught ) WHAT ARE THE ODDS lol
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 18, 2023 16:14:43 GMT 8
I suppose the big question is which probably should be a separate thread is how come everyone who test positive for PEDs allways claim to be innocent wouldn’t be nice if someone just comes out and says yeah I did it , and got busted (apart from poor old stu O , who used epo once and got caught ) WHAT ARE THE ODDS lol But the results say he is innocent The A was only slightly EPO that could have been natural. The B was completely negative
|
|
|
Post by aplover on Feb 18, 2023 16:20:25 GMT 8
I suppose the big question is which probably should be a separate thread is how come everyone who test positive for PEDs allways claim to be innocent wouldn’t be nice if someone just comes out and says yeah I did it , and got busted (apart from poor old stu O , who used epo once and got caught ) WHAT ARE THE ODDS lol But the results say he is innocent The A was only slightly EPO that could have been natural. The B was completely negative That’s excactly the results when folks are micro dosing certainly doesn’t prove innocence but we will never know
|
|
|
Post by prince on Feb 18, 2023 16:47:00 GMT 8
But the results say he is innocent The A was only slightly EPO that could have been natural. The B was completely negative That’s excactly the results when folks are micro dosing certainly doesn’t prove innocence but we will never know even if he was, which I believe is very unlikely, the microdosing amount must be so minimal it hasn't shown in the second test so can't see the point as it aint gunna do crap for his performance from what I have read. And we will know if he was as they can target him as well as go back and test previous samples. Bol is a great athlete in my opinion and has not been found guilty of anything but the stench of guilt is going to wreck his career. Thats not fair for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 18, 2023 16:51:21 GMT 8
But the results say he is innocent The A was only slightly EPO that could have been natural. The B was completely negative That’s excactly the results when folks are micro dosing certainly doesn’t prove innocence but we will never know There is no proof he is micro dosing. there needs to be proof to be guilty. and if they tested him 26 times. Took his phones and laptops and all accounts and couldn’t find anything, then he is innocent
|
|
zed
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by zed on Feb 18, 2023 22:40:24 GMT 8
That’s excactly the results when folks are micro dosing certainly doesn’t prove innocence but we will never know There is no proof he is micro dosing. there needs to be proof to be guilty. and if they tested him 26 times. Took his phones and laptops and all accounts and couldn’t find anything, then he is innocent Well yup. There might not be enough proof he was doping. Re amount of times he was tested, that's more or less irrelevant. As I said even someone who was doping would be extremely unlucky to get busted and if they were micro-dosing, even more unlucky. Justin Gatlin was busted 3 times for doping and banned. When he returned from his 4 year ban, he raced "clean" for another 12 years and in this period he ran quicker than when he was doping. At the age of 40 he ran 9.95, which was quicker than when he was 21. He would be typically tested 40-50 times a year. In 2015 he was tested 61 times.From 2010 to 2022 he was tested over 600 times plus all the times he was tested before his ban started in 2006. He would have been tested over 1000 times in his career and passed all but 3, yet has been doping his whole career. Passing drug tests means absolutely nothing.
|
|
zed
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by zed on Feb 18, 2023 22:46:56 GMT 8
Then there was a point about Bol’s times. At the Olympics a year earlier he twice broke the national record, but it had been years since he had set a new personal best. In 2018, he ran a personal best 1:44.56 for the 800 in Stockholm. It took him four years to improve that time and when he did, it was by just half a second. As Rinaldi said, if he was doping he was not getting much benefit. Two ways of taking EPO, take sh!tloads, improve your times dramatically but then you're on WADA's radar, plus when you get tested, you have a higher risk of getting popped or micro-dosing, small gains, but if you get tested virtually no chance of getting busted.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 19, 2023 5:08:03 GMT 8
There is no proof he is micro dosing. there needs to be proof to be guilty. and if they tested him 26 times. Took his phones and laptops and all accounts and couldn’t find anything, then he is innocent Well yup. There might not be enough proof he was doping. Re amount of times he was tested, that's more or less irrelevant. As I said even someone who was doping would be extremely unlucky to get busted and if they were micro-dosing, even more unlucky. Justin Gatlin was busted 3 times for doping and banned. When he returned from his 4 year ban, he raced "clean" for another 12 years and in this period he ran quicker than when he was doping. At the age of 40 he ran 9.95, which was quicker than when he was 21. He would be typically tested 40-50 times a year. In 2015 he was tested 61 times.From 2010 to 2022 he was tested over 600 times plus all the times he was tested before his ban started in 2006. He would have been tested over 1000 times in his career and passed all but 3, yet has been doping his whole career. Passing drug tests means absolutely nothing. So testing for drugs will only catch the dumb users. so why bother even testing?
|
|
zed
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by zed on Feb 19, 2023 7:16:41 GMT 8
Well yup. There might not be enough proof he was doping. Re amount of times he was tested, that's more or less irrelevant. As I said even someone who was doping would be extremely unlucky to get busted and if they were micro-dosing, even more unlucky. Justin Gatlin was busted 3 times for doping and banned. When he returned from his 4 year ban, he raced "clean" for another 12 years and in this period he ran quicker than when he was doping. At the age of 40 he ran 9.95, which was quicker than when he was 21. He would be typically tested 40-50 times a year. In 2015 he was tested 61 times.From 2010 to 2022 he was tested over 600 times plus all the times he was tested before his ban started in 2006. He would have been tested over 1000 times in his career and passed all but 3, yet has been doping his whole career. Passing drug tests means absolutely nothing. So testing for drugs will only catch the dumb users. so why bother even testing? Dumb users, unlucky users and those that are pushing the envelope i.e taking large quantities of whatever PED. Gatlin was tested on average every 4 days and they still couldn't get him. And if you can't catch a known drug cheat, testing him every 4 days then we have no chance.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 19, 2023 16:57:36 GMT 8
So why bother testing. Its a Massive waste of money.
Maybe everyone should be like golf, nhl, nfl, mlb
If you do get busted for some dumb reason, 4 weeks is enough.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 19, 2023 16:58:10 GMT 8
Would anyone care if frodo was a PED drug user? I wouldn’t.
|
|
|
Post by bnothling on Feb 19, 2023 17:22:31 GMT 8
I suppose the big question is which probably should be a separate thread is how come everyone who test positive for PEDs allways claim to be innocent wouldn’t be nice if someone just comes out and says yeah I did it , and got busted (apart from poor old stu O , who used epo once and got caught ) WHAT ARE THE ODDS lol Track down a copy of Thomas Dekker's book 'The Descent'. Hell of a read.
|
|